It was actually a terrible take, tbh, and even worse, completely wrong about history and the founding fathers to boot.
It was actually a terrible take, tbh, and even worse, completely wrong about history and the founding fathers to boot.
But it's got many words in it.
And a "back in my day" cool story to boot
I didn't actually read it
Ok Nono. Please tell me where I am wrong. Excuse me, completely wrong. You think our two party system works? You think the founding fathers were not about individual liberty and freedom?
Well, for starters, the obsession with the debt shows a complete lack of understanding of economics in a fiat monetary system. No, future generations won't have to 'pay back' that debt, it's not a household economy or anything like it.
Considering the US has no foreign-denominated federal debt, the worst case scenario is high inflation through emission (best case is we grow out of it, the likeliest scenario is somewhere in between), which is certainly something to be in the lookout for, but not something economic indicators show as a relatively short term problem, plus, there are means for individuals to protect against it.
Then let's talk about collectivism, the founding fathers and history. No doubt the founding fathers espoused ideals of individual liberty and freedom. However, they recognized that individually, we were worthless. That was recognized much before them too. Historically, humans are tribal because we're much more powerful in numbers and in groups.
This is easily backed by history, and even today. From town to state to organized religion to unions to even companies, we generally empower the individuals through a collective. Obviously, with such power come tradeoffs and power plays. By the time the founding fathers wanted to make (and made) a greater collective with the union, there was already individual collectives in each state. That included tradeoffs such a paying taxes, or having feudal systems in some places (the modern trickle down).
As a matter of fact, the founding fathers always knew what they were getting into. Thus why they attempted to reserve some rights that generally protected minorities and wouldn't be inevitably traded off as part of creating the biggest collective yet. And the founding of the federal government was all about a central and powerful government, much more powerful than the individual states fending for themselves. The notion that the founding fathers were somehow against collectivism or 'warned us against it' flies in the face of history itself and their own actions. The US Cons ution is basically an instruction manual of how to create, organize and operate a multi-state collective, including which power tradeoffs the member states had to undertake to be part of said union. What was relatively innovative about how they went about it, is that they were democratic. They allowed for that blueprint to be modifiable over time, recognizing that eventually, due to cultural and situational changes, everything becomes outdated as new challenges appear.
Lastly, I think the anger towards the two party system is somewhat misplaced. The real issue is probably the poisoning of our democratic process by undue influence and money. Would it be really that different if you had 4 parties that are all just like the current Democrat or Republican parties? Because since almost forever, and especially after Citizens United, it's all about what special interests bankrolls these things, and much less about public service.
Whoopsie!
Vote by mail good now!
CNN fighting for every last scrap.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/so...cid=spartandhp
Doesn't it make sense to make these decisions on a local level?
What happens when governors and mayors say olly olly oxen free, but businesses don't reopen, and people don't patronize the ones that do because they don't feel safe yet?
If mayors decide it's not safe.to reopen, would.you be for "all-powerful" governors riding roughshod over mayors?
So, now you're against the governors overreaching
If it comes to overruling localities that don't want to open, sure.
Are you against that?
Yes or no.
Of course it's the President's fault .. so the "local level" angle ceases to exist when you factor in the political party.
?
We weren't talking about the president at all.
Well, Spurtacular?
What say you?
Should governors open up cities against their will?
I don’t want them to overrule, but they need to work together and push more aggressive opening policies.
Define "aggressive." That pretty much means a higher death toll.
It means avoiding a Great Depression waiting for a vaccine... and why are places like Sweden opening up more aggressively than us?
They never closed and their numbers are dog compared to its neighbors, but you sound like you got it all figured out.
Sweden is eating compared to their neighbors, are you sure that's the comparison you want?
Trump votes by mail.
Millions do, every time there's a national election. Expats, US military, people who live in remote areas, people who are too old, too sick or too disabled to vote in person.
Voting by mail wasn't a problem for right wingers until Trump identified it as a threat to his reelection, based solely on feels afaik. Is there any evidence voting by mail favors one party over another?
There was too much garble. Be more concise.
DMX7: Or are tens of thousands of excess deaths an acceptable price to get the cash registers ringing again?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)