American Politics XII: We Can Do Bad All By Ourselves

[Corrian]

I haven't been watching it but has anything really outrageous come out of the Jan 6 committee yet?

There's some pretty crazy information coming out that basically expands on what we know already, I gotta head off to work or I'd try to describe, but someone else here would be better than me anyway.

[Cannot think of a name]

I'm tired of saying it, you're tired of me saying it, spoilered so everyone can just move on by and do whatever it is you're doing.

It does help that there are groups like Knock LA and Ground Game and Reclaim Pittsburgh (other states doin' stuff as well) doing exactly what I've been saying all along. Instead of seeing how thin they can slice the ideological pie so they can't smuggle sit on their lone island going "everyone else is doing it wrong" they're finding candidates in local elections and even in party leadership or helping people get into party leadership and coalescing around that candidate and then showing. the fuck. up.

At least there are some people out there not folding their arms and having a self righteous snit about how no one will give them what they want and are actually getting shit done. It's not a magic wand and it certainly isn't going to change the world overnight, but it's something and I'll take something over the People's Front of Judea/Judean People's Front crowd. Everyone was getting off on beating up Lumen instead of looking at the spirit of what he's been saying and looky. it's working.

Don't like Democrats? Cool. Get in line. Just find people who might change the party or find someone in another party and coalesce because whatever hipster little bullshit noun you want to assign to our system of government, collective action gets the goods.

Or just keep seeing how many hyphens you can put into your own little customized ideology and let other people do the work while you call everyone idiots. Whatever.

Not addressing Corrian directly. Just started to get on a roll.

LA really, really, REALLY needs a change, so I hope this turns out as well as its looking.

It'll have to be a sustained effort because the issues here run deep. So far the I-don't-care-how-you-parse-or-define-the-not-Republicans haven't really been known for their persistence. Republicans played the long game on abortion and never let up. Roles reversed, fold almost instantly. You can see it already, giving up because the Democrats didn't enshrine the right so fuck it, bring on Gilead. So by next year if someone has shined a laser pointer on the ground or a marginal enough victory is secured they'll all stay home, the ground they made will be lost and they'll sit at home complaining about how nothing ever gets done.

[Shrillland]

LA really, really, REALLY needs a change, so I hope this turns out as well as its looking.

It'll have to be a sustained effort because the issues here run deep. So far the I-don't-care-how-you-parse-or-define-the-not-Republicans haven't really been known for their persistence. Republicans played the long game on abortion and never let up. Roles reversed, fold almost instantly. You can see it already, giving up because the Democrats didn't enshrine the right so fuck it, bring on Gilead. So by next year if someone has shined a laser pointer on the ground or a marginal enough victory is secured they'll all stay home, the ground they made will be lost and they'll sit at home complaining about how nothing ever gets done.

Things are starting to change, but change takes time, and time is something of a luxury. Republicans have had electoral fatalism for decades before you started to see Democrats finally get something of an act together in the last 6-8 years.

[The Jamesian Republic]

I looked up “Ways to further the democratization of America” on Google. I found this Washington Post Article from October 2017 called 38 Ways to Fix American Democracy I read it and I think some of the things they mentioned could work. Some I don’t agree with but I see potential.

The read more button on the archive version doesn’t work and the ideas are in violation of established law. See my most recent post for my question.

[Adamede]

I looked up “Ways to further the democratization of America” on Google. I found this Washington Post Article from October 2017 called 38 Ways to Fix American Democracy I read it and I think some of the things they mentioned could work. Some I don’t agree with but I see potential.

https://archive.ph/w4QTA

I want to ask this thread if anything in this article could help stop democratic backsliding in America?
It’s a non paywall version. Unfortunately you can’t read more on individual items but the titles give some idea of what they are about.

A fair bit of that seems only tangentaly related to the speciifc problem of democratic backsliding in America.

[The Jamesian Republic]

I looked up “Ways to further the democratization of America” on Google. I found this Washington Post Article from October 2017 called 38 Ways to Fix American Democracy I read it and I think some of the things they mentioned could work. Some I don’t agree with but I see potential.

https://archive.ph/w4QTA

I want to ask this thread if anything in this article could help stop democratic backsliding in America?
It’s a non paywall version. Unfortunately you can’t read more on individual items but the titles give some idea of what they are about.

A fair bit of that seems only tangentaly related to the speciifc problem of democratic backsliding in America.

I see. I saw that article and thought maybe there was some ideas to be found.

[Zurkerx]

I haven't been watching it but has anything really outrageous come out of the Jan 6 committee yet?

There's some pretty crazy information coming out that basically expands on what we know already, I gotta head off to work or I'd try to describe, but someone else here would be better than me anyway.

Pretty much this though I'll leave some things that did stand out (someone else can add more since, well, I talk about this stuff a bit too much...):

1. We knew of a pardon list but didn't realize it included multiple congressional Republicans, including Perry. That's the only name we know for now, but we'll know more soon enough. Also, Eastman wanted to be on that list.

2. The insurrectionists came 40 feet of Pence. We figured some would come close to any members of Congress, but the fact they were that close could have been really bad (the Secret Service protecting Pence probably would not have stood a chance).

3. Pence was un-"officially" in charge, trying to get the National Guard in while Trump did nothing unsurprisingly. But Meadows didn't want to have that perception so he asked General Milley to say that Trump, not Pence, was the one calling for order.

4. Trump was well aware of the violence before tweeting out. Meadows and a few others came to him telling what was transpiring. He then made his tweet against Pence. This we could have speculated but it further adds to the fact that Trump likely thought the violence could be used as pressure to get what he wanted. It didn't work of course.

5. $250 million - that's how much Trump and his allies raised to go to an "official election defense fund," which did not existed. Apparently (and more will be learned), it went to a PAC which then disbursed the money, some of which may have been pocketed by Trump. That's a case for potential wire fraud though based on what's known and given campaign finance laws, it would be a difficult case to prosecute in it's current form.

6. Trump was told Eastman's plan was illegal, which even Eastman admitted it was earlier on, but they still did it anyway. He also said right in front of Trump it would violate federal (The Electoral Count Act of 1887). Eastman viewed the act as unconstitutional, but that's not an excuse to break the law as Oliver North learned. No surprise here.

7. Despite the violence transpiring, Eastman would not take "no" for an answer as he continued to push to overturn the election. He was willing to accept violence as an option to do so.

And much more! But then it'll be too much. Either way, I would say watch the hearings and make an inform decision on your own.

[Shrillland]

I looked up “Ways to further the democratization of America” on Google. I found this Washington Post Article from October 2017 called 38 Ways to Fix American Democracy I read it and I think some of the things they mentioned could work. Some I don’t agree with but I see potential.

https://archive.ph/w4QTA

I want to ask this thread if anything in this article could help stop democratic backsliding in America?
It’s a non paywall version.

Well, let's go through them line by line...

1. Requiring everyone to vote is blatantly a violation of the 1st Amendment as it boils down to the government forcing someone to have and express an opinion. It wouldn't be a bad idea in and of itself, but it would require constitutional change to be implemented.

2. Unfortunately, the columns themselves don't link, so I can't see the context behind it. Ultimately, however, I don't know what "cultural identity" is supposed to mean in a nation that has 10-15 of them.

3. A month without social media? I'm cripplingly shy, and there are millions of people like me who owe the fact that they have a social life and can talk to people to social media. Yes, it has its problems, some of which are quite corrosive, but it's also brought a lot of people a lot of good that they wouldn't have otherwise.

4.I can befriend some libertarians, but most of my family can't do so. Sufficiently White men like me can befriend people from other political groups for the simple reason that they have far less to lose from those groups getting into power.

5. Far more people do that than one may expect anyway, and the ones that don't are doing it at just about every other hour of the day and night nowadays.

6. Again, it's unconstitutional as a violation of the 14th Amendment as SCOTUS decided in Pierce v. Society of Sisters in 1925, and to reverse that decision means destroying a lot of the basis for the right to privacy which is on its way out anyway.

7. I get a little more context from this one, but it doesn't necessarily show what the solution actually means. If it's a way of saying we put a little too much emphasis on a university education, there's certainly truth to that, and if it's a way of saying we genuflect too much at those who get one and succeed, that's understandable too, but too often people will take such scepticism to unnecessary extremes.

8. I cannot say either way how this would go as I'm considered 4F for both types of national service. It does put a lot of our separations via class, ethnicity, politics, etc, into perspective, but a lot of serious questions can be asked about its efficacy.

9. NIMBYism is certainly bad, but most of us knew that already. It's getting the general public to agree to things like garage rentals or even commieblocks(built to better standards of course) that's the hard part.

10. That one's obvious, but it's just as difficult to achieve since people always need to "other" somebody.

11. Sounds good in theory, but secular folks like myself aren't going to be thrilled with Evangelicals just because there are more women leading them.

12. The ERA's well overdue, but the environment to pass it is also a lot harder.

13. Without hard limits on what can be done, it'll just be another symbolic week that people will ignore as soon as they're out of school.

14. RCV is insufficient, Australia's proven this for over a century. PR or bust.

15. Aye, but who, exactly, is "us"? Far too many people don't think genuine disagreement is possible without being "bought" or "influenced" or "brainwashed", so only their version of "us" applies, especially in this age of zero-sum politics where someone must always lose for others to gain.

16. Why rein in the CBO? It's just the nonpartisan civil servants that give out hard numbers, the Civil Service in the US doesn't have anywhere near the power and influence it has in a lot of European countries, still less Asian countries, even though the basic rule of wanting no movement on anything can certainly apply to all three regions.

17. A good idea, but again, it's a relative term to a lot of people and can be twisted to mean whatever people want it to mean, so it's not as ideology-proof as some might think. It would cut down the power of ideological media, which would be a big help.

18. That's also a good idea, and unlike some of the others, it doesn't really have any potential drawbacks.

19. Far easier said than done. Too many people in this country hate art, and the rest aren't willing to spend money on it because they aren't regular patrons themselves. Humourist Dave Barry famously said in the early 1990s that we need the National Endowment for the Arts "on the theory that if taxpayers kept their money, they'd spend it on things they actually wanted."

20. Difficult to achieve when anything that even vaguely discusses race is being denounced as Critical Race Theory in a lot of redder states even though CRT is just the legal theory that tries to explain systemic racism.

21. While I find it somewhat ironic for a editor of an unabashedly ideological magazine to complain about any ideological media bias, the essentials certainly have a basis in fact. Ideological media is arguably the single most dangerous weapon that the two sides have, especially when it's being used, as the Right is historically proven to have done for far longer, to create a reality where you should trust no one but them. This is the sort of thing dictatorships do before they start actively punishing people for listening to other points of view.

22. I'm wary about giving the government such control over new technology. Limits certainly need to be placed and the right to repair and the right to ownership need to be vigourously enforced, but actually giving the government co-ownership of new technology is more trouble than its worth.

23. This one misses the point, as do so many who want to bridge the gap. It's not a matter of mere disagreement as it is a matter of actually recognising the dignity and humanity of their fellow man, and many Trumpists do not recognise the dignity of LGBTQ+ people or Blacks or Hispanics even though there are plenty of them on their side, which leads to the problem of minority individuals creating tolerance for themselves as "one of the good ones" and not the majority of such groups that often disagree with them, thus letting dehumanisation of the group as a whole continue.

24. I get what McWhorter's trying to say, I've read plenty of his NYT columns, but we often confuse acknowledgement with obsession. It's not obsession to recognise that you have a certain type of privilege, it only goes to virtue signaling when remorse becomes a broken record.

25. This one, alas, is rooted more in the idealism of national unity than it is in cold, hard facts. It goes into the idea that we have to unite to do something without realising that doing something is what divides us and our representatives.

26. I don't hate government as an institution. And unlike what the article says, I actually don't care for my representative and have never voted for the man. But people have reason to hate certain government actions, and good government lessons in school tend to be propaganda rather than facts.

27. We got rid of peer review for candidates for a reason. We adopted primaries for the same reason: Parties were choosing candidate based on corrupt backroom deals rather than one that represented what the people wanted. Peer reviews and Selection Committees like the Westminster countries have do have their merits, but our system of government is one that basically allows our representatives to do whatever they want without having to worry about the party line, which is a mixed blessing, but one I think should be kept around.

28. Again, I can't get the context here, so the idea of citizenship meaning something can't be discussed or given an opinion on.

29. Ditto. I can't read the column, so I can't form an opinion.

30. Once again, we can't ban private education in this country.

31. A good idea, but the average voter doesn't care about a local official's stance on national issues. They just want to make sure they get value for their water bills.

32. California's about to do that, but given SCOTUS' proclivities, I'm not convinced it'll stand.

33. Far easier said than done. People want to be proud of their country, not constantly reminded of its many past crimes.

34. A grass-roots revolt against fake news? When its power has become so entrenched that most of the country is under its thrall and its definition of the phrase? Can't happen.

35. Again, how can we do unto others when others are being told that we are the enemy? And this isn't just the Right saying this, the Left does it as well.

36. erm...How? The economy is a global beast now, and people are more interconnected with the world as well. A Cold War Economy is simply not feasible when people aren't just looking out for their country but for all the countries in their alignment.

37. Obvious, but it'll take a lot of education to achieve.

38. I'm more sceptical of this one. I've seen a lot of pundits say how things are here compared to other less free nations, and that we should be grateful of ours...but national gratefulness is the perfect breeding ground for national complacency, and ultimately, national complicity in using our gratefulness to tell those who aren't doing so well due to systemic issues that they're not entitled to their anger and impatience.

[HISPIDA]

I looked up “Ways to further the democratization of America” on Google. I found this Washington Post Article from October 2017 called 38 Ways to Fix American Democracy I read it and I think some of the things they mentioned could work. Some I don’t agree with but I see potential.

https://archive.ph/w4QTA

I want to ask this thread if anything in this article could help stop democratic backsliding in America?
It’s a non paywall version. Unfortunately you can’t read more on individual items but the titles give some idea of what they are about.

holy shit all of that is vague as hell

[The Jamesian Republic]

I looked up “Ways to further the democratization of America” on Google. I found this Washington Post Article from October 2017 called 38 Ways to Fix American Democracy I read it and I think some of the things they mentioned could work. Some I don’t agree with but I see potential.

https://archive.ph/w4QTA

I want to ask this thread if anything in this article could help stop democratic backsliding in America?
It’s a non paywall version. Unfortunately you can’t read more on individual items but the titles give some idea of what they are about.

holy shit all of that is vague as hell

I know the Read More thing doesn’t work on the archived version

I looked up “Ways to further the democratization of America” on Google. I found this Washington Post Article from October 2017 called 38 Ways to Fix American Democracy I read it and I think some of the things they mentioned could work. Some I don’t agree with but I see potential.

https://archive.ph/w4QTA

I want to ask this thread if anything in this article could help stop democratic backsliding in America?
It’s a non paywall version.

Well, let's go through them line by line...

1. Requiring everyone to vote is blatantly a violation of the 1st Amendment as it boils down to the government forcing someone to have and express an opinion. It wouldn't be a bad idea in and of itself, but it would require constitutional change to be implemented.

2. Unfortunately, the columns themselves don't link, so I can't see the context behind it. Ultimately, however, I don't know what "cultural identity" is supposed to mean in a nation that has 10-15 of them.

3. A month without social media? I'm cripplingly shy, and there are millions of people like me who owe the fact that they have a social life and can talk to people to social media. Yes, it has its problems, some of which are quite corrosive, but it's also brought a lot of people a lot of good that they wouldn't have otherwise.

4.I can befriend some libertarians, but most of my family can't do so. Sufficiently White men like me can befriend people from other political groups for the simple reason that they have far less to lose from those groups getting into power.

5. Far more people do that than one may expect anyway, and the ones that don't are doing it at just about every other hour of the day and night nowadays.

6. Again, it's unconstitutional as a violation of the 14th Amendment as SCOTUS decided in Pierce v. Society of Sisters in 1925, and to reverse that decision means destroying a lot of the basis for the right to privacy which is on its way out anyway.

7. I get a little more context from this one, but it doesn't necessarily show what the solution actually means. If it's a way of saying we put a little too much emphasis on a university education, there's certainly truth to that, and if it's a way of saying we genuflect too much at those who get one and succeed, that's understandable too, but too often people will take such scepticism to unnecessary extremes.

8. I cannot say either way how this would go as I'm considered 4F for both types of national service. It does put a lot of our separations via class, ethnicity, politics, etc, into perspective, but a lot of serious questions can be asked about its efficacy.

9. NIMBYism is certainly bad, but most of us knew that already. It's getting the general public to agree to things like garage rentals or even commieblocks(built to better standards of course) that's the hard part.

10. That one's obvious, but it's just as difficult to achieve since people always need to "other" somebody.

11. Sounds good in theory, but secular folks like myself aren't going to be thrilled with Evangelicals just because there are more women leading them.

12. The ERA's well overdue, but the environment to pass it is also a lot harder.

13. Without hard limits on what can be done, it'll just be another symbolic week that people will ignore as soon as they're out of school.

14. RCV is insufficient, Australia's proven this for over a century. PR or bust.

15. Aye, but who, exactly, is "us"? Far too many people don't think genuine disagreement is possible without being "bought" or "influenced" or "brainwashed", so only their version of "us" applies, especially in this age of zero-sum politics where someone must always lose for others to gain.

16. Why rein in the CBO? It's just the nonpartisan civil servants that give out hard numbers, the Civil Service in the US doesn't have anywhere near the power and influence it has in a lot of European countries, still less Asian countries, even though the basic rule of wanting no movement on anything can certainly apply to all three regions.

17. A good idea, but again, it's a relative term to a lot of people and can be twisted to mean whatever people want it to mean, so it's not as ideology-proof as some might think. It would cut down the power of ideological media, which would be a big help.

18. That's also a good idea, and unlike some of the others, it doesn't really have any potential drawbacks.

19. Far easier said than done. Too many people in this country hate art, and the rest aren't willing to spend money on it because they aren't regular patrons themselves. Humourist Dave Barry famously said in the early 1990s that we need the National Endowment for the Arts "on the theory that if taxpayers kept their money, they'd spend it on things they actually wanted."

20. Difficult to achieve when anything that even vaguely discusses race is being denounced as Critical Race Theory in a lot of redder states even though CRT is just the legal theory that tries to explain systemic racism.

21. While I find it somewhat ironic for a editor of an unabashedly ideological magazine to complain about any ideological media bias, the essentials certainly have a basis in fact. Ideological media is arguably the single most dangerous weapon that the two sides have, especially when it's being used, as the Right is historically proven to have done for far longer, to create a reality where you should trust no one but them. This is the sort of thing dictatorships do before they start actively punishing people for listening to other points of view.

22. I'm wary about giving the government such control over new technology. Limits certainly need to be placed and the right to repair and the right to ownership need to be vigourously enforced, but actually giving the government co-ownership of new technology is more trouble than its worth.

23. This one misses the point, as do so many who want to bridge the gap. It's not a matter of mere disagreement as it is a matter of actually recognising the dignity and humanity of their fellow man, and many Trumpists do not recognise the dignity of LGBTQ+ people or Blacks or Hispanics even though there are plenty of them on their side, which leads to the problem of minority individuals creating tolerance for themselves as "one of the good ones" and not the majority of such groups that often disagree with them, thus letting dehumanisation of the group as a whole continue.

24. I get what McWhorter's trying to say, I've read plenty of his NYT columns, but we often confuse acknowledgement with obsession. It's not obsession to recognise that you have a certain type of privilege, it only goes to virtue signaling when remorse becomes a broken record.

25. This one, alas, is rooted more in the idealism of national unity than it is in cold, hard facts. It goes into the idea that we have to unite to do something without realising that doing something is what divides us and our representatives.

26. I don't hate government as an institution. And unlike what the article says, I actually don't care for my representative and have never voted for the man. But people have reason to hate certain government actions, and good government lessons in school tend to be propaganda rather than facts.

27. We got rid of peer review for candidates for a reason. We adopted primaries for the same reason: Parties were choosing candidate based on corrupt backroom deals rather than one that represented what the people wanted. Peer reviews and Selection Committees like the Westminster countries have do have their merits, but our system of government is one that basically allows our representatives to do whatever they want without having to worry about the party line, which is a mixed blessing, but one I think should be kept around.

28. Again, I can't get the context here, so the idea of citizenship meaning something can't be discussed or given an opinion on.

29. Ditto. I can't read the column, so I can't form an opinion.

30. Once again, we can't ban private education in this country.

31. A good idea, but the average voter doesn't care about a local official's stance on national issues. They just want to make sure they get value for their water bills.

32. California's about to do that, but given SCOTUS' proclivities, I'm not convinced it'll stand.

33. Far easier said than done. People want to be proud of their country, not constantly reminded of its many past crimes.

34. A grass-roots revolt against fake news? When its power has become so entrenched that most of the country is under its thrall and its definition of the phrase? Can't happen.

35. Again, how can we do unto others when others are being told that we are the enemy? And this isn't just the Right saying this, the Left does it as well.

36. erm...How? The economy is a global beast now, and people are more interconnected with the world as well. A Cold War Economy is simply not feasible when people aren't just looking out for their country but for all the countries in their alignment.

37. Obvious, but it'll take a lot of education to achieve.

38. I'm more sceptical of this one. I've seen a lot of pundits say how things are here compared to other less free nations, and that we should be grateful of ours...but national gratefulness is the perfect breeding ground for national complacency, and ultimately, national complicity in using our gratefulness to tell those who aren't doing so well due to systemic issues that they're not entitled to their anger and impatience.

So safe to say this probably wouldn’t work. I would have linked the real article but it has a paywall and I don’t have a subscription. I remember reading it fully one time but that time has passed.

[The Jamesian Republic]

So since that Washington Post article either doesn’t work itself or the ideas there violate established law. I think I’m better off asking this thread directly, Is there a way to reverse democratic backsliding in America?

[HISPIDA]

So since that Washington Post article either doesn’t work itself or the ideas there violate established law. I think I’m better off asking this thread directly, Is there a way to reverse democratic backsliding in America?

not anymore tbh

just sit back and enjoy the ride

[Shrillland]

So since that Washington Post article either doesn’t work itself or the ideas there violate established law. I think I’m better off asking this thread directly, Is there a way to reverse democratic backsliding in America?

Not without massive structural surgery, and we're simply not designed to have it.

[Adamede]

A fair bit of that seems only tangentaly related to the speciifc problem of democratic backsliding in America.

I see. I saw that article and thought maybe there was some ideas to be found.

I mean there is, but few of them would imho actually directly solve the problme, and some of them arent even related, they're just talking points about American poltics in general, like the gun insurance one.

You want to fix the decay of American democracy? Change the voting system so that way we aren't forced to pick between two evils. Easier said then done, and neither of the parties benefits from it.

[San Lumen]

https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/06/17/raf ... 6-hearings

Raffensperger, Sterling will headline Tuesday's Jan. 6 hearings

[The Jamesian Republic]

So since that Washington Post article either doesn’t work itself or the ideas there violate established law. I think I’m better off asking this thread directly, Is there a way to reverse democratic backsliding in America?

not anymore tbh

just sit back and enjoy the ride

But the ride will result in everyone dying in a fiery car accident or be severely injured.

So since that Washington Post article either doesn’t work itself or the ideas there violate established law. I think I’m better off asking this thread directly, Is there a way to reverse democratic backsliding in America?

Not without massive structural surgery, and we're simply not designed to have it.

Unfortunately yes.

[Zurkerx]

https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/06/17/raffensperger-sterling-will-headline-tuesdays-jan-6-hearings

Raffensperger, Sterling will headline Tuesday's Jan. 6 hearings

So will Arizona Speaker of the House, Rusty Bowers. He too also resisted efforts by Trump to overturn the election.

[The Black Forrest]

So since that Washington Post article either doesn’t work itself or the ideas there violate established law. I think I’m better off asking this thread directly, Is there a way to reverse democratic backsliding in America?

The system can be fixed. It would require an informed active electorate and that's not going to be seen in a very long time.

[The Jamesian Republic]

So since that Washington Post article either doesn’t work itself or the ideas there violate established law. I think I’m better off asking this thread directly, Is there a way to reverse democratic backsliding in America?

The system can be fixed. It would require an informed active electorate and that's not going to be seen in a very long time.

How long do you estimate? I want to know how long I need to wait in hiding.

[San Lumen]

https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/06/17/raffensperger-sterling-will-headline-tuesdays-jan-6-hearings

Raffensperger, Sterling will headline Tuesday's Jan. 6 hearings

So will Arizona Speaker of the House, Rusty Bowers. He too also resisted efforts by Trump to overturn the election.

Hopefully it has an impact on at least some voters. That could make a difference.

[San Lumen]

The system can be fixed. It would require an informed active electorate and that's not going to be seen in a very long time.

How long do you estimate? I want to know how long I need to wait in hiding.

You could start by running for local office. That's how many people got their start as its an excellent stepping stone.

Getting involved in your local party committee is another great place to start.

[Zurkerx]

So will Arizona Speaker of the House, Rusty Bowers. He too also resisted efforts by Trump to overturn the election.

Hopefully it has an impact on at least some voters. That could make a difference.

Yeah, no, based on what I've seen in this hyper partisan environment, it's not changing anyone's mind. If anything, it has hardened the views on both sides. Maybe a few but they're a very small percentage. Inflation is what people are about right now.

We all know this isn't designed for the public: the committee is well aware of that. This is catered to the DOJ in hopes they'll take up a case against Trump. After all, the committee is literally doing the DOJ's work for them. That said, we must be cautiously pessimistic on whether any charges, or a case for that matter, every hits Trump.

[HISPIDA]

How long do you estimate? I want to know how long I need to wait in hiding.

You could start by running for local office. That's how many people got their start as its an excellent stepping stone.

my goodness, why didn't i think of that?

[The Black Forrest]

The system can be fixed. It would require an informed active electorate and that's not going to be seen in a very long time.

How long do you estimate? I want to know how long I need to wait in hiding.

After the conservatives get their dream of Gilead and it falls.....

[Shrillland]

New poll...enjoy.