[pear01]

The Iran war is unpopular because of prices at the pump. Prior interventions in Iran (and elsewhere) that also violated rights did not garner the same reaction because to the average American they incurred no cost. If for some reason the war had caused prices to go lower the war would be popular. The fact you think otherwise would lead me to simply conclude you are in denial re the psyche of the American electorate.

You aren't telling me anything I don't already know. You cannot be pro democracy and at the same time treat the electorate like children. Propaganda is part of electioneering. Parties advocating for their own interests should be a feature in a healthy democracy. Are you suggesting the electorate is incapable of dealing with their basic obligations as citizens of a free society? And your scapegoat for this is the corporations?

What is your theory of democracy if the population is so susceptible to "corporate lobbyists"? Why trust such a body to make decisions if it can't even cope with basic propaganda?

Have you been to red counties? I think you are severely over-indexing on your own biases. Corporate lobbying has nothing on tribalism, racism, and general parochialism. You seem to be well read enough when it comes to history. I am surprised your assessment of human nature has not caught up.

The fact is most Americans don't care. If they did they would elect different leaders. If your theory is that the electorate is simply brainwashed well that seems to me as much an indictment on the notion of democracy itself as a criticism of any allegedly brainwashing entity.

Of course I put blame on citizens. Your attempt to shift all the blame to "corporate lobbyists" is about as convincing as the "they were about to get a nuclear weapon" responsibility shift.

Citizens are responsible because in a democracy they are the ultimate arbiters. You don't get to shift the responsibility, it's not optional. The notion of democracy itself rests on it. If you feel a need to control what information citizens consume so that you can personally legitimize their decisions I would suggest to you perhaps you don't really believe in democracy. As George Carlin said, garbage in garbage out.

[cess11]

"If they did they would elect different leaders."

Like who? Notable candidacies are predicated on million dollar budgets, and pretty much everyone who runs on justice and gets into an office in the US then neuters themselves.

It's not a democratic state, and US society has very little tolerance for or understanding of democracy.

[pear01]

If your point is to suggest no alternatives have ever been contemplated then that is simply factually untrue and I think you know that. In some cases, such people succeed locally/statewide even if failing nationally.

My point is simply you don't get to rob the electorate of its agency because you don't like the choice its made. That's about as silly as the grandparent to your comment citing random polls to establish some authoritative notion of what Americans believe.

[cess11]

Name some then.

What "agency"? Participation in US elections is junk level, politicians openly and routinely 'redistrict' and suppress voting, and the median US citizen is revulsed by the prospect of egalitarian organising.

The current US president is an Idi Amin style autocrat, and the "electorate" is responding by lulling around in the streets with one hand occupied by a live streaming spy device and then getting beaten by cops or cop adjacents.

[pear01]

Are you aware that the current US president won the popular vote? What redistricting and voter suppression came into play in that case?

I'm supposed to conclude from this election that the electorate didn't support the current president?

Your post is really unimpressive. You care about these things yet you need me to provide you the name of progressive politicians? You want to take agency away because of redistricting and voter suppression yet immediately claim that the "median US citizen is revulsed by the prospect of egalitarian organising"? So do they have agency or not? Did the politicians program their revulsion too? Or was that the corporations? Maybe they need to hang out with you for a few weeks to be sufficiently deprogrammed.

I'm sure it will look like many other such ventures in that domain. I can see the people desperately trying to crawl over the walls now as you go into another second paragraph non sequitur.

I think what is clear is you don't believe in democracy. How can you given the obvious contempt you show for the American electorate.

Unlike you I know the difference between someone who doesn't have agency and someone who isn't worth my time. Have a good day.

[cess11]

At best, just a little more than half the electorate voted in that election so I'm not sure what you mean by "popular vote".

For an electorate to have agency it has to be informed, egalitarian and politically organised. None of this holds for the notable usian elections. There are local exceptions of course, but on average usians do not organise politically and loathe those that try. This is why "activist" is an insult in the US and union busting widely tolerated. It is also why the US does not have political parties in the sense other countries have them, i.e. groups of people self organising and making collective decisions.

In the US, elections are commonly bought. Variations on this practice is also exported, and has been an issue for decades, including in Europe where the US has used a little of everything from mafia mediated terrorism to high tech psyops to get their way.

As for the parliamentary practices of the US, issues brought up in those contexts are often treated in a way that is absolutely inscrutable to most voters and in a way more reminiscent of televised game shows than actual democratic deliberation. Recently there was a proposal made but the initial sponsors did a miscount so it actually had a chance to pass, so they suddenly turned around and voted against it. Deceptions like that seem to be everywhere in usian politics.

[runtime_terror]

So if I'm correct, your post basically implies that individual voters are 100% responsible for everything, is that your claim?

That billions in lobbying into political campaigns, advertising, etc have no effect on how people think or vote?

Your entire argument seems to be "if people can be influenced, why democracy?" That's such a simplistic view of the world and human psychology.

I can guarantee you too are influenced by propaganda in ways you're not aware, I'm sure I am, we all are. Humans are influenced by culture, propaganda, family, religion, etc. To think we're all perfectly rational actors who have pure agency is nieve at best and disingenuous at worst.

My argument is that we should do what we can to combat the influence of corporate interests in our elections. I backed up why I think this is the case. I've made my points as clearly as I care to.

Yours is, what? Individual voters want everything that's happening? That because Trump won the popular vote, everyone who voted for him wanted every thing that's is happening (e.g. invading Iran despite him being the "anti-war candidate")?

If your entire argument is "people asked for this" than there is not much more to discuss...