Red Mosquito

BurtReynolds wrote:I can't think of anything more dated and unrealistic than the idea of bipartisan federal government, and IMO both parties have made that impossible. I have zero interest in working with people who think me or my family are nazis for offering up even the meekest resistance to their divine "progress". They can fuck right off to the ends of the (flat) earth. And they were doing that long before Trump was a thing. They once arrogantly thought they could get away with it (tree's "normal" times), but they were sorely mistaken, and now we're all paying for it.

I do think concerning one's self with regional politics is great, and I want more autonomy for regions, and am utterly opposed to more centralization (which I'm sure is part of the reason why I couldn't possibly care less about the Capitol Building or idiots wandering around in it for a few minutes). Bipartisanship is alive and well in this context.

What can be, unburtened by what has been

Inflation is going to kill us all anyway.

Wait, so Tree is a child for wanting someone competent in office? You're not even trying anymore, Burt. Perhaps you should stick to your grown-up existence of scrolling Twitter for maymays.

tragabigzanda wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:They can fuck right off to the ends of the (flat) earth. And they were doing that long before Trump was a thing. They once arrogantly thought they could get away with it (tree's "normal" times), but they were sorely mistaken, and now we're all paying for it.

Doesn't the rise of American populism -- which will likely persevere long after Trump dies -- your desired results to the "normal" times?

I'm confused. Did you leave out a word here or something?

thanks

tragabigzanda wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:I can't think of anything more dated and unrealistic than the idea of bipartisan federal government, and IMO both parties have made that impossible.

The competitive presence of a third party would rely on 1) fair elections, 2) campaign finance reform, and 3) probably some new rules around televised debates. In my view, the Dems are most likely to protect #1; have historically (though not lately) been proponents of #2; and then #3 probably doesn't stand a chance in hell, but maybe with enough splintering of far-left/far-right voters into a new party, maybe the networks would get their heads out of their asses (or more likely a streamer would see the niche opportunity).

I don't think a third party is very viable. It seems that taking over one of the parties (like MAGA did) would be more likely.

Dems might try to reform elections, but are also more likely to crackdown on speech, increase government control over social media, and gatekeep the Overton Window from any potential 3rd party, using their media. I'm not making that trade. Worst. Trade deal. Ever.

tragabigzanda wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:They can fuck right off to the ends of the (flat) earth. And they were doing that long before Trump was a thing. They once arrogantly thought they could get away with it (tree's "normal" times), but they were sorely mistaken, and now we're all paying for it.

Doesn't the rise of American populism -- which will likely persevere long after Trump dies -- constitute your desired results to the "normal" times?

I'm not sure what you mean.

I don't know what populism means anymore. Is that just the opposite of elitism? Is it just pandering? Is it what happens when a politician is too successful at playing the democracy game? I'm not sure what people mean by that, or why I should be against it. Should I root for a DNC that has done everything it can to prevent its constituency from choosing it's candidates? A Republican establishment that started wars no one was asking for?

I mean, I'm something of an elitist myself, but can't we have a better aristocracy than this?

--------------------

I can't think of a better symbol for the dying "normal" regime than Joe Biden. What a perfect avatar for a crumbling order. A desiccated corpse ruling a dying culture, propped up by an vast, unaccountable bureaucracy pushing its own toxic, HR safetyism on the world. (wait am I describing the current world or Warhammer 40k again?)

And somehow they found a candidate that is basically a younger version of him as a replacement?




no thank you!


The only way out is through.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/kamal ... 0-6527457/

Can children vote now?

i hope puerto rican children can

In an alternate timeline, after a two term Hillary presidency, Jeb Bush is running vs. ... Kamala Harris.

Time really is a flat circle.

96583UP wrote:i hope puerto rican children can

tragabigzanda wrote: I agree with every word of this, but the “through” looks very different under a Harris presidency vs a Trump presidency. And as a parent, I’m much more interested in the preservation of certain norms in hopes that I can help my kid navigate a path through a decaying society that leaves her unscathed.

Maybe if I wasn’t a parent I’d be less inclined to perpetuate a broken system?

Trag is edging enlightenment.

Burt, what exactly is broken about a system in which you are able to live a life as freely and successfully as you do? Is there a better country in the world? And how would Trump improve it better than Kamala?

Thanks Joe

What did he say?