The same thing people did this time – vote Republican or stay home. I think the outcome of the latest election makes it clear how ineffective the democrats are. By a lot of metrics, Donald Trump was not that successful of a presidency, and despite that, the democrats were not able to field anyone that could defeat him.
In order from least healthy to most healthy:
What change was accomplished by OccupyWallstreet?
They were angry about economic inequality – it’s worse today than in 2011.
They wanted an end to corporate personhood – still totally cookin’ in 2024 with no end in sight
More regulation of the financial sector – we are more deregulated than ever today
I had to admire their aims, but as a movement it was profoundly ineffective…
Sorry, I would not prefer an unethical, unconstitutional, unloving candidate to win. Actually, I think that’s exactly what we did get.
Arguably the “will of the people” was exercised through them supporting the Democratic party. The Democratic party put forth a new candidate in accordance with their own guidelines, which were in place prior to 2024. This was no coup, it was the Democratic party putting forth a candidate as they may. This is not new. They can put forth anyone they wish.
Kamala was put into place by receiving the most votes during a virtual roll call: https://ballotpedia.org/Democratic_delegate_rules%2C_2024
If one supports the Democratic party, surely one would sanction the process by which Kamala became the presidential candidate, as they were acting in accordance of their own party guidelines, which were in place long before this election. If a president would have withdrew prior to Biden, the exact same process would have taken place. A similar action took place in 1972 when VP nominee Thomas Eagleton withdrew. None of this is new.
There was nothing wrong with Harris except seven million people who voted for Biden weren’t ready for her to become president.
I didn’t enjoy what she did as district attorney. I would also argue if she was not electable in 2024, then she doesn’t meet the bar of a “good candidate”. Now her viability is irrelevant entirely, unless she plans to run in 2028.
Those aren’t my idea of good candidates either. My idea of a good candidate would be someone ethical, that wants to improve life for our citizens, that values constitutional values and the rule of law. I am not sure such a person exists in the US that is capable of winning the presidency.
In your picture above, just because a few morons vote for silly reasons doesn’t invalidate the value of having actual good representation.
“Two more weeks”
I wish there was a prediction market about this outcome, as I would gladly bet against it. I don’t see America suddenly growing a spine. As long as there is (fast) food available and the electricity and football games are flowing, 99.999% aren’t picking up that pistol.
Establish a system where voting Approve provides tangible personal benefits, Abstaining remains a safe, comfortable default, and Disapproving results in immediate personal drawbacks. Maintain a decent standard of living, encourage open non-violent expression, and quickly address problems so people rarely feel compelled to choose Disapprove. By making Approval the path to greater prosperity, Abstention harmless, and Disapproval costly, the majority either Approve or simply do nothing, ensuring that discontent never coherently organizes into a mass disapproval large enough to threaten your life.
If the democrats are so sick of getting swapped out maybe they should field some decent candidates.
Here’s what I say about UBI. We may not need it today, but we better figure it out because we’ll need it someday. As an example, take a look at America in 1800. 95%+ of people worked in agriculture. With tractors, the cotton gin, etc. all those careers will be eliminated. The cotton gin of tomorrow is autonomous vehicles, robots and/or drones. Jobs like delivery driver, cashier, etc are all on borrowed time. If we don’t figure out some new economic framework before that time, our society is toast. All the “unskilled” jobs that served as on-ramps to more advanced employment will literally be wiped off the face of the Earth.
Of course, America being America, we’ll treat this like climate change. Deny deny deny, even when it starts actively harming you. By the time someone tries to solve it, we’ll all be screwed.
One was head of state, the other is some CEO that was replaced by another one in the lineup before the day was even over.
Who’s waking up? We’re already seeing the end of this news cycle. People are pre-occupied with the stupid drones in NJ and losing interest over this. I would nearly guarantee we see no long-term changes to our health care system. The public operates in 2 week outrages. It would take a longer attention span to actually fix something. Someone’d have to dismantle the corrupt lobbying system in DC. Reminder: this year ALONE companies spend more than $130 million on lobbying in DC. The politicians don’t work for us, the people, they work for the health companies and their lobbyists. This is business as usual.
As someone that was at the protest, at no point did I think it would result in the war stopping. It was still worthwhile, however. In retrospect, the war was so much worse than any of us knew at the time and also based on flimsy and/or no evidence of WMD. Business as usual in America. We’d do it all over again today, I have no doubt.
I just hate the idea that we have to sink to the bottom. If someone else cheated on a game to win, I would not respond by also cheating. I don’t believe in it.
Should probably pardon everyone convicted of taking money under the table and smoking crack as well, but that would require a consistent moral character. I wouldn’t hold my breath. He doesn’t give a fuck anymore.
Nope, just good ol’ fashioned communists! Beware the red scare!
Go price out the cost of 24/7 coverage for an individual and then think about the need to restrict your life to places that can be easily secured. These CEOs will be jumpy for a few weeks and then life will go on. I predict this is not going to be a trend. We aren’t going to see 10+ CEOs shot a year. If I am wrong about that rate, then the rest of what I said would no longer be true. I believe this will be an isolated incident.
Absolutely! Who is making the decisions that lead to a mass loss of life? Not a random worker at the company.
I would argue anyone participating in the company, even someone washing the floors at night is helping to perpetuate it. Definitely not to the degree of the CEO, but every single worker there is helping to sustain the system.
You think that’s bad? Every April I have to hand the country I live in a bunch of papers with numbers on them just to exist. If I don’t, they send men with guns. How crazy is that?