Somehow you expect Biden to reverse or ameliorate all these economic situations... or you somehow didn't expect Trump to do all these yet you expect Biden to. Trump said he would accelerate the slaughter.. you still had bills to pay when he was president (you expect the president to help you with your bills?), rent and homelessness is supposed to be fixed with cooperation from state, center, and landlords. The last of them are still greedy as ever regardless of presidents so I don't generally expect that the president can do much. Even in this regard Biden is at least trying to fight the republican controlled congress and SC to pass student debt forgiveness.
When Biden tries you all cry that he isn't doing anything while the republicans block any attempts in each step of the way.
When Trump does anything you all cheer his shitty behavior that hurt you more as a common man than as a conservative.
you expect the president to help you with your bills
A UBI could help here, but yeah obviously the president can't unilaterally implement one, especially with the Republican party controlling the house.
Anyway, agreed with your overall point. People seem to think a president is a dictator that can just ram through policy and not just one person within a broader system. Maybe that's why anti-democratic (small 'd') sentiment appears to be increasing.
Wait, your landlord doesn't let you pay your rent with deported immigrants? Wild.
I don't think the person you're responding to is a Trump supporter. I think they're critiquing the vast amounts of political energy people put into supporting and justifying a genocidal state and its leaders.
Your entire comment exemplifies this perfectly. There's obviously a lot of time and effort you've put into forming your electoral views, and you obviously spend a good deal of time going around, at the very least online, trying to inform people how to make better decisions inside the electoral sphere.
This is exactly what electoralism tries to drive in people. The expenditure of political capital within acceptable bounds. Before electoralism/liberal democracies, political capital accumulated and was then spent on strikes, riots, or revolutions. Things that are much more effective at driving change per political capital spent.
There are literally millions of people like you in America that could all immediately stop all your expenditure of political capital and it would make actually no material difference. That's a beautiful thing about electoralism (for those in power), the thing that matters is the differential, not the total expenditure. This is why "swing states" exist.
I'll put it into concrete terms, imagine the amount of electorally active individuals in America was immediately cut in half. The population remains the same, but exactly half of the current voting population stops voting. Assume all ratios remain the same. There'd be fundamentally no difference in material outcomes.
Now imagine if all current political capital was spent towards strikes, unions, revolution, or really any form of politics outside electoralism. Doubling or halfing this engagement would be massive. Real material outcomes would be different if there were thousands more strikes. What doesn't matter is if the voting population is 150 million, 90 million, or 10 million. Only the differential matters, and only for determining a fixed binary outcome.
Somehow you expect Biden to reverse or ameliorate all these economic situations... or you somehow didn't expect Trump to do all these yet you expect Biden to. Trump said he would accelerate the slaughter.. you still had bills to pay when he was president (you expect the president to help you with your bills?), rent and homelessness is supposed to be fixed with cooperation from state, center, and landlords. The last of them are still greedy as ever regardless of presidents so I don't generally expect that the president can do much. Even in this regard Biden is at least trying to fight the republican controlled congress and SC to pass student debt forgiveness.
When Biden tries you all cry that he isn't doing anything while the republicans block any attempts in each step of the way.
When Trump does anything you all cheer his shitty behavior that hurt you more as a common man than as a conservative.
A UBI could help here, but yeah obviously the president can't unilaterally implement one, especially with the Republican party controlling the house.
Anyway, agreed with your overall point. People seem to think a president is a dictator that can just ram through policy and not just one person within a broader system. Maybe that's why anti-democratic (small 'd') sentiment appears to be increasing.
Wait, your landlord doesn't let you pay your rent with deported immigrants? Wild.
I don't think the person you're responding to is a Trump supporter. I think they're critiquing the vast amounts of political energy people put into supporting and justifying a genocidal state and its leaders.
Your entire comment exemplifies this perfectly. There's obviously a lot of time and effort you've put into forming your electoral views, and you obviously spend a good deal of time going around, at the very least online, trying to inform people how to make better decisions inside the electoral sphere.
This is exactly what electoralism tries to drive in people. The expenditure of political capital within acceptable bounds. Before electoralism/liberal democracies, political capital accumulated and was then spent on strikes, riots, or revolutions. Things that are much more effective at driving change per political capital spent.
There are literally millions of people like you in America that could all immediately stop all your expenditure of political capital and it would make actually no material difference. That's a beautiful thing about electoralism (for those in power), the thing that matters is the differential, not the total expenditure. This is why "swing states" exist.
I'll put it into concrete terms, imagine the amount of electorally active individuals in America was immediately cut in half. The population remains the same, but exactly half of the current voting population stops voting. Assume all ratios remain the same. There'd be fundamentally no difference in material outcomes.
Now imagine if all current political capital was spent towards strikes, unions, revolution, or really any form of politics outside electoralism. Doubling or halfing this engagement would be massive. Real material outcomes would be different if there were thousands more strikes. What doesn't matter is if the voting population is 150 million, 90 million, or 10 million. Only the differential matters, and only for determining a fixed binary outcome.