I’m saying there didn’t need to be results tampering for the election to be a sham. The ruling class doesn’t need to undermine their own system in such an obvious way in order to get the results they want. So even if the precise count was perfectly understood, with perfect transparency and security, it would still be trivially easy for the wealthy and powerful to manipulate the outcome as a class, to manufacture their own voter base, and obfuscate their individual roles in doing so. The exact count of the election isn’t the only thing that operates on blind faith.

So let’s say we spend all our energy fighting for perfect election transparency, whatever that means, to be and remain the case forevermore. For what? So we can vote for a person that might win, and if they win might implement their platform, and if that platform is effective might solve some of our problems, and if those problems are solved we might be making progress towards a society that might be more equitable? And when one or all of those cases don’t follow, as all evidence and history points to being the case, then we can finally feel justified in pointing fingers at other voters who are just as powerless as we are? Why don’t we just cut to the chase and fight for a system that grants direct power to the majority, the working class, and eliminates the influence of capital?

We’re arguing over stale crumbs right now man, over a party that did everything they possibly could to tell us they would not be addressing our needs, come on this is silly and a distraction at best. Whether or not we operate on the assumption that Trump’s win was legitimate, the system is just as rotten and the path to moving beyond it is exactly the same.

Excuse me for making assumptions and wall-of-texting you but this whole voter blaming thing really gets under my skin and the election tampering meta to me lands way too close to that conclusion for my tastes.

The alternative was also actively throwing the election and very openly had zero interest in meeting the people’s demands. I don’t know how anyone was surprised at the result.

Yes exactly my point, thank you for clarifying

The US dumps money into “defense” because it is under a dictatorship of capital and it just so happens that selling weapons is an extremely effective way of converting public tax dollars into private capital. The US profits from endless violence, plain and simple. “American exceptionalism” i.e. chauvinism is just how they sell it to the people at large in order to appear democratic.

If the US left NATO it would cease to exist. It’s a protection racket, and one without a real threat at that. It was always intended as a red scare tactic (operation gladio for example) and to isolate the USSR, which no longer exists, by expanding US military influence across Europe. NATO has never been about european defense and it would be a solution in search of a cause without the US.

Is the implication that new developments or information may have come out in the <4 months since this article was published which invalidates some or all of the information it contains? I’m having trouble seeing why this is an issue that needs pointing out in this particular case.

Where would you prefer content like this be posted and discussed?