Then the only solution is authoritarianism, you’ve convinced me…
Like, what are you actually fighting for at this point? The constitution is the most important democratic institution we have, more than Congress, more than the media, more than the polls. It is literally the thing that separates dictatorships from democracies! An unlimited government is a kingdom.
I’m fighting for the irrelevance of both corporate parties so we can go back to actually functioning within the parameters of the constitution. Walsh’s suggestion is a short term tactic that might derail Trump’s attempt to get a third term. It is certainly not my goal to perpetuate the irrelevance of the Constitution. I just recognize the reality that it hasn’t meant much in quite some time now.
You can’t just turn it off and turn it on again, it takes decades or centuries of work, and thousands to millions of deaths, to overcome the loss of a democracy.
But you’re still fighting for the wrong side. Accelerationism is not going to benefit anyone, it will only quicken our demise and push democratic revival further away.
You seem to be making some false assumptions about me.
I am not an accelerationist. I don’t want to see the collapse of our society. I don’t want to throw out the Constitution. I simply acknowledge that our society is already collapsing and that much of the Constitution is currently being ignored or distorted to the benefit of the ultra rich and a few special interests that don’t give a shit about us.
I do want to see the collapse of the corporate duopoly that has maintained the illusion of democratic choice while slowly but consistently (and now much more rapidly under Trump 2.0) concentrating more and more power in the office of the President. That way we can actually realize the promise of a government by, of, and for The People.
All of your goals are possible within the framework of the constitution. The expressed purpose of it is to limit power to the government. There are no mentions of political parties, there is no mention of a unitary executive.
Decades from now, people will look back and see who fought for the constitution, and who fought against it. That is how we will be judged.
It feels like you’re not responding to what I’m saying but rather arguing with a strawman that you built in your head. I am not interested in defending your strawman, so I’m out.
Then the only solution is authoritarianism, you’ve convinced me…
Like, what are you actually fighting for at this point? The constitution is the most important democratic institution we have, more than Congress, more than the media, more than the polls. It is literally the thing that separates dictatorships from democracies! An unlimited government is a kingdom.
I’m fighting for the irrelevance of both corporate parties so we can go back to actually functioning within the parameters of the constitution. Walsh’s suggestion is a short term tactic that might derail Trump’s attempt to get a third term. It is certainly not my goal to perpetuate the irrelevance of the Constitution. I just recognize the reality that it hasn’t meant much in quite some time now.
You can’t just turn it off and turn it on again, it takes decades or centuries of work, and thousands to millions of deaths, to overcome the loss of a democracy.
Then that’s what we’re in for because we lost our Democracy long before Trump took office.
But you’re still fighting for the wrong side. Accelerationism is not going to benefit anyone, it will only quicken our demise and push democratic revival further away.
You seem to be making some false assumptions about me.
I am not an accelerationist. I don’t want to see the collapse of our society. I don’t want to throw out the Constitution. I simply acknowledge that our society is already collapsing and that much of the Constitution is currently being ignored or distorted to the benefit of the ultra rich and a few special interests that don’t give a shit about us.
I do want to see the collapse of the corporate duopoly that has maintained the illusion of democratic choice while slowly but consistently (and now much more rapidly under Trump 2.0) concentrating more and more power in the office of the President. That way we can actually realize the promise of a government by, of, and for The People.
All of your goals are possible within the framework of the constitution. The expressed purpose of it is to limit power to the government. There are no mentions of political parties, there is no mention of a unitary executive.
Decades from now, people will look back and see who fought for the constitution, and who fought against it. That is how we will be judged.
It feels like you’re not responding to what I’m saying but rather arguing with a strawman that you built in your head. I am not interested in defending your strawman, so I’m out.
Have a nice day.