Ultimately I'd like to see GOP move in a more centrist-libertarian direction, representing something like what Bret Weinstein talks about in a video I'll link. I think he's correct that the two major parties are succeeding in a sort of gerrymandering of the public.
https://youtu.be/bz0oxIZ3xIg?t=3731
If the deep link doesn't work, start around the 1hr 2m mark.

> Ultimately I'd like to see GOP move in a more centrist-libertarian direction, representing something like what Bret Weinstein talks about in a video I'll link. I think he's correct that the two major parties are succeeding in a sort of gerrymandering of the public.
> https://youtu.be/bz0oxIZ3xIg?t=3731
> If the deep link doesn't work the description I'm draw attention to starts around the 1hr 2m mark.
@drenath

Where do you get that Bret's talking about the GOP heading near center?
They've moved from right wing fascist, to the extremist corner of same, while Hillary took the Dem's more right wing into extremist region, and more fascist, than the GOP used to occupy.

Sanders was called far leftist, but really, he came out near zero as to statist/libertarian, and very mildly barely left. (Unfortunately, whether via staff or his own ideas, they used a $15 wage in ways that demonstrated how to scam treacherous fraud shell games, and set up robocall businesses that pretended they weren't that if they had human sequencers push buttons 4 times a second with no bathroom or water breaks allowed for 2 hour straight sessions, then off the clock rather than paid recovery time breaks. -- Not suggesting I agree with that wage model; just that they proved how to scam their own ideal. I see anything over $2/hour making more US-ians unemployable and driving away major classes of jobs, while helping retail and service workers in certain local markets, creating major racial and SES divisions it worsens, not solves. Both our country and the world have some very hard challenges to find workable models there.)

> Where do you get that Bret's talking about the GOP heading near center?
@LokiV
I didn't suggest that he was. I think he's talking about more of a 3rd party model, it was my proposal that the GOP moves in that direction.

I would prefer the GOP moving away from the cliff as well. If only to have better conversations with them.
But like I said. We have stepped off of a precipice. I don't think we can Wiley Coyote our way back.

To be very blunt. Everyone should vote dem. Why? Because climate change is the biggest threat facing us, and the right wing won't even recognize it exists.

> To be very blunt. Everyone should vote dem. Why? Because climate change is the biggest threat facing us, and the right wing won't even recognize it exists.
@Malachi

I don't disagree that Climate Change is an existential threat, but policies that commit fiscal suicide won't save the planet.

For the record, I'm mostly referring to non-climate policies brought along with pro-climate policies.

The verdict is in on climate change jobs. They are good for the economy.

Also what the crap? You'd rather be dead than possibly less wealthy?

I'm also very pro-nuclear and think that the private sector probably doesn't have the leverage to implement it on a large scale.

> Also what the crap? You'd rather be dead than possibly less wealthy?
@Malachi
A country that's broke loses its agency.

It's a different argument. You could turn the whole of USA into trees and the rest of the world might continue course destroying the climate.

Where did you get the concept that green energy would hurt the economy?

That's not my argument.

If the Democratic agenda was environment, and nothing but environment, I could agree more with the suggestion that everyone should vote that way.

And even thought the economy always does better under Democrats?

I still don't get it.

If you're suggesting that historically, economic prosperity favors democratic presidents, I'd suggest that it's more complex than that.

It is more complex than that yes. But we can agree that dems definitely don't talk the economy. Right?

Tank*

Well we're still here. The USA is not destroyed.

How about a reset over easy to address issues, like a high excise tax on carbon fuels, and related emissions loads like cattle, and a guaranteed minimum income payment to all, eliminating most illegal (as outside duties and powers, or based on religious charity concepts) welfare programs?

That'd have far more impact than the CCL carbon tax frauds, as CCL pretends an excise tax is a user fee while violating litigated standards for that to not be illegal (if arbitrarily unrelated to or grossly higher than actual costs, not Piglovian fantasies arbitrarily adjusted), and pretends a token wealth redistribution is a dividend, also lacking any valid basis for those claims (other then idiot kindergarten teacher mentality that it's easier to market to average idiots).

So now that you agree with one point. And your counter point holds no water. You vote dem?

So your counter to my suggestion that Democratic policies might risk fiscal solvency is that the USA has not yet been fiscally destroyed??

It hasn't even dipped under dems. Your fear is unfounded.

Historic does not necessarily project into the future.

Especially if the policy positions are different.

For the record, I'm not suggesting that it's my fear. I'm simply suggesting that the fear is not irrational.

Cool. Please tell me the policy and how it had a negative impact.

I think some major collapse of artificially inflated housing and other market values in the USA is long overdue, much as a techie and business owner, that's scary, and has long fingers across various infrastructure.

As a civil rights advocate and anti-genocide on a world level, the Dems are no friends to the values they pretend to champion, and too often are enemies. They just pick different facets of various rights to trash, and leave off most GOP fake religiosity.

True Loki. But like you said before. Limited option. I'm a Bernie guy, he or Yang was the only real chance

Now we get some old guys that refuse to act for the will of the people. Mostly because they are bought and paid for by lobbies

I'm don't think you can point necessarily to any individual policy and accurately project the fiscal impact. For example, rising healthcare costs, what percentage is due to ACA legislation? I don't think anyone has that number. The bigger the move, the riskier the result.

Rising health care costs are bad for individuals. But I see that when you have no options you go to the Obama boogie man.

I like Yang, but think he's more ready for a key Cabinet position than an overall leader in charge. He's the ONLY Dem in primaries who I saw make intelligent points about energy policy, and act like he had some real clue, not just spouting consultant driven words.

Good point Loki.

I'd favor Yang over most of the lineup.

Why not a Bernie?

I think Bernie was too much of an activist/base growth candidacy, less of the Statesman/Arbiter that I'd like to see.

The decades long Senator isn't a Statesman?

representative of the US to the world abroad