I appreciate the pragmatism, and for what it's worth, I agree with your logic but voters aren’t pragmatists. They engage emotionally, which is why reactionary movements thrive.
Republicans offered an identity rooted in tribalism, fueled by fear, anger, and even hatred. Yet even a hateful tribe is still a tribe. In an era of loneliness and division, the group that accepts you flaws and all holds a powerful advantage. The side effect? Politics becomes emotional, not intellectual.
And let’s be honest: It’s hard to blame voters for disengaging. First-past-the-post, 'lesser of two evils' voting is demotivational at its core.
When every election feels like damage control, idealism withers.
I mean yeah, Dems have complacent leadership but they are definitely the much better of two bad options.
My point is even if you had ideal leadership, inevitably discontent of uncontrollable externalities would cause a tick-tock cycle between the two parties as reactionaries are just part of the human condition and the party willing to play dirty will always come out on top in a two party system.
well that's kind of the point isn't it? every time the Republicans get in they do so much damage that it can't possibly be done in the inevitable swing back to the left that they create and then by the time they get back in because of all the reactionaries they just do more damage
kind of the end result of a two-party system if you think about it
i think the number itself is fairly arbitrary. what we need to evaluate the cost of living and aggressively taxed above the point at which only exorbitantly lavish wants come into consideration.
i think this would be wildly different depending on externalities and extremely difficult to ensure fairness, while avoiding excessive means testing which can cause a lot of overhead.
it'd be interesting to hear other's ideas. that being said it's a lot easier to say fuck the rich than to determine an enforceable definition of excessive.
I swear my wife waits till she gets headaches and needs to eat, I always offer to cook but for some reason the migraines are the real decider of when we eat
I think they mean the $100 million to billionaire class. Or at least I've always taken it to mean that, no one in any fabricated middle class will be harmed.
most people in the US treat politics like sports and are just convinced it's beneficial because it's their guy. i truely hate to be reductive but that's at least half of it.
I appreciate the pragmatism, and for what it's worth, I agree with your logic but voters aren’t pragmatists. They engage emotionally, which is why reactionary movements thrive.
Republicans offered an identity rooted in tribalism, fueled by fear, anger, and even hatred. Yet even a hateful tribe is still a tribe. In an era of loneliness and division, the group that accepts you flaws and all holds a powerful advantage. The side effect? Politics becomes emotional, not intellectual.
And let’s be honest: It’s hard to blame voters for disengaging. First-past-the-post, 'lesser of two evils' voting is demotivational at its core.
When every election feels like damage control, idealism withers.