Comment by paulryanrogers

Comment by paulryanrogers 8 days ago

I'm making no demands. Only pointing out an absurd false equivalence.

Change to the polarizing system would be great. I doubt that will happen by softening protests to obscene injustice. Rather it's likely to reenforce the shifting Overton window further into authoritarianism and kleptocracy.

To break the two party system we need things a large portion of the populous has been (falsely) taught are bad for them: same day primaries, ranked choice voting, making campaign bribery illegal, unwinding corporate personhood, etc. Can you guess which side is most attached to the system of political machines and the lies that reinforce them?

yieldcrv 8 days ago

[flagged]

Reply View 4 replies

paulryanrogers 8 days ago

> if any party can do something you are afraid of, focus on the enabling factors that allows them to do that
Perhaps you can enlighten me what these enabling factors are? Because I thought vigorous debate, a free press, and a balance of power between branches of government were the controls; not what enables problematic politics.
Yet it would appear criticism is increasingly cause for expulsion, journalism seen as a justification for lawfare, and that 2.5 of the 3 branches have been captured by an irrational fear and a cult-like trust in a second rate celebrity.
> we can bridge consensus on what everyone is afraid the other party might leverage
Can we? Within my circle those leaning right are too wedded to their tribe affiliation to see the hypocrisy and inconsistencies in their conclusions. If they are unwilling to agree on a consistent set of rules for all then there won't be consensus.

Reply View | 3 replies
- yieldcrv 8 days ago
  
  > Perhaps you can enlighten me what these enabling factors are?
  Sure, yeah
  So both parties accept campaign donations and quid pro quo for the support of Political Action Committees that support them.
  Both parties are beneficiaries of a toothless Federal Election Committee enabling non-compliance with the stated regulations, with any remaining accountability existing upon shaky legal ground, completely nullified when in front of a court like with Citizens United. there might be enough consensus for a constitutional amendment though.
  Both parties trade securities with material non public information that they can influence, representatives and constituents of any affiliation are not pleased with this. But it is a prisoner's dilemma in the legislative process, there might be enough consensus for a constitutional amendment though.
  Presidents of both parties have leveraged the pardon power preemptively and at their discretion, unsettling constituents and representatives on all sides. Revealing a discomfort that is enabled by an archaic aspect of the constitution. Go for it, prioritize a campaign to amend that.
  You see the common theme here is that you have to prioritize these causes, over simply being a powerless opposition party going to marches for things that will never gain consensus or that the current power in power will never be held accountable for.
  The 17th amendment for directly electing our senators was done in a vacuum. And this likely broke many pillars of our constitution by not also addressing what the senators do, and how that chamber interfaces with the rest of the country. Being appointed likely wasn't better, just more cohesive with the rest of this constitution. Right now we see the folly and redundancy of the Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation process to federal agencies and other position. Should probably amend that too.
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  paulryanrogers 8 days ago
  
  All good ideas. Let's do them too. Instead of dismissing the differences between the choices we have today as inconsequential.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  yieldcrv 8 days ago
  
  I wasn't dismissing them, you chose to read that
  given that I’m surrounded by partisans and you are more familiar with being one, how would you reword my point
  the commonality I see is that the partisan wants to only talk about things that potentially add power to their party and are offended by talk that doesn’t suggest an interest in doing that
  to me that seems like its not working and is unproductive, but to you, how would you cut through that filter towards doing something that is productive and would affect both parties
  
  Reply View | 0 replies