Your opening is the standard lazy shitlib straw man. Saying term limits are anti-democratic does not mean “give Trump a third term,” it means voters should decide rather than having the state pre-emptively remove options from the ballot. That is what a term limit is. It’s not some magical anti-corruption device, but an arbitrary legal restriction on who people are allowed to vote for, imposed on the theory that limiting democracy somehow protects democracy. In practice it does nothing to fix donor capture, party corruption, media manipulation, or institutional decay; it just narrows voter choice while the same unelected interests keep their power completely untouched. The rest of your reply is you wandering off into a generic rant about the two-party system and independents, which has nothing to do with the actual point I made.

This is literally me. This is exactly what I would believe if I was illiterate.

I didn’t say anything about age limits. My point was about term limits: they reduce voter choice based on an arbitrary claim that they function as some kind of harm-reduction mechanism, which is hard to take seriously given how obviously dysfunctional the American system is. Term limits do not solve elite capture, corruption, or institutional failure; they just act as another inertial mechanism that constrains democratic choice and blocks the kind of massive structural change the U.S. clearly needs. Most of your reply was a rant about broader problems I never said anything about, but none of it actually answered the point I made.

I take no issue with that I just think you were misdiagnosing the issues as downstream of a single law as opposed to structural inevitability of the capitalist system whether that specific law exists or not.

Improving lives is generally good. The question is whether people are clear about what they are winning.

I was replying in this very thread to someone calling higher minimum wages and taxes on the rich the solution. That is the problem. Measures like that can be worth fighting for, but they are not a solution. They are stopgaps within the same system that created the crisis.

That matters because without that understanding people mistake temporary concessions for lasting change. They win reforms, are told the problem is solved, pressure drops, and then those reforms are rolled back as soon as capital regains the initiative. We have seen that repeatedly, including in Europe where social protections were swept back once the political balance shifted.

That is not criticizing anything short of perfection. It is insisting on political clarity. Fight for every immediate gain you can win, yes. But understand that unless the system itself is broken, those gains remain limited, fragile, and easily reversible.

I’m not against stopgaps in themselves. If you do not have the power to force real change, then immediate achievable demands make sense. Working people need relief, and there is nothing wrong with fighting for rent caps, wage rises, debt relief, public housing, or stronger labour rights.

What I object to is pretending those things are the solution. They are not. They are stopgaps. They can ease the pressure for a time, but they do not remove the system that produces the crisis in the first place. They do not end landlordism, finance capital, monopoly power, imperialism, or production for profit. They manage the symptoms.

Fight for reforms where they are all you can win. But understand them for what they are. Temporary measures, not emancipation. The crisis of capitalism does not have a reformist solution. Its only solution is the overthrow of the system itself.

Term limits are antidemocratic and largely unhelpful as they disincentivise long term thinking. There’s a reason Amerikkka only put them in place in 1951 after FDR.

I think a lot of problems of late stage capitalism are downstream consequences from this stupid law.

Not really. Capital accumulation above all else is what makes capitalism capitalism. Even without that specific law the system as a whole incentivises and and pushes towards this end.

No that’s not the solution, that’s a stopgap at best. A mild reform. It does nothing to address the core contradictions that drive capitalist crisis.

It’s fun and it fills gaps in the day like commuting or dead time at work etc I wouldn’t bother otherwise.

Responding to it really did take up most of my posts for a while

Oh that’s cool

I was hoping you’d comment!

You know me?

Thank you for the insight :)

You’re welcome always happy to help

You had it right

好(了), 进去 means Ok/alright, go in / get in. 进去 marks motion inward with 去, typically away from the speaker’s deictic center. 进来 would instead mark motion inward toward the speaker’s location or perspective, so would sound more like inviting someone to come in.

“come in” (like answering a door knock)

Not really for that. You would use 进来, 请进, or just 来/来来 in casual speech. The 来 derivative handles the invitation.

进去 marks movement into a space away from the speaker. It is for actual entry, not invitation. Eg:

胡同太窄, 救护车开不进去

(Hútòng tài zhǎi, jiùhùchē kāi bù jìnqu.)

The lane is too narrow for the ambulance to drive in.

I’m a Chinese American you twats.

My condolences

You are conveniently omitting the fact that the Soviet Union had nearly identical programs running in parallel to the US.

But they weren’t identical that’s the whole point I’m making please actually read what I said. I know reading might be hard but you are just wasting your time typing nonsense because you seemingly can’t grasp what I’m saying

In this case it’s cartoonishly obvious by the fact that your argument is so completely one-sided.

In the case of the Nazis and fascism reality was “cartoonishly onesided”. Again as I said the USSR for its many faults was absolutely antifascist whereas the US/Europe were categorically not. Look into operation gladio. Look into the history of Ford and IBM with regards to the Nazis not just pre war but during the war. Look at the difference between operation Paperclip and Osoaviakhim.

If you think an accurate portrayal of reality is propaganda you really should do some introspection on what you believe, where you learned it etc. You have been embarrassingly wrong in basically every comment I’ve seen.

The people of Ukraine don’t want to be part of Russia.

National sentiment follows material conditions. The Donbas has resisted Kyiv since 2014 after facing systemic discrimination and artillery strikes. That resistance exists because NATO expansion and Western capital transformed Ukraine into a buffer zone for imperialist competition. The workers and peasants there fight against a comprador regime backed by foreign finance.

Maybe if all the ruling class would fuck off, we would finally have a nice world.

What no class analysis does. The state is the organized power of the dominant class. Liberation requires the proletariat to seize state power, dismantle bourgeois ownership, and direct production toward social need. Only then does class distinction disappear (when only one class remains after the rest are destroyed inthe class struggle).

Fuck America. Fuck China. Fuck Russia. Fuck Israel. Fuck every ruler.

This is petty bourgeois fantasy. It mistakes states for abstract oppressors instead of analyzing which classes control them and for what purpose. Actually existing socialist states break Western capital monopoly, defend national sovereignty, and create material conditions for working class organization. Lumpen condemnation of all states without class analysis serves imperialist narratives, not revolution. Real transformation comes through mass organization, state power, and socialist construction. Please try move beyond the tyranny of bedtime.

You realise we have democracy in China right? Just not western style liberal democracy.

Uyghur “genocide”, double genocide theory, the holodomor