So is US. Last time I checked it was not possible for an outsider (third party candidate) to participate in US election.

Forgot about outsider, look what they did to Bernie Sanders. Both 2016 and 2020. Should I explain more? Let alone third party candidates like Jill Stein.

You have really bought the brand of bs the media is selling you don’t you?

They didn’t do anything to Bernie Sanders; the big-tent party moved rightward after Raegan but it’s progressive wing didn’t break off. His placement in both primaries reflects that.

Disclaimer: I’m not an American, so I might be simplifying or not getting something right.

EDIT: looking at your comment again, I could understand cynicism about the Democratic/Republican political machines, but I don’t necessarily equate that to something like Iran’s Supreme Leader.

Isn't the current President, Donald Trump, an outsider? He calls himself a Republican, but he wasn't involved with that party prior to deciding to run, and he certainly didn't seem to have the support of the party while running.

It's definitely a problem that you have to be in one of the two parties, but it's not impossible to come from outside and nominally join. Sanders is also a good example, coming close in 16 and 20, despite being, essentially, an independent or Democratic Socialist.

What? Almost every US presidential election since the early 19th century has had several candidates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...

I don't understand this baseless whataboutism to defend a dictatorship.

Wow. It's really impossible to talk about anywhere else here, isn't it? It all has to come back to America, doesn't it?

Which religious council did Bernie have to be approved by? Or was it a political party? Your analogy is off base.

It's awfully suspicious how all of the other candidates except Warren dropped out and endorsed Biden overnight, right? Meanwhile, Warren, who was presumed to draw votes from Bernie, was all of a sudden awash in SuperPAC money despite her campaign having no chance.

Almost like someone made a few phone calls.

"Whataboutism" is not an argument, and neither are vague innuendos.

I was specifically responding to a comment talking about the 2020 primaries, and I talked about the 2020 primaries.

It's really an amazing system we have. The government and media tell you how free you are and how wicked all these other people are, and everyone just eats it up. Anyone who questions is ostracized and sidelined. Way more effective than a brute dictatorship.

Again, dragging another system entirely into the conversation is non sequitur.

Also, I just find it interesting you feel compelled to defend a dictatorship.

It's a comparison of different methods of social control. An interesting conversation, IMO at least.

"Bad guys bad!" is much less interesting, especially when it's only the bad guys you've been told to hate.

I would disagree with you except the result of the 2016 democrat primary was a lawsuit where the democrats argued and won on the basis that party nominations are not democratic even within the party.

https://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-was...

That being said still not a theocracy.

The flavor difference is what's interesting.

In the US, the allowed opinions are actually a tiny band, socially enforced. You don't get to be an opinion maker unless you're in band.

Technically we're way freer, but practically? A little bit at best.

I think if you believe the America portrayed on the news you may come to believe that. But social enforcement whatever you mean by that is much different than being thrown in jail for protesting the government while in the us they've been rioting for 90 days almost without repercussion.

The real world difference is huge no matter how you try to portray it.

Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media.

Noam Chomsky

I notice you didn't answer the question.