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.

Uyghur “genocide”, double genocide theory, the holodomor

This is basically just propaganda speak, for “my side can’t do bad things, only your side can”

No it’s the historical record of what actually happened. The fact you don’t like it and wish all countries and systems were equally bad when it comes to fascism doesn’t change that. The USSR for it’s many faults was absolutely antifascist pre, during and post war.

You are exhausting. So arrogant and so utterly wrong. You should be embarrassed I’m surprised the embarrassment hasn’t won out and stopped you from spouting nonsense at least for a bit but I suppose you’re still in the denial phase.

Did you actually read what I wrote or just skim for a keyword?

Yes, the USSR ran Operation Osoaviakhim. They relocated German specialists. And then those specialists were forced to worked in research institutes under massive scrutiny and supervision for minimum wage where they would be executed if they refused to work. Not one of them was made head of the Soviet rocket program. Not one was given a seat on the Central Committee. Not one was appointed to command Warsaw Pact forces.

The Soviet system used their technical labor under massive constraint and threat. The Western system restored their class power. Wernher von Braun didn’t just “work” for NASA. He was a leader. Adolf Heusinger didn’t just “consult” for NATO. He chaired its Military Committee. These weren’t technicians in a lab. They were architects of policy, strategy, and rearmament.

You call that “identical.” That’s not analysis. That’s surrendering to bourgeois propaganda. One system subordinated former fascists to the dictatorship of the proletariat. The other subordinated the postwar order to former fascists. If you can’t grasp that distinction, no amount of facts will help you. But please, keep typing. It’s instructive. I personally couldn’t imagine being so arrogant and idiotic as to embarrass myself to the level you have throughout this thread. You really are showing how you have somewhere between 0 and a negative understanding of history and honestly reality and might possibly be illiterate.