Political Discussion

LeSamourai said:
Business idea for the post-truth age: a monthly sub that will send you special-edition variants on conspiracy theories each month, "sourced from the original Twitter rant" and with a special cocktail recipe and art print.
Click to expand...
$47 per month for the Essential conspiracy theories, $33 per month for the old Classic theories (e.g., who faked the moon landing), and $33 per month to find out who killed Biggie and 2Pac.
 
Tys1 said:
I think it’s the new service option: UPS ground with no evidence

Meanwhile, USPS has a new cheaper service option below that of media mail. It’s called Nevada Post
Click to expand...
tenor.gif
 
EvanBenner said:
I honestly liked what I saw in the GA senate elections. 5+ candidates from each party plus third party candidates—now with both races likely in runoffs. For any real change to the two-party rule and strict ass platforms that alienate people on both sides, I think it would be beneficial to run bipartisan primaries with multiple candidates who can each mold their platforms and allow people to align behind someone for their character, record and more nuanced stances, then run off the top few performers.

At the very least, it can help (or force) the main parties to better adjust platforms to better fit what constituents really want to see and adapt as time changes. Right now it's all minor posturing adjustments focused on squeaking past the opposition instead of rallying meaningfully behind real causes. I honestly believe much of what the AOC and Bernie camps bring to the table policywise could have wider bipartisan reach if given the breathing room they need.
Click to expand...
And of course, I now learn the runoff system has some pretty gross history involved. Why Georgia has runoff elections
 
Indymisanthrope said:
That's a good point. My response oversimplified as much as what I was responding to. There are certainly multiple dynamics at play depending on whether you're looking at party leadership, or one of a variety of constituencies that they have built into a coalition, or are following the money.

There are absolutely those for whom maintaining the status quo is about concentration of wealth and power, and misguided beliefs in the limitations of what is possible in America. But it's also total fallacy to look at some of the core Dem voter groups who have not yet gotten on board with progressive campaigns, and conclude that it's because they just don't like change.

Only the American right wing is to blame for how toxic the American right wing has become. They've flooded their own zone with homophobia, nationalism, misogyny, racism, Islamophobia, paranoia, anti-intellectualism, austerity measures, anti-masking FFS...

I want a calmer, more unified nation too, but I'm under no obligation to hold a safe space for that shit.
Click to expand...
Aye, fair do's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top