WoodScientist @ WoodScientist @lemmy.world

Posts

5

Comments

834

Joined

11 mo. ago

I would straight up call it "the New Democratic Party" or similar. I wouldn't even necessarily try to make a massive shift towards the progressive direction. Instead, design it so that it would be very easy for existing Democratic politicians to jump ship to the new party. Make it an equally large tent, and just serve as a one-to-one replacement of the existing party. Once the Old Democratic Party is dead and buried, then debates can be had about what direction to move the party politically. Instead, the main change would be structural reforms, reforms that would serve to allow the party to move in new ideological directions in the future.

I would make the New Democratic Party like the old one, except with a few key structural reforms that will prevent the dysfunction of the Old Democratic Party. Some possible reforms I can think of:

1. No politician may run under the New Democratic Party banner while accepting corporate campaign dollars.
2. Every nominee must have a full and competitive primary every single cycle, regardless of incumbency.
3. Any party leader that holds a leadership role during a losing election will be ineligible to serve in party leadership for the next ten years. (True electoral accountability among leadership.)
4. No system of committee appointments or positions within the party may be assigned based on seniority. Every position from top to bottom must be competitive. This is the DEMOCRATIC party. We don't do inherited royalty here.
5. Various reforms to greatly diminish the power of political consultants.
6. A vice president is ineligible to be the party's presidential nominee for at least 8 years after the end of their VP term. (Kill off the "it's their turn" idea once and for all.)

In other words, in software terms, this would be a hard fork of the Democratic Party. It wouldn't be an entirely new party that has to build a completely new base and tradition from scratch. It would simply be a new version of the existing party built with a few crucial reforms that will prevent the kind of sicknesses that currently plague the existing Old Democratic Party. The actual formal legal structure of the party would be entirely new, but it would be designed so that any existing Democratic politician could easily jump ship to the new version as long as they're willing to agree with these few crucial structural reforms. It would essentially be stealing the party right out from under the existing DNC.

You're only Jill Stein if you don't actually try to form a real political party. Such a new party would actually attempt to be a real party, gunning for seats up and down the ballot in every election. The Greens just grift at the top of the ticket every four years.

Seriously. She's just a smarter oligarch than Trump. She's smart enough to realize that keeping a flawed and corrupt democracy is better than no democracy at all. She realizes there's no real point in having wealth if you and yours have to live in some totalitarian shithole. And also, wealth tends to be very vulnerable to arbitrary confiscation in authoritarian regimes. Trump is an oligarch, but he's just stupid and prideful enough to think that he and his will always remain at the peak of the pyramid, and that autocracy will work in his favor.

Tricare has around 2 million children on it. Around 1% of the population is trans, so that's 20k trans kids receiving healthcare under Tricare. Considering the untreated trans suicide rate is around 40%, if even a quarter of that succeed...

Well, I'm sure those 2,000 child corpses will be worth it in the end. What's a few thousand dead kids in the grand scheme of thing, eh?

These people are child murderers. They better hope there is no Hell, because if there is, they each assuredly secured their place there.

Realistically we wouldn't just do this overnight. You would take a couple of years to work all the details out. Peaceful dissolution of nations has happened many times before. You don't just shut down the old empire like turning off a light switch. But there would be existing institutions to build off of. The existing state national guards could be expanded to serve as full military units.

As far as doing this Constitutionally, the process is a bit dubious. But really, it doesn't matter. If you're at the point of the population being willing to voluntarily dissolve the country, you simply ignore the old constitution entirely. If a president and Congress were elected with a mandate of dissolving the US entirely, they could simply do it and there wouldn't be anyone to stop them. Hell, you could probably do this just by electing a president on a platform of dissolving the country. Yes, it really wouldn't be constitutionally valid, but in these kind of situations, that's not really relevant anymore.

Not really. Sure, they're better - as long as things in your life go perfectly well. But you have to have a net worth of $10 million+ before you're immune to bankruptcy in the US healthcare system.

Also, you are drunk and don't know what site you're on.

I do get a great amount of silly joy by referring to Charles simply as, "The King of Canada."

Scene: Canadian armies are moving down into Oregon and Washington

Everyone in OR and WA: "no, please, don't conquer us, anything but that! Oh hey, what do you know, we all seemed to have forgotten where we put all our guns. Guess we're defenseless. Oh well."

How about just Oregon and Washington? I promise, we're cool. Can we just join Canada? I'm willing to learn to like hockey if that will make a difference.

Nah, I say we don't conquer Canada so much as just become a Canadian unincorporated territory without the consent of the Canadian parliament.

We could come together and issue a grand historic Declaration of Dependence.

I mean, is it too late for us to rethink that whole independence thing? Well, considering the state of UK politics, I don't know if we want to join up with them. They're just as bad as we are.

How about Ireland? Can we just surrender to Ireland and let them annex us? I imagine, considering their history, that they would be pretty benevolent as far as colonial masters go.

We could even issue a Declaration of Dependence

"We are now your problem."

Canada needs the Bomb.

Honestly, at this point, Canada should seriously consider a domestic nuclear deterrent. And I say that as an American. I apologize for our dysfunction.

I really don't see Trump actually trying anything, but a few more administrations of political decay? It could very well happen.

I say Donald Trump repeating William Henry Harrison's arc in its entirety is "a great idea."

It's not theft, you're just borrowing it! You're just waiting for them to ask for it back!

"What love object bought you?"

FTFY.

We do the same thing, except everything that IS on Netflix, and everywhere else...

Pay a local on-foot letter carrier, cycle aficionado, or hiking enthusiast to carry it around with them.

Fuck these guys. Luigi did nothing wrong.

Well, they can be responsible for their own sins. It's called personal responsibility. Give all 50 states independence. If some states choose to become the next Belarus, that's on them. That's what independence means - responsibility for your own salvation or damnation.