I feel like there’s a real focus on the forest instead of the trees.
What exactly does this tell us?
Republicans in congress relied on obviously uncredible evidence in their pursuit to prove a crime that they wanted to prosecute regardless of whether it happened. A professional international shill shilled professionally, internationally.
Russia and other countries tell people to say and do things to spread propaganda and misinformation to influence politics in the US.
Sadly, none of this, we must acknowledge is new information. And honestly, it’s so terribly pervasive. The bad guys do this stuff, but most of the “good guys” kinda do too, just usually with a bit more restraint. So what do we do with this?
I think the main issue, the reason we should be pissed off when we learn that a guy lied to law enforcement to try and convince the media and the public that a political rival is a double-crossing criminal, is that we don’t want our system of government constantly being manipulated by unscrupulous manipulative assholes.
And so we should turn our attention to REAL democratic reforms. Ranked choice voting. Ending the electoral college. Curtailing political gerrymandering. Converting our two-party duopololy system into an actual multi-party system.
There’s no real use in being mad in the folks who do all this stuff. We need to just stop expecting otherwise and make systems that don’t reward this kind of outlandish bullshit.
And so we should turn our attention to REAL democratic reforms. Ranked choice voting. Ending the electoral college. Curtailing political gerrymandering. Converting our two-party duopololy system into an actual multi-party system.
Not to sound nihilistic or defeatist, but the odds of any of that federally passing within our lifetime has the same odds of Congress deleting the Second Amendment.
Maybe state governments can be swayed to add these amazing ideas, but good luck telling rural MAGA retards that is all actually in their best interest to add these concepts into local government.
I think you pointed the way forward and didn’t realize how significant it is: states and cities.
What states and cities do has the power to change a lot about how we send to make federal laws. It’s not a pipe dream to imagine that an embrace of these ideas at a state level could happen and then bring that change to the national level. I already live in a city with ranked choice voting, in a state where access to vote is pretty solid. I’m going to keep pushing for more.
I’m not so sure the second amendment is going to survive the Millennials and Gen Z. If enough people get on board to replace it or repeal it then that’s it. It’s gone. And the last time I looked, common sense gun regulations like registry and universal background check have 80% approval rates. Go long enough without any compromise with those kinds of numbers and the rubber band effect comes into play.
You only need 38 states. So the super deep red states aren’t enough to stop it. Once the moderates are against it, it will be over. And we’ve been running active shooter drills in schools like that’s not going prejudice those kids against guns…
I’m a progressive liberal, and a minority who’s immigrant parents barely escaped from a fascist religious country with a helpless and disarmed population unable to fight back against the status-quo running the government.
I also have many gay and trans friends who live in opressive bleak conditions every single day and cannot trust law enforcement to fairly help them.
NO matter what happens, I will always vote in favor of less gun control, because hoping the fucking cops/military won’t be full of racist/bigoted/MAGA-Trumper/fascist/religious nutjobs not intent on fucking you over is a really really stupid thing.
You are responsible for your own families well being. If you feel safe thinking you live in a fucking fairy tale utopia and most western societies are not at one catastrophic event from collapsing, you are delusional.
And how many kids is your security blanket worth? Because I’m sorry but if someone wants you dead, a gun is not going to stop it. It can help if you’re being robbed, or something sure. But if they came for you? Statistics say they’re likely to be killing you with your own gun.
Especially in the world of bad cops and hate groups. Unless you’re living in a patrol base with the rest of your militia you aren’t going to stop a group of bigots or cops from killing you. That’s some Hollywood bullshit.
And thinking an armed populace is any kind of threat to a modern military? That’s ridiculous. This isn’t 1792, and the whiskey rebellion didn’t work then either.
Your route to safety is putting the work in to fight politically.
Appealing to the safety of children is what Republicans do to trick voters to join them. You are attempting to do the same here and have a inauthentic argument; unless you have a plan to guarantee to get rid of all weapons, people are going to kill other people including kids. I don’t know if you are aware of this, but criminals and insane people don’t follow the laws and will still stay armed.
And thinking an armed populace is any kind of threat to a modern military? That’s ridiculous.
I don’t know if you are purposely omitting GOPs primary benefactor Russia because you are obtuse or because you are purposely trying subvert the discussion in a malicious way to attempt at an argument; and if you think Russia won’t do everything in its power to support the Christofacist/MAGA/GOP/Nazi/KKK population with their US Civil War 2, then you are indeed fucking dumb.
Guns are the biggest killer of children and young adults.
This seems so far the most intelligent point you have made so far where I agree with you, but unlikely a concept you have independently considered and likely were told to think this way by someone smarter than you.
Non-sequiturs against you aside, you cannot realistically think you can disarm the entire population of the United States without Trump-level door-to-door military style invasive home inspections? Criminals and crazies will still shoot up innocent people, and if Uvalde, TX hasn’t convinced you cops are unreliable for your personal safety, continue living in your fantasy.
The CDC’s WISQARS is free for everyone to use. And I Omitted Russia because funding alone isn’t enough. You have to be able to get out of the borders. Somewhere you can’t be touched. Counter insurgency against an enemy that is merely funded is a solved issue.
If two thirds of the country votes to get rid of the second amendment there will not be popular support for an insurgency either. This isn’t some NRA wet dream where the Democrats suddenly turn into totalitarians.
So in your scenario (which I admit is likely) Russia and China heavily fund militia groups. But neither Mexico or Canada wants any part in it so they don’t have anywhere to go to avoid catching drone fired missiles in the middle of the night. And the majority of the country cheers the morning news because they don’t see the militias as American after they attacked the duly elected government.
Contrary to what you think, guns, politics, and insurgencies are all things I have experience and studies in. Another thing we’ve seen in the 21st century? As long as the Army stays out of the conflict, revolution by the masses walking in the street is far more effective than armed insurrection. And it would take a long time to bring the American military around to the point it could shoot at protesting crowds again.
Except none of what you suggest will ever happen. Ever. Republicans obstruct even the actual work of governing that desperately needs doing and that would, oddly enough, help their cause in the democratic realm (i.e. showing their constituents they can get things done). Why would they do anything that would basically destroy their party with two strokes of a pen? Same goes for the Democrats, for what it’s worth, but getting rid of first-past-the-post and subjecting the US to proportional representation and coalition governments is even more of a pipe dream.
Respectfully, I think you’re making a common error in reasoning in that you’re mistaking the reality you live in locally – in both time and space – as defining the boundaries of what is possible in other places and in the future. I find that things people say “can never happen” already have or are happening in other places in the country.
The world is full of things, and all of them were at some point new and without historical precedent.
“Possible” and “likely” are quite different concepts. I am in New England. If this would be likely anywhere, it would be here. But that doesn’t matter, because there are plenty of other regions who will fight to the death against such changes. Please, do describe a path forward. I do not see one in my lifetime. We are talking about the national stage, not a homeowner’s association somewhere.
Wouldn’t you know, there are still hard feelings in parts of the US about what happened, and the fight is still fought. And Jim Crow and segregation weren’t protectors of large amounts of wealth and power, just social structures and power in urban enclaves. You’re going to face a hell of a lot more resistance with what you propose. This would be more akin to the end of slavery than the end of Jim Crow, and that took a civil war.
On the surface, Ranked Choice looks like it would be a good idea, but when you break it down, it has some fundamental problems that are just as bad for democracy as First Past the Post.
This video is a great watch on the subject, it goes through all the problems in great detail, but the TLRW is thus, Ranked Choice is a flawed system, fatally so.
If you want to steal an election but make it look legit, Ranked Choice is your number one voting system. If you want viable third parties, Ranked Choice is not the voting system for you. It actually punishes viable third parties harder than FPtP.
I feel like there’s a real focus on the forest instead of the trees.
What exactly does this tell us?
Republicans in congress relied on obviously uncredible evidence in their pursuit to prove a crime that they wanted to prosecute regardless of whether it happened. A professional international shill shilled professionally, internationally.
Russia and other countries tell people to say and do things to spread propaganda and misinformation to influence politics in the US.
Sadly, none of this, we must acknowledge is new information. And honestly, it’s so terribly pervasive. The bad guys do this stuff, but most of the “good guys” kinda do too, just usually with a bit more restraint. So what do we do with this?
I think the main issue, the reason we should be pissed off when we learn that a guy lied to law enforcement to try and convince the media and the public that a political rival is a double-crossing criminal, is that we don’t want our system of government constantly being manipulated by unscrupulous manipulative assholes.
And so we should turn our attention to REAL democratic reforms. Ranked choice voting. Ending the electoral college. Curtailing political gerrymandering. Converting our two-party duopololy system into an actual multi-party system.
There’s no real use in being mad in the folks who do all this stuff. We need to just stop expecting otherwise and make systems that don’t reward this kind of outlandish bullshit.
Not to sound nihilistic or defeatist, but the odds of any of that federally passing within our lifetime has the same odds of Congress deleting the Second Amendment.
Maybe state governments can be swayed to add these amazing ideas, but good luck telling rural MAGA retards that is all actually in their best interest to add these concepts into local government.
I think you pointed the way forward and didn’t realize how significant it is: states and cities.
What states and cities do has the power to change a lot about how we send to make federal laws. It’s not a pipe dream to imagine that an embrace of these ideas at a state level could happen and then bring that change to the national level. I already live in a city with ranked choice voting, in a state where access to vote is pretty solid. I’m going to keep pushing for more.
I’m not so sure the second amendment is going to survive the Millennials and Gen Z. If enough people get on board to replace it or repeal it then that’s it. It’s gone. And the last time I looked, common sense gun regulations like registry and universal background check have 80% approval rates. Go long enough without any compromise with those kinds of numbers and the rubber band effect comes into play.
You only need 38 states. So the super deep red states aren’t enough to stop it. Once the moderates are against it, it will be over. And we’ve been running active shooter drills in schools like that’s not going prejudice those kids against guns…
I’m a progressive liberal, and a minority who’s immigrant parents barely escaped from a fascist religious country with a helpless and disarmed population unable to fight back against the status-quo running the government.
I also have many gay and trans friends who live in opressive bleak conditions every single day and cannot trust law enforcement to fairly help them.
NO matter what happens, I will always vote in favor of less gun control, because hoping the fucking cops/military won’t be full of racist/bigoted/MAGA-Trumper/fascist/religious nutjobs not intent on fucking you over is a really really stupid thing.
You are responsible for your own families well being. If you feel safe thinking you live in a fucking fairy tale utopia and most western societies are not at one catastrophic event from collapsing, you are delusional.
And how many kids is your security blanket worth? Because I’m sorry but if someone wants you dead, a gun is not going to stop it. It can help if you’re being robbed, or something sure. But if they came for you? Statistics say they’re likely to be killing you with your own gun.
Especially in the world of bad cops and hate groups. Unless you’re living in a patrol base with the rest of your militia you aren’t going to stop a group of bigots or cops from killing you. That’s some Hollywood bullshit.
And thinking an armed populace is any kind of threat to a modern military? That’s ridiculous. This isn’t 1792, and the whiskey rebellion didn’t work then either.
Your route to safety is putting the work in to fight politically.
Appealing to the safety of children is what Republicans do to trick voters to join them. You are attempting to do the same here and have a inauthentic argument; unless you have a plan to guarantee to get rid of all weapons, people are going to kill other people including kids. I don’t know if you are aware of this, but criminals and insane people don’t follow the laws and will still stay armed.
Vietnam. Afghanistan. We can keep going…
Vietnam and Afghanistan both had large external forces funding, sheltering, and equipping people. So are you relying on Canada or Mexico?
And just because the GOP operates in bad faith does not mean it’s always a bad argument. Guns are the biggest killer of children and young adults.
I don’t know if you are purposely omitting GOPs primary benefactor Russia because you are obtuse or because you are purposely trying subvert the discussion in a malicious way to attempt at an argument; and if you think Russia won’t do everything in its power to support the Christofacist/MAGA/GOP/Nazi/KKK population with their US Civil War 2, then you are indeed fucking dumb.
This seems so far the most intelligent point you have made so far where I agree with you, but unlikely a concept you have independently considered and likely were told to think this way by someone smarter than you.
Non-sequiturs against you aside, you cannot realistically think you can disarm the entire population of the United States without Trump-level door-to-door military style invasive home inspections? Criminals and crazies will still shoot up innocent people, and if Uvalde, TX hasn’t convinced you cops are unreliable for your personal safety, continue living in your fantasy.
The CDC’s WISQARS is free for everyone to use. And I Omitted Russia because funding alone isn’t enough. You have to be able to get out of the borders. Somewhere you can’t be touched. Counter insurgency against an enemy that is merely funded is a solved issue.
If two thirds of the country votes to get rid of the second amendment there will not be popular support for an insurgency either. This isn’t some NRA wet dream where the Democrats suddenly turn into totalitarians.
So in your scenario (which I admit is likely) Russia and China heavily fund militia groups. But neither Mexico or Canada wants any part in it so they don’t have anywhere to go to avoid catching drone fired missiles in the middle of the night. And the majority of the country cheers the morning news because they don’t see the militias as American after they attacked the duly elected government.
Contrary to what you think, guns, politics, and insurgencies are all things I have experience and studies in. Another thing we’ve seen in the 21st century? As long as the Army stays out of the conflict, revolution by the masses walking in the street is far more effective than armed insurrection. And it would take a long time to bring the American military around to the point it could shoot at protesting crowds again.
Except none of what you suggest will ever happen. Ever. Republicans obstruct even the actual work of governing that desperately needs doing and that would, oddly enough, help their cause in the democratic realm (i.e. showing their constituents they can get things done). Why would they do anything that would basically destroy their party with two strokes of a pen? Same goes for the Democrats, for what it’s worth, but getting rid of first-past-the-post and subjecting the US to proportional representation and coalition governments is even more of a pipe dream.
What state do you live in?
Respectfully, I think you’re making a common error in reasoning in that you’re mistaking the reality you live in locally – in both time and space – as defining the boundaries of what is possible in other places and in the future. I find that things people say “can never happen” already have or are happening in other places in the country.
The world is full of things, and all of them were at some point new and without historical precedent.
“Possible” and “likely” are quite different concepts. I am in New England. If this would be likely anywhere, it would be here. But that doesn’t matter, because there are plenty of other regions who will fight to the death against such changes. Please, do describe a path forward. I do not see one in my lifetime. We are talking about the national stage, not a homeowner’s association somewhere.
100 years ago we could’ve had this exact conversation about Segregation and Jim Crow.
Wouldn’t you know, there are still hard feelings in parts of the US about what happened, and the fight is still fought. And Jim Crow and segregation weren’t protectors of large amounts of wealth and power, just social structures and power in urban enclaves. You’re going to face a hell of a lot more resistance with what you propose. This would be more akin to the end of slavery than the end of Jim Crow, and that took a civil war.
Well then use that as your reference.
Either way, I’m not giving up.
All good points except the Ranked Choice.
It’s somewhat of a poison pill.
On the surface, Ranked Choice looks like it would be a good idea, but when you break it down, it has some fundamental problems that are just as bad for democracy as First Past the Post.
This video is a great watch on the subject, it goes through all the problems in great detail, but the TLRW is thus, Ranked Choice is a flawed system, fatally so.
If you want to steal an election but make it look legit, Ranked Choice is your number one voting system. If you want viable third parties, Ranked Choice is not the voting system for you. It actually punishes viable third parties harder than FPtP.
A far better system in every way is STAR.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
video is a great watch on the subject
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I’ll take a look, thanks!
It is a great video on the matter. The people at https://www.equal.vote/ know their stuff!