[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

that is the fundamental flaw in your own ideological approach, you think it always has to be an issue of comparison or having an alternative. there is space in politics simply for honest dissent and open criticism. indeed its silly because you can dismiss my criticisms all you'd like, it doesn't make the concrete reality that they address also just dematerialize and vanish.

me? i concede reality and go back to criticism. i could careless if its Trump or Hillary, once the dog and pony show is over i can go back to criticism. indeed its a core tenet of democracy, that constituents don't drink the kool aid

of course there's a space in politics for honest dissent and open criticism-- and that's my criticism of you-- your criticism is dishonest and your dissent is hidden. you don't say where it comes from, or what you stand for, you just say shit like "overlord hillary" and ooh, great accomplishment, random words.

see, a maoist will say that they don't support elections under capitalism because they're a distraction from a necessary revolution. an islamist will say that this is a godless system. a libertarian might say that they don't support big government. and so on and so forth.

take for example chomsky-- a long-time respected critic of the american system. he's an anarcho-syndicalist. if you ask him what he'll stand for, he will tell you. you can consider what he proposes when he denounces what we have, so that you can put his comments into perspective.

but you don't say what you're for, or what is the good that you oppose against the bad you claim to reject. you're just playing games for your self-satisfaction.