• mojofrododojo@lemmy.worldEnglish
    22·
    5 months ago

    am open to social democrat processes that have provided many EU countries with worker rights, health care, education etc.

    not really liking the tankie / biden genocide / climate indifferent takes.

    these things are not the same.

    • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net
      11·
      5 months ago

      A few things to address:

      1. There is plenty of room between “Social Democrat” and “Tankie”; and social democracy is still capitalism. I don’t know exactly what idea you have of Europe, but we’re not free from corporations.

      2. I don’t know if that is what you are implying, but accusing Biden of supporting genocide does not make someone a tankie. Plenty of countries have condemned Israel and accused Israel of genocide or “committing genocidal actions”, are all of them “tankies”?

      3. Republicans are (for the most part) Liberal Conservatives, the Dems (for the most part) are Liberal Progressives. They are all capitalists. Biden vs Trump has nothing to do with this conversation.

      • Dasus@lemmy.world
        2·
        5 months ago

        and social democracy is still capitalism

        Literally the first sentence on social democracy:

        #“Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism”

        ##“within socialism”

        • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net
          7·
          5 months ago

          Maybe keep reading:

          By the post-World War II period and its economic consensus and expansion, most social democrats in Europe had abandoned their ideological connection to orthodox Marxism. They shifted their emphasis toward social policy reform as a compromise between capitalism to socialism.[108]

          In Britain, the social democratic Gaitskellites emphasized the goals of personal liberty, social welfare, and social equality.[111] The Gaitskellites were part of a political consensus between the Labour and Conservative parties, famously dubbed Butskellism.

          You can also look at European countries which are social democracies, and you will see they are all capitalist countries. Here, also from wiki. I can tell you here in Portugal we have 2 parties which, according to the wiki, are also Social Democratic parties, and they are also the only two parties who have ever been in power. I can tell you first hand, I live in a capitalist system. According to the wiki, the UK’s Labour Party “is a political party in the United Kingdom that has been described as being an alliance of social democrats, democratic socialists and trade unionists”, do they seem socialist to you? And before you claim that they are because “they also have democratic socialists”, that would mean that by transitive property, USA’s Dem party is a socialist party. I guess the USA is socialist after all!

          • Dasus@lemmy.world
            1·
            5 months ago

            Maybe actually try to understand what you’re reading?

            You have this idiotic notion that all socialism is somehow government-planned economies and that all market economies are automatically capitalist.

            I honestly can’t express my sincere disappointment at how common that shit is.

            You can also look at European countries which are social democracies, and you will see they are all capitalist countries.

            I’m Finnish, and we are a socialist country, by definition. This isn’t even a remotely controversial thing to say in Finland, but weirdly when one engages people on mainly American forums, the black-and-white “no that’s communism, you’re capitalist countries” red-scare garbage comes out. And yes, I understand you’re Portuguese, but that doesn’t prevent you from having these asinine notions.

            You’re literally arguing that the very first sentence on the Wikipedia article on this exact subject, “social democracy”, is not only wrong, but in fact the truth is actually the polar opposite of what it says. I… I just fucking can’t with you people.

            Here are literary references to back up the statement in economical theory literature that social democracy is indeed a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism:

            Eatwell & Wright 1999, pp. 80–103; Newman 2005, p. 5; Heywood 2007, pp. 101, 134–136, 139; Ypi 2018; Watson 2019.

            Now I’ll wait for you to source your “social democracy is capitalism” bullshit, which you won’t, because there are no sources for anything remotely confirming that.

            • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net
              3·
              5 months ago

              ou have this idiotic notion that all socialism is somehow government-planned economies

              Imagine saying I don’t understand what I’m reading, and then accusing me of having “this idiotic notion that all socialism is somehow government-planned economies” when I never came close to saying that. I’m a Libertarian Socialist, jackass. Please go be disappointed at yourself.

              Sounds like you don’t even know the basics of what capitalism and socialism are. Do people in your country work for private companies? Do the people who own them make all executive decisions, reap profits, and pay (as little as they can) for other people to actually work? Are people able to use capital to buy into those companies and be in charge and reap the profits? Then that isn’t a socialist country. Having social welfare and regulations doesn’t make it a socialist country.

              You are arguing that “socialism”- something that has always stood in opposition to everything I just mentioned - can be used to describe a country that operates like a capitalist country because an article on Wikipedia has one sentence that says so.

              Here are literary references to back up the statement in economical theory literature that social democracy is indeed a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism:

              Eatwell & Wright 1999, pp. 80–103; Newman 2005, p. 5; Heywood 2007, pp. 101, 134–136, 139; Ypi 2018; Watson 2019.

              You literally just copied those from the previously linked Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is your source, I don’t believe you’ve read a single word from any of those works - nay, from any of those people. My sources: Das Kapital, The Communist Manifesto, The Conquest of Bread, and others, but above all, the real fucking world I live in. Edit: oh, and I guess I’ll also add the others parts from that same Wikipedia article, the ones I quoted previously and you ignored.

              • Dasus@lemmy.world
                1·
                5 months ago

                “I never came close to saying that”

                The fact that you don’t understand your own implications is pretty much the problem here. Whether consciously or not, you conflate the terms “market economy” and “capitalism”, which is quite as silly as thinking cell growth = cancer.

                I’ve read actual literature on this, and I’ve this exact “discussion” literally hundreds of times. Stomp your foot and cry all you want, that’s not going to change the actual literature of economic theory.

                Are people able to use capital to buy into those companies and be in charge and reap the profits?

                See, this is exactly the implication that all socialism is somehow some authoritarian communism. You just can’t understand how poorly you’ve perceived this. So you write things which argue that using currency makes a place capitalist in some way? That’s the real name for what people used to buy things; currency. Not capital, as when you’re living from paycheck to paycheck, you don’t have capital.

                “My source, Communist Manifesto”

                Your source for what? The modern definition of social democracy? You’ve never even held a copy of Das Kapital let alone have read it. I can assure you, Marx does not write “oh and social democracies are forms of capitalism, bruv”.

                Because they aren’t. And you’re arguing that modern actual literature on the subject, which is quoted on the very first sentence on the article about social democracy actually don’t matter, but your haphazard pretentious Lemmy comments should be taken as fact?

                Thanks for the laughs, big guy. :D

                • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net
                  2·
                  5 months ago

                  I’ve read actual literature on this

                  Sure, yet all you could do was copy past the wiki sources. You sound very well read!

                  I’ll make simpler so you can understand - hell, I’ll even play the wiki game with you!

                  Socialism :

                  Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.

                  Here are all the sources for that according to the wiki:

                  spoiler

                  Busky (2000), p. 2: “Socialism may be defined as movements for social ownership and control of the economy. It is this idea that is the common element found in the many forms of socialism.”

                  Arnold (1994), pp. 7–8: “What else does a socialist economic system involve? Those who favor socialism generally speak of social ownership, social control, or socialization of the means of production as the distinctive positive feature of a socialist economic system.”

                  Horvat (2000), pp. 1515–1516: “Just as private ownership defines capitalism, social ownership defines socialism. The essential characteristic of socialism in theory is that it destroys social hierarchies, and therefore leads to a politically and economically egalitarian society. Two closely related consequences follow. First, every individual is entitled to an equal ownership share that earns an aliquot part of the total social dividend… Second, in order to eliminate social hierarchy in the workplace, enterprises are run by those employed, and not by the representatives of private or state capital. Thus, the well-known historical tendency of the divorce between ownership and management is brought to an end. The society—i.e. every individual equally—owns capital and those who work are entitled to manage their own economic affairs.”

                  Rosser & Barkley (2003), p. 53: “Socialism is an economic system characterised by state or collective ownership of the means of production, land, and capital.”;

                  Badie, Berg-Schlosser & Morlino (2011), p. 2456: “Socialist systems are those regimes based on the economic and political theory of socialism, which advocates public ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.”

                  Zimbalist, Sherman & Brown (1988), p. 7: “Pure socialism is defined as a system wherein all of the means of production are owned and run by the government and/or cooperative, nonprofit groups.”

                  Brus (2015), p. 87: “This alteration in the relationship between economy and politics is evident in the very definition of a socialist economic system. The basic characteristic of such a system is generally reckoned to be the predominance of the social ownership of the means of production.”

                  Hastings, Adrian; Mason, Alistair; Pyper, Hugh (2000). The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought. Oxford University Press. p. 677. ISBN 978-0198600244. “Socialists have always recognized that there are many possible forms of social ownership of which co-operative ownership is one…Nevertheless, socialism has throughout its history been inseparable from some form of common ownership. By its very nature it involves the abolition of private ownership of capital; bringing the means of production, distribution, and exchange into public ownership and control is central to its philosophy. It is difficult to see how it can survive, in theory or practice, without this central idea.”

                  Interesting, uh?

                  Wiki says Soc-Dem = Socialism

                  Wiki says all parties that have governed my country are Soc-Dems

                  Wiki says Socialism = socialy owning the means of production, opposed to private ownership

                  In my countrie most companies are privatly owned, and the government has actually privatized previous national companies

                  MFW the Wiki just contradicted it self

                  It’s almost like you have to use critical thinking and can’t just take things you read on Wikipedia at face value!

                  I’d say thanks for the laughs as well, but arguing with extremely ignorant but simultaneously extremely arrogant people is anything but fun.

                  Now, quit acting like you’ve ever read anything other than the Wiki, and go to your local library to pick up a book. I’ma ignore you from now on, because there’s clearly nothing left to be gained for this conversation.

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      4·
      5 months ago

      Yeah don’t try to shoehorn some dictatorial bullshit into the democratic process and we can talk.

      • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
        11·
        5 months ago

        Problem is that any regulation proposed to rein in the slide towards capitalist dystopia is suddenly labeled as anti-democratic commie socialist dictators trying to crush the free market.

        Make no mistake, corporations are dictatorships. They do need to be held in check.

    • Andy@slrpnk.netOP
      3·
      5 months ago

      I relate to this, but I keep trying to tell people that we need to get a clear diagnosis of the problem and figure out how we’re going to get out of this bind.

      Ultimately, Biden is currently on track to lose. He’s been losing in the polls all year, and alarmingly, he’s insisted that he isn’t going to make changes. He’s staying the course.

      Those of us who want to avoid a Trump dictatorship need to find a way to change this dynamic, and I don’t see any way that complaining about Biden’s disaffected base fixes this. I don’t think complaining about Biden fixes it either. I think he’s made peace with losing. So what will?

      The Democratic establishment – the campaign managers and staff in particular – can largely tolerate a Trump dictatorship more than the loss of status. “Leaders of the Resistance” is okay with them. “Collaborators” or “nobodies” isn’t. If Jill Stein hits 15% in the polls and starts drawing major crowds, I thik this would be such a painful shock to the self-image of Democratic campaigners that I think this could dislodge the race and force Biden to reconsider his approach, and hopefully campaign for president the way he did in 2020.

      If you don’t want Trump, don’t blame the left. They aren’t the primary source of his polling collapse. That’s coming from moderates who see no vision or benefit. And the Democratic party’s most popular agenda items are all leftist anti-corporate stuff. So criticism is all that I see saving us from Biden’s terrible judgement.

      • mojofrododojo@lemmy.worldEnglish
        10·
        5 months ago

        Ultimately, Biden is currently on track to lose.

        If you don’t want Trump, don’t blame the left. They aren’t the primary source of his polling collapse.

        See, your premise is faulty so your conclusions - built upon this fault - are doomed.

        Polling is fucked. Literally, the polling we’re seeing (and saw in 2020) is worse than useless in so far as it doesn’t inform the public and deliberately distorts the ground game.

        If Jill Stein hits 15% in polls we’ve wandered into bizzarro world and all bets are off anyway.

        . So criticism is all that I see saving us from Biden’s terrible judgement.

        …?

        • like when he cut insulin to $35, literally saving lives?
        • saving the economy,
        • forgiving school loans,
        • stood up for unions & labor (FIRST PRESIDENT TO EVER WALK A PICKET LINE),
        • increased overtime for millions,
        • ended federally subsidized discriminatory mortgage lending,
        • went after airlines, cable companies, phone companies, concert ticket sales and hotels for their fucking ridiculous hidden fees!,
        • brought back net neutrality,
        • he’s gonna try to tax billionaires!

        Look I don’t like the old shit, I’ve never been a fan and would prefer bernie but this is where we’re at: if you can’t look at that list and admit that holy shit the old squint seems to actually have some handle on the situation you’re disregarding reality.

        And if you think Jill fucking Stein would do better you need to stop huffing gasoline Charlie Kelly.

        • Andy@slrpnk.netOP
          2·
          5 months ago

          Bruh.

          Your arguments are totally wasted on me. I’m not saying he hasn’t done good stuff. I’m saying that he’s running a losing campaign, and so far has been totally unwilling to change.

          Regarding polling: I don’t know how to get through to you that he’s losing. If you’re not accepting reality, then we’re fucked. Are you going to reject the election results too? It’s not really even in the margin of error most weeks, he isn’t even close to having the votes he needs in the states he needs to win. I can’t believe we’re replaying 2016 when we’ve already been through it. Wake up: we’re on a collision course and need to change direction NOW.

          Regarding his achievements: These are largely great. Which just makes it so much more painful that no one knows about them. He’s never been a skilled candidate, and unfortunately getting older has not done him favors. If he had a really strong campaign, he could certainly win, but if you give a guy who isn’t good at the fundamentals of running bad support and bad guidance and a muddled, poorly delivered message, we’re going to wake up under President-for-life Donald Fucking Trump.

          Did people forget that he was president? He won. It’s like I’m in groundhog’s day, and no one knows that we already ran this simulation, and the result was terrible.

          If Jill Stein hits 15% in polls we’ve wandered into bizzarro world and all bets are off anyway.

          We are already in bizzarro world! The leading candidate is a known fascist/rapist/felon, and the current incumbent is the most unpopular president in contemporary history.

          People don’t even remember that Trump was found guilty of rape last year, because it’s not even newsworthy because he keeps quoting Hitler. And he is CURRENTLY IN THE LEAD.

          Smash the glass and pull the alarms! All bets ARE off! This is a god-damned crisis, and repeating why BIden SHOULD be winning is pure copium. Put down the pipe and put on a pair of comfortable shoes, because saving America is going to need actual organizing work! And that starts with accepting that we have a problem.

          I’m not saying that we need to make Jill Stein president, but we need something to convince Biden to either let someone else take the nomination or start running like he means it. He (and you) need the loudest possible wake-up call or mark my words: Trump WILL win.

        • Andy@slrpnk.netOP
          2·
          5 months ago

          This is out of touch with the problem.

          The long term problem is that we don’t have a political economy that actually represents the public.

          But the short term problem is that Trump is currently on track to win, and the people who don’t want that to happen are sticking their heads in the sand.

          We need to (1) reengage the Democratic base. Biden’s victory in key swing states – Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia in particular – was built on the backs of grass-roots door knocking campaigns by Bernie supporters. His campaign was absolutely reliant on the support of people who didn’t really like HIM, but really wanted to get Trump out of office. Those people will probably still hold their nose and vote for him, but that turnout operation is shattered, and I don’t see a way he can match his close victory in 2020 without it.

          If progressives find a champion in Jill Stein, it’s possible that they start dreaming of something better, and if Biden turns things around, they’ll have the drive to rebuild that critical lefty turnout machine.

          (2) Biden needs a metaphorical slap in the face. He won last time because Bernie’s team wrote half his platform in a reconciliation committee. This time, there was no primary, so Biden has reverted to all his instincts, and they are TERRIBLE. He’s trying to win Haley voters as if that’s not like Charlie Brown trying to kick Lucy’s football. If Stein gets momentum, maybe it’ll knock sense into him.

          This is all aside from the fact that voting Green builds party infrastructure and ballot access for a meaningful third party. There are lots of complicated reasons why voting Green has long-term strategic benefits, but I’m not even getting into those. I’m just talking about how we save Biden from himself. Sorry if it sounds like 4D chess, but polls already show Biden losing and he’s not taking note, so I think seeing popularity for a left alternative is the only thing I can think of that will rescue this thing.

            • Andy@slrpnk.netOP
              2·
              5 months ago

              This is absolutely a myth.

              Green party candidates can run and win many tickets other than President, but it’s very, very hard to get ballot access, public funding, or voter awareness. In any state that isn’t a swing state, voting Green most likely has more actual consequence than voting for one of the two major parties. This builds infrastructure that lets Greens organize the way parties do in other countries: doing actual outreach between elections instead of just threatening people every time they need votes.

              The Green party is also often the only way to actually challenge the duopoly when both parties are taking the same pro-corporate position. What they do in a race is break a cartel dynamic, which forces Democrats to actually adopt popular positions which they can then be pressured to act on.

              Vote strategically: if you’re in PA, MI, or NC, by all means stick with a Democrat, but in about 40 states, you actually have a lot more voice and potential impact voting Green than you do otherwise.

  • madcaesar@lemmy.world
    20·
    5 months ago

    Because no viable alternatives have been shown to work.

    Unregulated capitalism is untenable, but regulated capitalism is and remains the best system we’ve been able to come up with.

    I’m all for new ideas, but you’ve got to show some kind of precedence of it working in order to change the largest system in the world.

    • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
      24·
      5 months ago

      I love this logic because capitalism has made it its job to kill any competition prove the alternatives nonviable. Chile was trying something truly revolutionary, a fully democratic based socialism, and the CIA aborted the attempt and installed a capitalism friendly dictatorship.

      You won’t catch me simping for Authoritarians or anything, but when the only other mode of operation is a military strong enough to resist the CIA, there’s going to be a bias towards Authoritarian based alternatives. Convenient, if you’re trying to paint the alternatives as nonviable.

      • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
        5·
        5 months ago

        That’s kind of a straw man, though, isn’t it? Governments of capitalist countries have worked hard to suppress non-capitalist movements within and without their country, but that’s just what governments do. The Soviet Union was communist (as pure communist as the US is pure capitalist, which is to say, not very), and that also suppressed any alternatives. It’s not a function of the economic system; it’s a characteristic governments repeatedly demonstrate, regardless of their economic ideology.

        I agree with the grandparent argument: capitalism isn’t perfect, but it’s the best thing we have so far. Personally, I don’t believe communism can work, mainly because I think it goes against human nature. Except for clan behavior - altruism to your family, friends, neighbors - people are generally selfish, and communism requires us to be altruistic at our own expense to people who we not only don’t know, but who may talk differently from us, look different from us, have different culture from us. And even at the clan level, communism struggles. There were hundreds of attempts at building communes in the US in the 60’s, and I honestly believe most died out not because they were subverted by the government, but because people are selfish and they collapsed under their own internal conflicts. Very few of those remain, and when you look at them, they have fairly rigid internal structures that re-enforce the commune.

        Maybe if we can make it to post-scarcity, we’ll be able to afford to be communist, because then it won’t depend on altruism. But right now, when times are hard and food is scarce, most humans will look to feeding their own children first, and the priorities of the commune tear like tissue. Capitalism endures because it’s built upon greed and selfishness, and those come easy to humans. When times are hard, we tend to fall back on barter, which is capitalism.

        Anyway, saying that the US suppression of communism in Latin American countries says less about capitalism than it says about the US government, and their perceived interests. The proof is in the parallels in Soviet and communist (Mao era) China regional actions.

      • YeetPics@mander.xyz
        2·
        5 months ago

        So do you have a functional alternative or do you just want a functional alternative?

        (We ALL want the functional alternative)

        • Cochise@lemmy.eco.br
          3·
          5 months ago

          Se can’t have a functional alternative if we don’t try and experiment dysfunctional ones and improve them. No system arises perfect. The argument that there is no alternative good enough is a tool to abot the creation of a good enough alternative through the improvement of not so good altemratoves.

          We don’t requite perfection from capitalism, but require from it’s alternatives. Why? To block the possibility of a alternative, as all systems have problems, and initial experiments are problemsl ridden.

      • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
        1·
        5 months ago

        Some argue that the true democratic socialism has been achieved in India under Nehru. He was a socialist and the Indian economy was heavily regulated and many industries were government-owned. I’m not sure of the specifics but that hasn’t worked out well for many years. There is a reason why the news that India “liberalising” its economy in 1990s was big and seen as historical. Many credit India’s continuing growth from the liberalisation of the 90s. But some things have been relaxed too much imo.

        • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net
          4·
          5 months ago

          I don’t know about the situation, but from what you described that wasn’t democratic socialism, it was social democracy; social democracy is a branch of capitalism. More specifically, social democracy emerged from a compromise made by capitalists to quell socialist and communist fervor.

          In socialism, workers would be the owners of business and would distribute the profits among themselves. In social democracy, the states runs/manages some businesses with (in theory) the countries interests in mind, and creates several public support systems (i.e. public education and free healthcare) to improve overall quality of life for the average person; however the economy is still a capitalist one with free (but regulated) markets, where the only power workers have is voting on government elections.

          • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
            1·
            5 months ago

            I don’t think it was social democracy in India under Nehru. If I’m not mistaken, Nehru’s policies were further left than social democracy but I am willing to be corrected.

            Edit: I forgot to mention, the Indian state of Kerala elects a socialist party since the independence of India, and have successfully uplifted the standards of living in its population with free housing and education etc, but people there are emigrating because there aren’t any jobs.

    • mojo_raisin@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      5 months ago

      Because no viable alternatives have been shown to work.

      Capitalism has proven it definitely doesn’t work, we’re careening toward ecological collapse.

      Humans existed without state, and therefore with (likely multiple coexisting) informal economic systems for hundreds of thousands of years, I’d say that has been show to work.

      • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
        4·
        5 months ago

        There was nowhere close to the number of humans or level of complexity that there is today when those systems were in place.

        • mojo_raisin@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          5 months ago

          That doesn’t mean those methods or some form of them can’t work, you just assume this is true because you’ve been given that message by those who need us to believe this for them to maintain power.

          And let’s say no non-state method can possibly work at our scale, is that to essentially throw up our hands and say, “well, since intelligently shrinking our population and economy to a size that can be sustainably managed and is appropriate sized for our planet (i.e. “degrowth”) is unspeakable, and other methods we sorta tried for a bit don’t seem to work, we’ll just go ahead and continue with this known broken method until it all collapses from overexploitation” ??

          Wouldn’t it make more sense to say “I want human society to exist in 100 years and for that to happen, we need to learn to live within the bounds of our planet”?

    • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net
      6·
      5 months ago

      Read up on the Paris Commune, read Homage to Catalonia by Orwell, read up on the anarchists from Manchuria. Those are just the bigger ones I can think of from the top of my head, but there are plenty more (usually smaller scale) examples. Also, read David Graeber’s work, especially The Dawn of Everything like another user suggested.

      The common point of failure for those, was being a smaller entity that was surrounded and attacked by imperialist forces; some of which received help from other, more powerful, imperialist forces that had a vested interest in these groups failing.

      I’m trying to remain cordial and nice, but it’s quite difficult when it seems like usually the people claiming “no viable alternatives have been shown to work” have never actually looked into any alternatives; it hardly feels like good faith argumentation.

    • Dasus@lemmy.world
      5·
      5 months ago

      Socialism is defined as the government owning or regulating the means of production.

      When there’s an actually well regulated market, like say, we have here in the Nordics, you’ll tend to see other socialism alongside it. We have good social security and labour laws. Exactly because it’s regulated market economy we utilise.

      Capitalism does not have aa monopoly on market economies.

      Capitalism is to market economy what cancer is to cell growth.

      Even the US employs socialist policies. As in the policies themselves are socialist in nature. Antitrust laws. Because without them, capitalism would fuck over the economy in a heartbeat.

      If something has been shown to not work it’s capitalism.

      Capitalism is the antithesis of a well regulated market and will always fight regulation in any form, because it’s harder to make profits if you can’t sell unsafe garbage and exploit workers to their death.

    • Mango@lemmy.world
      1·
      5 months ago

      Has anyone tried lottery? I wanna bet that picking leadership completely at random would be better representation than rich assholes like Biden and Trump. That’s how we do things with QA testing and statistical analysis. It’s how we try to eliminate bias.