What Would It Take for You to Vote for Biden?

[Freiheit Reich]

1. Support a govt. healthcare system that is based on an income tax (similar to Chile or Taiwan)

Good goal.

2. State that all races should be treated equally and that any affirmative action based laws/scholarships/admissions/etc... are immoral.

I've never understood the right-wing fascination with affirmative action, since a much larger quotient of unequal entry to higher education is through legacy admissions and doesn't actually cause a flood of unqualified people.

3. Criticize the rioters/looters and state this can't be tolerated

Already happened.

4. State he will build a border wall and stop illegal migration and deport all illegal migrants

...Why? It's a net benefit and a wall wouldn't stop it anyway

5. End the Patriot Act and increase civil liberties in the USA

6. Close all US military bases on foreign lands and bring all troops back to the USA

This is good. He should do this.

7. Reduce welfare for able-bodied people (to help pay for the healthcare costs)

This is nonsense. The government doesn't have a limited fund to draw from.

8. Support reducing the national debt and balancing the budget

This is directly harmful.

If he does all these things then he would likely get my vote.

That would make the country an objectively worse place.

#2: Legacy admissions are also wrong. Although I don't think Biden should be able to force admission policies to change for Universities, he should at least speak out against these bad policies. Perhaps he should simply state that one should get into competitive universities based on merit.

#3: OK, I can see he did this. However, Trump also did this (and earlier which reflects a bit bad for Biden). Since trump and Biden both did this and Trump has been a bit harsher towards looters, this only helps Biden a little bit. Biden was a bit slow to do this but better late then never.

#4: Immigration of qualified immigrants (decent education, vocational experience, wealth) is good. The USA can always use qualified workers. However, immigrants from countries that are high in crime, poverty, and anti-Jewish/anti-Christian have to be considered carefully. The USA has enough poor people already. The USA has more gangsters than it needs. There are millions of able-bodied US citizens on welfare that can be recruited to pick farm crops. In the 1930's-this helped to relieve poverty. A biologist from South Korea should not be treated the same as a peasant farmer from Guatemala. This is a bit classist but mass immigration of poor people hurts lower income workers in the USA (rich corporations love it though).

#7: The money is not free. It comes from taxes. There are other programs that could use the money such as social security or improving infrastructure or reducing the national debt.

#8: Debt is dangerous and too much is irresponsible. Someone will have to pay it eventually. The housing crisis in 2010 was caused by too much debt.

I know Trump has also failed on most of these things. I mention these issues because if Biden sincerely mentioned these ideas, it would show he is superior to Trump and possibly even superior to the Libertarian Party.

[Kowani]

#2: Legacy admissions are also wrong. Although I don't think Biden should be able to force admission policies to change for Universities, he should at least speak out against these bad policies. Perhaps he should simply state that one should get into competitive universities based on merit.

Well, it's good that you recognize that legacy admissions are wrong, but affirmative action doesn't result in people getting in on AA alone. It's just a general guideline that, all other things being equal, the minority is more likely to have worked harder for those same results. (Technically, a better program would be basing AA on economic status rather than just race, but this is America and we hate poor people).

#4: Immigration of qualified immigrants (decent education, vocational experience, wealth) is good. The USA can always use qualified workers. However, immigrants from countries that are high in crime, poverty, and anti-Jewish/anti-Christian have to be considered carefully.

Illegal Immigrants actually cause a decrease in the crime rate, and what "anti-Jewish/anti-Christian" countries are you talking about?

There are millions of able-bodied US citizens on welfare that can be recruited to pick farm crops.

Not without crashing the agriculture industry, no.

In the 1930's-this helped to relieve poverty. A biologist from South Korea should not be treated the same as a peasant farmer from Guatemala. This is a bit classist but mass immigration of poor people hurts lower income workers in the USA (rich corporations love it though).

his is false. Mass immigration raises the average wages of everyone except high school dropouts.

#7: The money is not free. It comes from taxes.

This is false again. Federal taxes don't pay for anything. Governments create money by spending.

There are other programs that could use the money such as social security or improving infrastructure or reducing the national debt.

They could use money, but they don't need it to go from welfare programs. Just spend more.

#8: Debt is dangerous and too much is irresponsible. Someone will have to pay it eventually. The housing crisis in 2010 was caused by too much debt.

...Personal debt. Not government debt. Which are not like each other at all.

I know Trump has also failed on most of these things. I mention these issues because if Biden sincerely mentioned these ideas, it would show he is superior to Trump and possibly even superior to the Libertarian Party.

See the thing is the ideas are bad. Not malicious, they're just not based in a factual understanding of economics.

[Thermodolia]

#2: Legacy admissions are also wrong. Although I don't think Biden should be able to force admission policies to change for Universities, he should at least speak out against these bad policies. Perhaps he should simply state that one should get into competitive universities based on merit.

Well, it's good that you recognize that legacy admissions are wrong, but affirmative action doesn't result in people getting in on AA alone. It's just a general guideline that, all other things being equal, the minority is more likely to have worked harder for those same results. (Technically, a better program would be basing AA on economic status rather than just race, but this is America and we hate poor people).

#4: Immigration of qualified immigrants (decent education, vocational experience, wealth) is good. The USA can always use qualified workers. However, immigrants from countries that are high in crime, poverty, and anti-Jewish/anti-Christian have to be considered carefully.

Illegal Immigrants actually cause a decrease in the crime rate, and what "anti-Jewish/anti-Christian" countries are you talking about?

There are millions of able-bodied US citizens on welfare that can be recruited to pick farm crops.

Not without crashing the agriculture industry, no.

In the 1930's-this helped to relieve poverty. A biologist from South Korea should not be treated the same as a peasant farmer from Guatemala. This is a bit classist but mass immigration of poor people hurts lower income workers in the USA (rich corporations love it though).

his is false. Mass immigration raises the average wages of everyone except high school dropouts.

#7: The money is not free. It comes from taxes.

This is false again. Federal taxes don't pay for anything. Governments create money by spending.

There are other programs that could use the money such as social security or improving infrastructure or reducing the national debt.

They could use money, but they don't need it to go from welfare programs. Just spend more.

#8: Debt is dangerous and too much is irresponsible. Someone will have to pay it eventually. The housing crisis in 2010 was caused by too much debt.

...Personal debt. Not government debt. Which are not like each other at all.

I know Trump has also failed on most of these things. I mention these issues because if Biden sincerely mentioned these ideas, it would show he is superior to Trump and possibly even superior to the Libertarian Party.

See the thing is the ideas are bad. Not malicious, they're just not based in a factual understanding of economics.

Um if taxes don’t pay for anything then why are we paying them? Also our agricultural production shouldn’t be relying on what’s basically slave labor.

[Kowani]

Um if taxes don’t pay for anything then why are we paying them?

(Note: This is just at the federal level, state and local still run under the old “taxes pay for things dynamic)
Anyway, taxes is several things. They drive demand for the currency, which helps standardize it and allows the government better flexibility for fiscal policy, reducing inequality, they curb inflation by destroying money, they work as automatic stabilizers to prevent massive boom-bust cycles, they can influence consumption (excise taxes), etc.
Lots of things!

Also our agricultural production shouldn’t be relying on what’s basically slave labor.

Sure, but the solution here is making noncriminal immigrants citizens, not shipping them all back across the border.

[Freiheit Reich]

Well, it's good that you recognize that legacy admissions are wrong, but affirmative action doesn't result in people getting in on AA alone. It's just a general guideline that, all other things being equal, the minority is more likely to have worked harder for those same results. (Technically, a better program would be basing AA on economic status rather than just race, but this is America and we hate poor people).

Illegal Immigrants actually cause a decrease in the crime rate, and what "anti-Jewish/anti-Christian" countries are you talking about?

Not without crashing the agriculture industry, no.
his is false. Mass immigration raises the average wages of everyone except high school dropouts.
This is false again. Federal taxes don't pay for anything. Governments create money by spending.
They could use money, but they don't need it to go from welfare programs. Just spend more.

...Personal debt. Not government debt. Which are not like each other at all.

See the thing is the ideas are bad. Not malicious, they're just not based in a factual understanding of economics.

Um if taxes don’t pay for anything then why are we paying them? Also our agricultural production shouldn’t be relying on what’s basically slave labor.

#2: Affirmative action and legacy admissions create academic mismatch. For students with weaker academic records, there are plenty of lower ranked universities and community colleges for them to go to. Not everybody needs to attend Harvard. Here is a good article about this:

https://www.heritage.org/courts/comment ... y-students

#4: I want Biden to support Israel. Many nations are anti-Israel which basically is the same as being anti-Jewish. Here is a list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati ... _of_Israel

Many Muslim countries require their citizens to be Muslim and forbids Muslims from changing their faith. This is anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-Hindu, etc... I would like Biden (and any other possible president) to speak out against this. Freedom of religion should be standard around the world. The USA should stop visas and put tariffs on nations that lack freedom of religion. The Maldives is just one of many countries like this:

https://www.christiantoday.com/article/ ... /21669.htm

Immigration hurts many lower-income workers. Why do you think wages have been stagnant for most workers EXCEPT the wealthiest ones? Biden needs to stand up for lower income Americans. Democrats are supposed to be the ones that care about 'the little guys.' Here is a source:

https://nationaleconomicseditorial.com/ ... ses-wages/

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... obs-214216

#8: Too much government debt is not a good thing. Ron Paul cared about this but sadly most mainstream politicians don't.

https://money.usnews.com/investing/inve ... ffects-you

[Kowani]

double post

[Kowani]

#2: Affirmative action and legacy admissions create academic mismatch. For students with weaker academic records, there are plenty of lower ranked universities and community colleges for them to go to. Not everybody needs to attend Harvard. Here is a good article about this:

https://www.heritage.org/courts/comment ... y-students

Holy fuck this is bad. So, firstly, it's just empirically wrong. (And before this comes up, my source is better. It presents per-reviewed data from an empirical, unbiased perspective, and is published in a national journal, having been cited in 38 other academic publications. Yours is a conservative think tank that does no peer review, presents extremely little data, and is published in no journals anywhere. But I'm bored, so I'm going to address the whole thing.
My comments in red.

The star of the high school basketball team isn’t necessarily ready for the NBA. Kobe Bryant and LeBron James aside, sticking a high school star in a professional basketball league would almost certainly set him up to fail. The skills gap between the professionals and the high school star would soon relegate the talented amateur to the bench. This is the scenario commonly perpetuated by affirmative action policies. Though they may be well-intentioned, these policies put bright, talented students at the bottom of an academic All-Star heap.
...And already, we're assuming that minority (Black and Latino) students are less academically capable. Which, on the average, they have not proven that the same disparity applies to college admitted minorities after correcting for other factors.

Affirmative action-induced low grades are a serious problem—as demonstrated by research over the course of the last decade. For example, in one study of top law schools, more than 50 percent of African-American law students (many of whom had been admitted pursuant to affirmative action policies) were in the bottom 10 percent of their class. And the dropout rate among African-American students was more than twice that of their white peers (19.3 percent vs. 8.2 percent).So, noting that they don't actually cite the study used because their link's broken, have we considered the startling fact that African-Americans are [url-https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2665627]more likely[/url] to have less income, which might make it harder to pay for college? Or that they're more likely to suffer poor health, making them more likely to have to go home to take care of their parents, more likely to get sick (a major financial drain), etc. Yet Heritage considers none of this. To them, the only possible factor is academic underachievement.

As University of San Diego law professor and U.S. Civil Rights Commissioner Gail Heriot details in a Special Report for the Heritage Foundation, there’s a similar dropout rate among students admitted due to affirmative action policies and white students admitted as “legacies” with entering credentials that match those of students admitted because of a race preference.God, I hate conservative "intelligentsia". Can't just do one page, no, you gotta cite yourself again and make everyone read. Multiple reports. Anyway, this is, unsurprisingly, there as the typical twisting and ignoring of data. For example, they cite this, but forget to mention that according to the study's authors, it's not generalizable, and found "The second hypothesis, that relatively less-well academically prepared students who intend a SME major would fare better at less selective colleges, was less clearly supported. We found a negative effect of selectivity, as indexed by mean SAT math score among SME- intending students, but this tended to be offset by a positive effect related to percentage of
graduates in SME, a variable highly positively correlated with selectivity." What does this mean? Basically, Heritage lied. The rest of the report isn't much better.


Academic Mismatch

This highlights the problem of academic “mismatch,” regardless of skin color. When a student’s entering credentials put him or her at the bottom of the class, it should come as no surprise when he or she switches to an easier major, drops out, or fails out. It’s become increasingly clear that affirmative action is doing more harm than good to the very people it is intended to help.

The problem doesn’t stop there. Because of affirmative action policies, fewer minorities enter careers in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. This is not due to a lack of talented minority students—of which there are many. As Professor Heriot writes:

[There] are not enough [academically-gifted African-American or Hispanic students] at the very top tiers to satisfy the demand, and efforts to change that have had a pernicious effect on admissions up and down the academic pecking order, creating a serious credentials gap at every competitive level.
Neither is it due to a lack of interest. Study after study shows that minorities tend to be more interested in STEM fields than their white counterparts. But admitting students with lower high school grades and SAT math scores into schools with elite science and math programs is a recipe for disaster. Heriot describes one study conducted by UCLA law professor Richard Sander and UCLA statistician Roger Bolus, which indicated:

[S]tudents with credentials more than one standard deviation below their science peers at college are about half as likely to end up with science bachelor degrees, compared with similar students attending schools where their credentials are much closer to, or above, the mean credentials of their peers.Citing Richard Sander on race and admissions is like citing Gary Kleck on guns. Known partisan researchers.

Thus, students should be encouraged to apply to universities where their credentials are matched with those of their fellow students. Merit-based admissions are a “win-win” situation. Students end up at institutions where they are more likely to graduate and in the field of study they actually want to pursue. A case in point is the race-blind admissions in the University of California system.Interesting how one of the studies they cited didn't find this at all. Wonder why they didn't bring that up.

California’s Race-Blind Admissions Lead to Higher Grades and Fewer Dropouts

In 1996, the people of California passed an initiative amending the state constitution to bar state schools from “discriminat[ing] against, or grant[ing] preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.” Before this amendment went into effect, California struggled with affirmative action-induced high failure rates and low grades. Heriot notes that UC-San Diego, a selective institution topped only by flagship institutions like Berkeley, had only one African-American student with a 3.5 GPA or higher after freshman year in 1997.

Failure rates at state schools were also disappointing, with 15 percent of African-American and 17 percent of American-Indian students in academic jeopardy, as compared with 4 percent of white students. The problem was not that there were no minority students capable of making the UC-San Diego Honor Roll—it’s just that those students were going to places like Berkeley and Stanford, where they too were not on the Honor Roll.

After race-blind admissions went into effect, the media broke into pandemonium. Accusations that Berkeley was now “lily-white” were levied. Yet this was not the case. While minority students did drop from 58.6 percent of the student body to 48.7 percent, white students made up a bare majority, and Asian-Americans came in second at 38 percent. What happened to the other minorities?

They went to institutions like UC-San Diego, UC-Riverside, and UC-Santa Cruz. These schools are all part of the prestigious University of California System, attended by only the top 12.5 percent of California high school graduates.

At UC-Riverside, the results were impressive: African-American and Hispanic student admissions skyrocketed by 42 percent and 31 percent, respectively. Failure rates collapsed, and grades improved.

At UC-San Diego, 20 percent of African-American students now made the Honor Roll, and failure rates for African-Americans and American Indians dropped to 6 percent. Under merit-based admissions, grades were higher and dropouts were lower, and between 1997 and 2003, 50 percent more African-Americans and Hispanics graduated with a degree in a STEM field. Sadly, in the midst of these successes, the California schools sought new ways to get around the state constitution’s requirement of race-blind admissions.Correlation, correlation, but no causative data.

#4: I want Biden to support Israel. Many nations are anti-Israel which basically is the same as being anti-Jewish. Here is a list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati ... _of_Israel He does.
You're right, that is bad.
...This is economically terrible, and sanctions are a...mixed bag at best It's very context sensitive.


False.
Outsourcing, deregulation, and lack of unionization, mostly. With the exception of high school dropouts, immigration raises the average wage of everyone..
Biden needs to stand up for lower income Americans.He is.


...Whoever wrote this is an absolute moron. Or an ideological hack, one of the two. He doesn't know how immigrants interact with markets (he thinks they only increase supply but "somehow" forgets that they increase demand more, he doesn't understand that the remittances he's mad about wouldn't exist at all if we implemented his policy suggestions, he doesn't consider that an unemployed guy in fucking Michigan isn't competing in the same labour market as Antonio in California, he doesn't seem to realize that automation would cause mass unemployment, and makes tons of claims without statistical backing.
This author's work is literally debunked in my article.

#8: Too much government debt is not a good thing. Ron Paul cared about this but sadly most mainstream politicians don't.

https://money.usnews.com/investing/inve ... ffects-you

This is outdated. The economic assumptions it makes have been proven to be nonexistent (no it doesn't raise interest rates), no it doesn't slow economic growth, the government's ability to "repay" it's treasuries is risk free.


Your sources are bad and have been lying to you.

[Telconi]

Um if taxes don’t pay for anything then why are we paying them?

(Note: This is just at the federal level, state and local still run under the old “taxes pay for things dynamic)
Anyway, taxes is several things. They drive demand for the currency, which helps standardize it and allows the government better flexibility for fiscal policy, reducing inequality, they curb inflation by destroying money, they work as automatic stabilizers to prevent massive boom-bust cycles, they can influence consumption (excise taxes), etc.
Lots of things!

Also our agricultural production shouldn’t be relying on what’s basically slave labor.

Sure, but the solution here is making noncriminal immigrants citizens, not shipping them all back across the border.

There's a massive gulf between "basically slave labor" and "Automatic citizen"

[Kowani]

There's a massive gulf between "basically slave labor" and "Automatic citizen"

The lack of citizenship is what allows such a situation to persist.

[Telconi]

There's a massive gulf between "basically slave labor" and "Automatic citizen"

The lack of citizenship is what allows such a situation to persist.

Minimum wage laws aren't limited to citizens, constitutional rights don't apply to just citizens, as a matter of fact, so far as I can tell, the only things citizenship is specifically needed for is holding certain government offices.

[Kowani]

The lack of citizenship is what allows such a situation to persist.

Minimum wage laws aren't limited to citizens, constitutional rights don't apply to just citizens, as a matter of fact, so far as I can tell, the only things citizenship is specifically needed for is holding certain government offices.

What are the illegal immigrants gonna do? Complain to the government?

[US-SSR]

Not be the kind of person who would stand in front of the White House on Labor Day lying and calling his political opponents names? Maybe that?

[West Leas Oros 2]

Not be the kind of person who would stand in front of the White House on Labor Day lying and calling his political opponents names? Maybe that?

That’s a very low standard. Pretty sure there’s a lot of people who would pass that criteria who out to be kept as far from a position of power as possible.

[US-SSR]

Not be the kind of person who would stand in front of the White House on Labor Day lying and calling his political opponents names? Maybe that?

That’s a very low standard. Pretty sure there’s a lot of people who would pass that criteria who out to be kept as far from a position of power as possible.

True, but none of them has a chance of winning the Presidency this year. I'll lay you any odds you name for any amount of money that the next US President will be either Biden or Trump. This isn't Burger King, you can't have it your way.

[Kiu Ghesik]

Not be the kind of person who would stand in front of the White House on Labor Day lying and calling his political opponents names? Maybe that?

That’s a very low standard. Pretty sure there’s a lot of people who would pass that criteria who out to be kept as far from a position of power as possible.

Like King George III, for example.

[West Leas Oros 2]

That’s a very low standard. Pretty sure there’s a lot of people who would pass that criteria who out to be kept as far from a position of power as possible.

True, but none of them has a chance of winning the Presidency this year. I'll lay you any odds you name for any amount of money that the next US President will be either Biden or Trump. This isn't Burger King, you can't have it your way.

Who says there should even be a “next US President”? The world is on the verge of collapse already, may as well press the abort button on the old US of A. 244 years of independence is pretty good. I’d rather not have an America at this point. I’d never succumb to a viewpoint as nihilistic as “at least one of them has to win, so therefore I may as well support the less bad one”. If everyone had that viewpoint, we’d still be living in the dark ages.

[US-SSR]

True, but none of them has a chance of winning the Presidency this year. I'll lay you any odds you name for any amount of money that the next US President will be either Biden or Trump. This isn't Burger King, you can't have it your way.

Who says there should even be a “next US President”? The world is on the verge of collapse already, may as well press the abort button on the old US of A. 244 years of independence is pretty good. I’d rather not have an America at this point. I’d never succumb to a viewpoint as nihilistic as “at least one of them has to win, so therefore I may as well support the less bad one”. If everyone had that viewpoint, we’d still be living in the dark ages.

If that's what you truly want then vote for Trump and we'll be back in the dark ages soon enough.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Who says there should even be a “next US President”? The world is on the verge of collapse already, may as well press the abort button on the old US of A. 244 years of independence is pretty good. I’d rather not have an America at this point. I’d never succumb to a viewpoint as nihilistic as “at least one of them has to win, so therefore I may as well support the less bad one”. If everyone had that viewpoint, we’d still be living in the dark ages.

If that's what you truly want then vote for Trump and we'll be back in the dark ages soon enough.

Cool straw man, but no. I hold no delusion that a system as fundamentally wrecked as ours can be saved by voting for the “right people”. Mark my words, the only way America can truly fix itself is radical action, not some centrist austerity or whatever bullshit the status quo wants. And you call yourself a socialist?

[Kiu Ghesik]

If that's what you truly want then vote for Trump and we'll be back in the dark ages soon enough.

Cool straw man, but no. I hold no delusion that a system as fundamentally wrecked as ours can be saved by voting for the “right people”. Mark my words, the only way America can truly fix itself is radical action, not some centrist austerity or whatever bullshit the status quo wants. And you call yourself a socialist?

Ohohoho! I can't wait for the fucking apocalypse that a US collapse would cause!

[West Leas Oros 2]

Cool straw man, but no. I hold no delusion that a system as fundamentally wrecked as ours can be saved by voting for the “right people”. Mark my words, the only way America can truly fix itself is radical action, not some centrist austerity or whatever bullshit the status quo wants. And you call yourself a socialist?

Ohohoho! I can't wait for the fucking apocalypse that a US collapse would cause!

Look around. The apocalypse is already here.

[Washington Resistance Army]

If that's what you truly want then vote for Trump and we'll be back in the dark ages soon enough.

Cool straw man, but no. I hold no delusion that a system as fundamentally wrecked as ours can be saved by voting for the “right people”. Mark my words, the only way America can truly fix itself is radical action, not some centrist austerity or whatever bullshit the status quo wants. And you call yourself a socialist?

This guy gets it^

Biden is a Band-Aid, nothing more. It won't fix the disease.

[Kiu Ghesik]

Ohohoho! I can't wait for the fucking apocalypse that a US collapse would cause!

Look around. The apocalypse is already here.

It's a soft apocalypse right now. It would be quite a hard one if eight thousand nukes just suddenly happened to have no one looking after them.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Look around. The apocalypse is already here.

It's a soft apocalypse right now. It would be quite a hard one if eight thousand nukes just suddenly happened to have no one looking after them.

Obviously, the nukes would be under the control of the US government remnants or whatever new country seized control of them. So yeah, the nukes still have attendees. Probably. Also, who will fire them if nobody is there?

[Kiu Ghesik]

It's a soft apocalypse right now. It would be quite a hard one if eight thousand nukes just suddenly happened to have no one looking after them.

Obviously, the nukes would be under the control of the US government remnants or whatever new country seized control of them. So yeah, the nukes still have attendees. Probably. Also, who will fire them if nobody is there?

That's my worry. If the US just Balkanizes- a likely scenario in the next two hundred years- then we get dozens of states that hate each other, all of whom probably have nukes. It'll be Pakistan and India all over again, except times ten.

I don't know, I guess I just think that dysfunctional government is better than no government, because no government has historically most often led into brutal, oppressive government or brutal, oppressive citizens' law.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Obviously, the nukes would be under the control of the US government remnants or whatever new country seized control of them. So yeah, the nukes still have attendees. Probably. Also, who will fire them if nobody is there?

That's my worry. If the US just Balkanizes- a likely scenario in the next two hundred years- then we get dozens of states that hate each other, all of whom probably have nukes. It'll be Pakistan and India all over again, except times ten.

I don't know, I guess I just think that dysfunctional government is better than no government, because no government has historically most often led into brutal, oppressive government or brutal, oppressive citizens' law.

That I am fully aware of, but ultimately, I’m not looking for the better, rather, the best. If Americans wise up to the fact that if they continue down the current path, they’ll bring only disfunction or apocalypse, they’ll actually call for meaningful change. Ultimately, I’d rather take the chance that there is a benevolent post-American nation than the certainty that America as it exists now is a horrid place. I have more faith in a theoretical “Republic of Iowa” than I do the US government.