Already the most disliked man in America, Zuckerberg will show with his next era whether he believes in anything as much as he does power. Was his interest in jiu-jitsu mixed martial arts authentic or a way to ingratiate himself with the manosphereās podcast hosts? We may know by the time he faces his first inquest. Perhaps heāll return to the liberal roots of his former public image like founding a pro-immigration nonprofit, as he did a decade ago.
shrivel up and go away ?
Too bad scaphism is unlikely.
My sincerest hope is that they suffer. Horrendously
Theyāll follow the money. Cozy up to Democrats, change their public image, and keep influencing policy behind the scenes. Different party, same game.
Not wrong if Schumer and Hakeem keep their leadership rolls then all our efforts Tuesday will be for nothing.
Exactly. The stupidity of the Republicans only serves to highlight how savage the unbridled capitalist system in the U.S.A has always been. Deep down, the Democrats support the same thing, but (being savvier) they know how to disguise it.
The goal of the blues is the same as that of the reds (to increase social inequality), though the latter are clearly more crude than the former. They only differ on cultural issues, in order to give the public the impression that they are vastly different.
Politics in America is theater, a WWE game, which is why the two-party system is referred to as the Uniparty.
I wish to quote here the inestimable Lt. Worf.
Die.
Shrivel and die, hopefuly
they already have a network set up in the dnc. we need to root out the batards in the dnc first before we talk about mission complete
Iām assuming theyāll start up with internal DEI book clubs? Maybe slap some rainbows on some things?
Fuck the tech bros and their eagerness to fuck all the people for fun and profit. I am buying a paper notebook and a pencil and some stamps. Thatās my internet motherfuckers. I donāt even have to subscribe to anything and pay a monthly fee. ISPās, we see you and we are starting to look in your direction.
They will throw money at democrats. Itās imperative for us to keep tabs on which ones accept their money. And AIPACās money.
Iām not down for murdering folks without due process. That being said, if one dispassionately measures the good done vs the harm caused, throwing every billionaire into the sea ā even the āgood onesā ā the math suggests more good would be done then harm. Sometimes itās difficult to reconcile the morality of not murdering them.
We need a shitload of Luigis to take the moral hit, leaving the rest of us to be innocently outraged. I, for one, would be the first to write a sternly worded online comment.
āIf some good ones die, fuck it, the lord will sort em.ā
-RTJ (RIP for being sell outs)
I encourage you to read up on The Terror.
All of those tens of thousands of guillotine victims werenāt wealthy. Not even close. They were you and me. Only a tiny few were wealthy.
Recommend āParis in the Terrorā by Loomis.
Ohno, so we get a handful of billionaires and a boatload of Jan6ers, Christian Nationalist and White Supremacistsā¦ failing to see a downside.
Over 80% were commoners. People love to romanticise revolutions, but the reality has always been trading one wealthy ruling class for the next save perhaps Haiti.
Like members of ICE etal?
Same thing they do every day, Pinky, try to take over the world!
We need to release Luigi and give him an army.
Theyāll cozy up to the Dems. Itās not rocket science. All the corporations pay both parties to further their interests, due to the most idiotic ruling in history: citizens united, which effectively decided that legally in the US, money = speech.
Well make sure to remind everyone who Elon really is if he tries to pull that.
Weāll see what Vivian has to say about thatā¦
Itās known as a plutocracy ā¦ a political system based on money and wealth
As compared to a democracy ā¦ a political system based on the will of the people.
America has always worked like the first and itās debated as to whether or not it ever was the second.
Just in case anyone is curious as to what you mean, hereās a brief historical context.
Up until Trump and adjusting for inflation, George Washington was the wealthiest president in history with his net worth contributing an actual percentage of the US wealth at the time. I mean, we were still getting national loans to the tune of a few million dollars per deal and that was considered adequate at the time.
Jefferson used the White House as his personal palace while he was President and spent as much time throwing dinner parties and receiving guests in his dressing gown as being President and trying to undo everything Hamilton left behind out of pure spite.
It wasnāt until damn near Lincoln (1828) that your average man was able to vote, as only those who owned land were considered educated enough to have a say in government, and when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation we had the āwho can voteā conversation all over again, and then once more and with feeling for the women after that.
Iām in Canada and I have this debate often with my friends. One prime example is our federal governments Westminster system of government ā¦ where we have a house of parliament filled with elected officials from across the country, who can draw up, debate issues and pass laws ā¦ but then those laws are sent to a senate that provides āa sober second thoughtā to everything ā¦ the senate is filled with unelected officials that are placed there by appointment.
Historically, the senate was just filled with friends and associates by the ruling government at the time ā¦ basically it meant that every democratic law in the country was first given over to unelected elites and business friendly people to water down anything that went through government ā¦ in recent decades, theyāve modernized the system and now it is still appointed people but appointed through a system disassociated with individual political parties or political leaders - apparently senators are appointed by committee
But its still filled with heavily influential people with money and monied interests ā¦ they keep arguing that any canadian citizen can be appointed but it never happens because you have to be a fairly wealthy individual, have influence and know lots of people before you could ever be considered for appointment ā¦ one of the prerequisites they point out is that individuals considered for appointment must own a minimum wealth of $4,000 (or something like that, I forget the actual figure but it was only a few thousand dollars), which most will argue is not a barrier to many in this day in age. What they donāt point out is that $4,000 in 1867 when the country was founded was equivalent to saying someone should own roughly almost a million dollars in wealth. It was always geared and built into the system to have wealthy overseers watch over the country and protect the wealth of the most powerful people.
Which makes you question, like I do with America, whether we ever did have a democratic system here in Canada
Thatās interesting, I didnāt know that about the Canadian Senate.
Honestly though, and this is something Iāve been thinking about a lot lately, the bicameral legislative system in general is a vestige of old social stratification from a bygone age.
The lower chamber (in the US thatās the House of Representatives, but in Canada I suppose itās the House of Parliament) is basically a derivative of the House of Commons from England/UK. I think it was established by the Magna Carta (if I remember correctly) to give commoners (peasants) a say in government.
The upper chamber, being the Senate, in a similar way derives conceptually from the English House of Lords. In other words, from its inception, the Senate as a concept was always intended to be the house representing the nationās aristocracy.
Things have changed over time of course, but there are still echos of its origins in the way it functions as the upper chamber, and also in the way people are selected as Senators versus as Representatives.
Iām not saying we should immediately abolish the bicameral system. There are certainly still good reasons to keep both chambers in place (and honestly we could potentially even eventually expand it to a tricameral or quadracameral system, adding a chamber that represents different career fields, or one that that represents different academic disciplines). But itās just something to be aware of about the history of senates in general.
One thing I think every modern government should employ is a way or means to either change, upgrade or renew a nations constitution or overall governing laws. To change it or update it every 100 hundred years - or every 50 years or after every 10 elections or something. Basically to enshrine into law that the whole system has to be updated to modern standards every few generations to keep up with changing times ā¦ a constitution or set of laws that are allowed to change or evolve over time.
I know that the current system tries to employ change over time ā¦ but all those changes are based on the laws, system and regulations of a bygone era ā¦ systems like āsenatesā in Canada ā¦ or the electoral college in the US
Existing or old laws and regulations were meant to deal with problems or issues from a hundred or even 200 years ago but usually those problems are no longer applicable centuries later ā¦ and those insitutionalized changes are only abused to manipulate the democratic system. Updating and upgrading the system every hundred years would serve to evolve the system over time and prevent forces from abusing existing regulations that no longer function.
I am sure that any new system that would be developed would have its own abuses but at least everyone would have an opportunity to do something about it all rather than just sit still and maintain the status quo, even if it means a degraded democratic system.
No matter the country ā¦ every nation should have a way to update its system to better represent people in its current age. How do we expect to represent the modern American or Canadian governments using regulations from 100 - 200 years ago when everyone lived with horse and buggy and didnāt have world wide mass communication? And in the future, how do we except future generations to deal with their problems 200 years from now using regulations from the 1900s?
Human society and civilization is in constant change and evolution and technology ā¦ we canāt expect our governing systems to stay static over generations while everything changes.
I can see that. Iāve thought a great deal about that two. On the one hand, societies and cultures evolve, so itās important for governments and institutions to evolve with them. I think building that concept into the framework itself would be important.
On the other hand, it comes with a different set of challenges. Of the two most obvious that stand out to me, one is ideological and one is practical.
On ideological grounds, the point of a government charter such as a constitution is to create a stable system based on certain principles that are at least in theory permanent, inherent, or universal. In modern times, often that includes provisions for certain immutable human rights.
If we make constitutions more malleable, then a side effect of that would be that the rule of law also becomes more flexible. How can we guarantee that over time, in a century or two or even longer, those human rights might gradually become more mutable, until they eventually start to disappear altogether?
On practical grounds, it comes down to how the changes themselves would be implemented. Would the constitutions be updated by citizenās referendum, by a constitutional convention of state/provincial governors and/or legislatures, by federal-level legislatures? How could that work? And how could the courts provide oversight to such changes if their key role is to ensure the other branches are following constitutional law?
It seems the opportunity for a constitutional convention is rare, because according to the safeguards that are rightfully built into said constitutions, changes require widespread support. That isnāt guaranteed to occur every few generations, nor even every century. And do we really want to impose some rigid schedule for changes and watch politics degrade into a hectic battle for a supermajority every few dozen years?
Furthermore, what if in a century or two, a new wave of fascism happens to take a supermajority and enough state/provincial governments to hold a constitutional convention? That would be like a reversal of the intention, the dark flipside parallel to the bright promise of a governmental system that can adapt to the changing needs of the times. Thereās no guarantee that it would be a progressive government in power when it comes time to make updates to the fundamental structure and function of government.
So in that respect, I think stability is important, and some parts of government/constitutional law should be immutable.
Maybe a layered charter could provide a good solution. Some parts that are permanent and can never be changed, and some parts that must be updated on a schedule; say at the turn of each new century.
The challenge then remains in deciding, from a present standpoint, what aspects are enduring and universal, and what aspects are relevant to time-and-place.
Great point ā¦ I still think that the governing system should be upgraded and changed over time and given a major overhaul every few generations just to shake off the old ways of doing things.
But I like your point ā¦ āsome parts of government/constitutional law should be immutable.ā
There should be a simple straight forward core of government ā¦ something so simple that it would only be expressed in about a hundred words. Something basically stating the basic rights of āpeopleā (stating it as people rather than āmanā because it would encompass all genders or any other identity that people might have now or in the future)
That core should be agreed upon to never change because it would be the basis of the current generation and future generations of people far into the future.
Everything else surrounding that core would be up for change, upgrading or even removal ā¦ so that every generation could lose all the old methods of doing things and create new ways of governing in order to support and maintain that single core constitutional idea that never changes.
āThe arc of history moves towards progressā
We might take a couple steps backwards for every few steps we take forward, but no one can deny that we have moved forward.
We move forward with the hopes of the younger generation
We are held back by the fears and anxieties of the older generation
The movement is balanced by the lack of wealth and resources of the young, who have the energy and drive compared to the vast material riches of the old, who are shortsighted and can only see their near end.
deleted by creator
Thatās insightful. But doesnāt it also seem to indicate that progress is inevitable?
In broad terms, the younger generation will outlast the older.
So it might be frustrating at times, even painstaking, but overall doesnāt that tip the scales toward reason to be optimistic?
I agree and it probably worked a lot better and faster generations ago when our elderly grew old faster and died off quicker. In our modern age, we have modern medical technology that can keep people alive longer and also healthier for longer parts of their lives ā¦ the problem is that much of that medical technology and knowledge is wrapped up with the only the wealthiest people. So those same dinosaurs Iām talking about get to spend way too much of their elderly lives in positions of power and basically holding everyone back for longer.
One of the biggest things every government around the world, especially in first world democratic developed nations is to institute a more strict retirement age for these positions. How can we expect a leader to lead a nation of new young people looking for hope to be led by a 70 or 80 year old who doesnāt want to think about the next ten years?
Things are likely to get very weird in the not-too-distant future - where people have longer and longer healthspans, and also keep more nimble minds.
The viewpoints of the very old may change a lot due to that. Everyone, but most especially the young, may have to completely recalibrate how they think about age.
Yeah that oneās a tricky thing to discuss. On the one hand, we tend to view death as a bad thing and longevity as a good thing. Anyone whoās ever lost a loved one understands why. Thereās no real argument against that.
But itās precisely because of the unprecedented nature of technological and medical breakthroughs that have extended human lives that we face new challenges that human society has never needed to confront at this scale. And itās difficult to discuss those in earnest without being accused of ecofascism.
Like clearly, forced population decline is evil. But education and access to contraceptives can help stabilize the population on a more voluntary basis. Itās less simplistic to implement, but ethical solutions typically involve more complexity than unethical ones.
Artificially increasing mortality rates would likewise be evil. If the technology exists to extend human lives, then everyone should have equal access to that.
But weāre going to run into very real practical limitations such as: what is the max carrying capacity of the Earth? Can the human population continue to grow without exacerbating extinction-level events for other species that are already happening due to human activity? Can the population level-off before surpassing 11 digits, and can a population of this size exist sustainably while offering universal access to a reasonable minimum basic standard of living? Can we produce enough food and water for this many people without negatively impacting the environment?
I recognize that some of these answers are as technical as they are ethical, and some of them are easier to answer than others. Some merely require systemic-level structural changes, some require collective willingness and participation. Others may still be more open-ended questions that canāt be fully answered until we experiment with a few potential solutions.
But overall, the reality is this: there are no more new frontiers, at least not until space colonization becomes a possibility. We canāt simply expand into uncultivated wilderness. And weāre already seeing some world powers trying to take land by force from their weaker neighbors. Itās not even limited to the most obvious examples (Israel, Russia, US, etc.). Itās happening in Sudan, in West Papua, in Myanmar, across Himalaya.
And things are only going to get worse as climate change accelerates, until we can stem the tide and reverse course, which may take centuries even if we start immediately. Millennia if we donāt start very soon.
So yeah I digressed on a few tangents, but coming back to your main point, yes, I agree that medical breakthroughs should be available to everyone equally, and I also agree that once a politician turns 70 they should be allowed to finish their term but should not be allowed to run for reelection.
They will cozy up to Democrats, and celebrate on stage with them when they take the Presidency.
In return for all of that ācozinessā (i.e. donations), Democrats will continue their longstanding policy of not returning to pre-Reagan taxation for corporations and the wealthy (a 50-year tradition)
