I can't explain this thoroughly enough to some folks 😆 😆

Police reform is fine. There are bills being pushed for that right now

That does not legitimize violating the rights of others

The Fellowship for Intentional Communities (www.IC.org) has interesting workshops on governance options in smaller voluntary communities, generally from 30-1500 people. Those usually need infrastructure to ensure food, housing, etc, and as size grows just in that range, procedures as interpersonal communication is less practical, and needs for specialization for scale and economy grows. Unlike larger societies people are born into and so get stuck with existing rules (not consent based), few besides a few kids become part of those communities who don't actively seek to do so.

In larger society, voting is often an artifical process to give a feeling of investment, but what does it accomplish if the only choices are onerous crooks, while issues are decided that are too complex or pervasive for most people to engage intelligently?

I didn't say it does.

Voting provides legitimacy.

Was it Everett Dirksen, or another long deceased Senator I'm not recalling, who said, "If I can control the rules or the vote, I'd take the rules every time"?

Voting is often intended to provide legitimacy, but for lack of legitimate candidates, or procedural obstacles or manipulations, it often doesn't.

Jimmy Crow is back in today's Sunday Doonesbury, with but one simpler and common example.

totally agree with what you're saying. and it is a huge problem.
I honestly think we are witnessing the slow end of an empire. the only chance we had to get out of this was Bernie Sanders, and his movement. But he used large words and Republitards got scared.

There’s a big jump between “not infringing on” your rights and “protecting” your rights.

And Malachi, that’s not why we don’t like Bernie.

Straw men are fun though. They’re easy to set on fire.

I believe some people, usually the incompetent, find it advantageous to assume the reason they aren’t higher in the hierarchy of their choice is because EVERYONE else is cheating.

Surely some people are. But all? Bernie wants to lower the ceiling to raise the floor.

“Republitards” want to raise the ceiling to raise the floor.

Some idiots want to lower the ceiling and the floor, so we can all be equal in the rubble, and that’s just stupid.

But it’s also where Bernie would likely (if accidentally) take us.

All US Presidential candidates are 74+ C'mon.... That's hillarious 😂

Trump - 74 / Biden - 77 / Bernie 79... Jeeze

> I honestly think we are witnessing the slow end of an empire. the only chance we had to get out of this was Bernie Sanders, and his movement. But he used large words and Republitards got scared.
@Malachi

It's not unreasonable to be apprehensive toward policies that could massively inflate government/taxes/deficit. Conservatives view those types of policies as "speeding us toward the end".

That said, the Republican party has a major identity crisis. "Left is bad, we're not that" isn't what I'd call exciting policymaking. Hence the entire party open for hijacking by someone like Orange Man.

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.