|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 27 2020 17:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2020 17:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys need to really define what you call a revolution very precisely or this will be another nonsense discussion.
I think it's quite clear the US would need another constitution and I think it's quite clear that it's unlikely to happen considering so many folks on the right think the constitution is basically a religious text. I don't subscribe to the GH revolution model of change, obviously. But I think that a lot of our problems will only be solved by shutting down the minority voices this country can't seem but to bend the knee to. A definite redesign of the constitution will only happen once the boomer generation is gone. The power they hold is too vast to overcome and then it begins with taxing wealth passed on to their children.
If by revolution you mean a change of constitution, I'm all for it.
And very skeptical it will happen.
|
On October 27 2020 16:41 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2020 16:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
V for Vendetta is looking rather prescient at the moment. I'm just ashamed to call this place my home. That a vocal minority can fuck over an entire country is just absurd. For once, I'm leaning more and more towards GH that revolution is possible and should probably be considered. Never thought this would go that route. for what its worth im sure many countries have their own problems which seem helpless. i for one am massively unsatisfied with government policy, direction and overall administration in australia. ive thought about it for a long time and my conclusion is that australia also is in need of a revolution. what makes the scenario even worse for australia is that the problems with our government arent as well known as americas. america going to shit is heavily publicised and the whole world knows it but not even australians know their own country is going to shit
Because Australian politics is pretty irrelevant to the direction of the world compared to US politics, but anyone can see that 6 Prime Ministers in 8 years isn't good going.
And when you've got the Govt paying many people $1200-$1500 a fortnight on Jobkeeper, the tax cuts and extra handouts due to COVID there won't be a revolution.People are content so long as they're getting that government cheese, unless these lockdowns worsen in 2021.The natives in Melbourne were starting to get restless.
|
On October 27 2020 17:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2020 17:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys need to really define what you call a revolution very precisely or this will be another nonsense discussion.
I think it's quite clear the US would need another constitution and I think it's quite clear that it's unlikely to happen considering so many folks on the right think the constitution is basically a religious text. I don't subscribe to the GH revolution model of change, obviously. But I think that a lot of our problems will only be solved by shutting down the minority voices this country can't seem but to bend the knee to. A definite redesign of the constitution will only happen once the boomer generation is gone. The power they hold is too vast to overcome and then it begins with taxing wealth passed on to their children. If by revolution you mean a change of constitution, I'm all for it. And very skeptical it will happen.
It goes deeper than the constitution. It's an academic level of change. The very fabric of what the country is, can be, and should strive for is what all who live here have to fight for. AOC, in my book, is the future of the country. People like her, within reason, can push this country towards a future where everyone is somehow or another taken care of. I don't follow individual politicians so much as the generality of their proposals.
The change is unlikely to happen because there are a lot of people who either are comfortable with the status, complacent by inaction to change it, or they are too ignorant to understand that they are the very people who would gain the most. I've given up on most conservatives being rational actors in regards to a lot of things. Most is the keyword. Some still surprise me.
|
How about a proper revolution, with guillotines, seizure of private property, and some good old fashioned regime change? Let’s not waste the term on half-hearted incremental improvements that really don’t fundamentally change the base of power that caused things to degrade to the point that revolution is called for in the first place.
|
On October 27 2020 17:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2020 17:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys need to really define what you call a revolution very precisely or this will be another nonsense discussion.
I think it's quite clear the US would need another constitution and I think it's quite clear that it's unlikely to happen considering so many folks on the right think the constitution is basically a religious text. I don't subscribe to the GH revolution model of change, obviously. I'm curious what you think that is and why you think it's obviously worse than what you're imagining?
The first step to revolution is education. We agree on that much.
|
On October 27 2020 17:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2020 17:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys need to really define what you call a revolution very precisely or this will be another nonsense discussion.
I think it's quite clear the US would need another constitution and I think it's quite clear that it's unlikely to happen considering so many folks on the right think the constitution is basically a religious text. I don't subscribe to the GH revolution model of change, obviously. But I think that a lot of our problems will only be solved by shutting down the minority voices this country can't seem but to bend the knee to. A definite redesign of the constitution will only happen once the boomer generation is gone. The power they hold is too vast to overcome and then it begins with taxing wealth passed on to their children. If by revolution you mean a change of constitution, I'm all for it. And very skeptical it will happen. It goes deeper than the constitution. It's an academic level of change. The very fabric of what the country is, can be, and should strive for is what all who live here have to fight for. AOC, in my book, is the future of the country. People like her, within reason, can push this country towards a future where everyone is somehow or another taken care of. I don't follow individual politicians so much as the generality of their proposals. The change is unlikely to happen because there are a lot of people who either are comfortable with the status, complacent by inaction to change it, or they are too ignorant to understand that they are the very people who would gain the most. I've given up on most conservatives being rational actors in regards to a lot of things. Most is the keyword. Some still surprise me.
I've stated that here before but I think the problem with the US is mainly its people and its culture. Politics just follows. If you ask me what's the most shocking about the country, I wouldn't start with the system or even Trump but with "in many parts of the country folks believe you should be allowed to shoot like a dog someone who trespasses on your property".
The culture of violence, the obsession with money and the lack of compassion for poor people are in my opinion the three main problems with America. It's not worth dreaming of revolution if people think like that.
It will take decades if not generations to change.
|
On October 27 2020 17:31 LegalLord wrote:
How about a proper revolution, with guillotines, seizure of private property, and some good old fashioned regime change? Let’s not waste the term on half-hearted incremental improvements that really don’t fundamentally change the base of power that caused things to degrade to the point that revolution is called for in the first place.
Yeah, no problem that is not solvable by a blood bath, revolutionary tribunals and murdering all the bad people by cutting them in half on public square.
|
On October 27 2020 17:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2020 17:31 LegalLord wrote:
How about a proper revolution, with guillotines, seizure of private property, and some good old fashioned regime change? Let’s not waste the term on half-hearted incremental improvements that really don’t fundamentally change the base of power that caused things to degrade to the point that revolution is called for in the first place. Yeah, no problem that is not solvable by a blood bath, revolutionary tribunals and murdering all the bad people by cutting them in half on public square.
You act as if suggesting people wait decades isn't asking millions of people to die waiting?
|
On October 27 2020 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2020 17:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:31 LegalLord wrote:
How about a proper revolution, with guillotines, seizure of private property, and some good old fashioned regime change? Let’s not waste the term on half-hearted incremental improvements that really don’t fundamentally change the base of power that caused things to degrade to the point that revolution is called for in the first place. Yeah, no problem that is not solvable by a blood bath, revolutionary tribunals and murdering all the bad people by cutting them in half on public square. You act as if suggesting people wait decades isn't asking millions of people to die waiting?
No, I'm suggesting you guys grow up.
|
On October 27 2020 17:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2020 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2020 17:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:31 LegalLord wrote:
How about a proper revolution, with guillotines, seizure of private property, and some good old fashioned regime change? Let’s not waste the term on half-hearted incremental improvements that really don’t fundamentally change the base of power that caused things to degrade to the point that revolution is called for in the first place. Yeah, no problem that is not solvable by a blood bath, revolutionary tribunals and murdering all the bad people by cutting them in half on public square. You act as if suggesting people wait decades isn't asking millions of people to die waiting? No, I'm suggesting you guys grow up.
What in the world do you think "growing up" is?
|
I don't want to come off as a smug European but in Germany or highest court has a one term limit of 12 years and an age cap at 68. Wouldn't something like this be better than Kavanaugh still making rulings in fourty years thanks to modern medicine? It would take away the importance of a single person for the whole system and give young scholars of law something to dream about.
|
On October 27 2020 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2020 17:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:31 LegalLord wrote:
How about a proper revolution, with guillotines, seizure of private property, and some good old fashioned regime change? Let’s not waste the term on half-hearted incremental improvements that really don’t fundamentally change the base of power that caused things to degrade to the point that revolution is called for in the first place. Yeah, no problem that is not solvable by a blood bath, revolutionary tribunals and murdering all the bad people by cutting them in half on public square. You act as if suggesting people wait decades isn't asking millions of people to die waiting?
He's from France, they had the yellow vests for what, 18 months or something?
Hong Kong they had huge anti-government protests.
Both seem to have stopped due to COVID and lockdowns.
Govt can, at the moment, stop these uprisings with COVID laws - how many in favour of revolution here are also in favour of lockdowns and crowd limiting measures?....
|
On October 27 2020 18:08 schaf wrote:
I don't want to come off as a smug European but in Germany or highest court has a one term limit of 12 years and an age cap at 68. Wouldn't something like this be better than Kavanaugh still making rulings in fourty years thanks to modern medicine? It would take away the importance of a single person for the whole system and give young scholars of law something to dream about.
Our system is also generally more sane, both by requiring a supermajority to actually seat someone in the supreme court, and by not being FPTP and thus having more sane parties in government.
I think this requirement for a supermajority is one of the reasons our supreme court is so highly respected. It means that the judges selected are basically never partisan hacks, but always very respected professionals who focus on the law over their political opinions.
But it simply wouldn't work in the US, because it would give obstructionist republicans even more power to simply never seat someone they don't like.
|
On October 27 2020 17:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2020 17:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys need to really define what you call a revolution very precisely or this will be another nonsense discussion.
I think it's quite clear the US would need another constitution and I think it's quite clear that it's unlikely to happen considering so many folks on the right think the constitution is basically a religious text. I don't subscribe to the GH revolution model of change, obviously. But I think that a lot of our problems will only be solved by shutting down the minority voices this country can't seem but to bend the knee to. A definite redesign of the constitution will only happen once the boomer generation is gone. The power they hold is too vast to overcome and then it begins with taxing wealth passed on to their children. If by revolution you mean a change of constitution, I'm all for it. And very skeptical it will happen. It goes deeper than the constitution. It's an academic level of change. The very fabric of what the country is, can be, and should strive for is what all who live here have to fight for. AOC, in my book, is the future of the country. People like her, within reason, can push this country towards a future where everyone is somehow or another taken care of. I don't follow individual politicians so much as the generality of their proposals. The change is unlikely to happen because there are a lot of people who either are comfortable with the status, complacent by inaction to change it, or they are too ignorant to understand that they are the very people who would gain the most. I've given up on most conservatives being rational actors in regards to a lot of things. Most is the keyword. Some still surprise me.
AOC would turn this country into Venezuela. Stop acting like you have the monopoly on "reason" and everyone else is dumb. Would you call Hayek, Friedman, Mises, Bohm-Bawerk, Constant, Bastiat, Say, Turgot, Jefferson, Yates, etc. dumb? The further America strays from its classically liberal roots the more it destroys the common person and the spirit of the country. Why don't you advocate for local and state secession instead of forcing folks from parts of the country who want nothing to do with your inanity into your "system"? Go live in Cali and have Cali seceede. That is going to be a lot easier than a "revolution" and foisting AOC onto the entire country.
|
On October 27 2020 18:36 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2020 18:08 schaf wrote:
I don't want to come off as a smug European but in Germany or highest court has a one term limit of 12 years and an age cap at 68. Wouldn't something like this be better than Kavanaugh still making rulings in fourty years thanks to modern medicine? It would take away the importance of a single person for the whole system and give young scholars of law something to dream about. Our system is also generally more sane, both by requiring a supermajority to actually seat someone in the supreme court, and by not being FPTP and thus having more sane parties in government. I think this requirement for a supermajority is one of the reasons our supreme court is so highly respected. It means that the judges selected are basically never partisan hacks, but always very respected professionals who focus on the law over their political opinions. But it simply wouldn't work in the US, because it would give obstructionist republicans even more power to simply never seat someone they don't like.
You realize since Nixon 3 GOP SCOTUS nominees have been voted down while 0 Dem nominees have been voted down, right? Of course not. I also don't understand this sentence in context of requiring super-majority. Like...if the minority party doesn't like someone should they vote for them? What's the point then? It also must be said no one here has a problem if someone so politically inclined like a Brandeis, Warren, Marshall, or in more recent terms Sotomayer is appointed. Is it only a political problem if your political opponents appoint differing political jurists?
My point is it is funny to see people so political polarized feign non-partisan attitudes when they conveniently ignore one sides appointees and only point to the other sides. Raise hands for how many here opposed Sotomayer because she was too liberal and too political?
|
Norway28797 Posts
On October 27 2020 19:09 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2020 18:36 Simberto wrote:On October 27 2020 18:08 schaf wrote:
I don't want to come off as a smug European but in Germany or highest court has a one term limit of 12 years and an age cap at 68. Wouldn't something like this be better than Kavanaugh still making rulings in fourty years thanks to modern medicine? It would take away the importance of a single person for the whole system and give young scholars of law something to dream about. Our system is also generally more sane, both by requiring a supermajority to actually seat someone in the supreme court, and by not being FPTP and thus having more sane parties in government. I think this requirement for a supermajority is one of the reasons our supreme court is so highly respected. It means that the judges selected are basically never partisan hacks, but always very respected professionals who focus on the law over their political opinions. But it simply wouldn't work in the US, because it would give obstructionist republicans even more power to simply never seat someone they don't like. You realize since Nixon 3 GOP SCOTUS nominees have been voted down while 0 Dem nominees have been voted down, right? Of course not.
Are you seriously doing a semanticsy 'garland wasn't voted down because he wasn't even permitted to be put to a vote' as part of your argument (where the argument is whether the GOP is obstructionist, nonetheless?)
|
Norway28797 Posts
On October 27 2020 19:03 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2020 17:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys need to really define what you call a revolution very precisely or this will be another nonsense discussion.
I think it's quite clear the US would need another constitution and I think it's quite clear that it's unlikely to happen considering so many folks on the right think the constitution is basically a religious text. I don't subscribe to the GH revolution model of change, obviously. But I think that a lot of our problems will only be solved by shutting down the minority voices this country can't seem but to bend the knee to. A definite redesign of the constitution will only happen once the boomer generation is gone. The power they hold is too vast to overcome and then it begins with taxing wealth passed on to their children. If by revolution you mean a change of constitution, I'm all for it. And very skeptical it will happen. It goes deeper than the constitution. It's an academic level of change. The very fabric of what the country is, can be, and should strive for is what all who live here have to fight for. AOC, in my book, is the future of the country. People like her, within reason, can push this country towards a future where everyone is somehow or another taken care of. I don't follow individual politicians so much as the generality of their proposals. The change is unlikely to happen because there are a lot of people who either are comfortable with the status, complacent by inaction to change it, or they are too ignorant to understand that they are the very people who would gain the most. I've given up on most conservatives being rational actors in regards to a lot of things. Most is the keyword. Some still surprise me. AOC would turn this country into Venezuela. Stop acting like you have the monopoly on "reason" and everyone else is dumb. Would you call Hayek, Friedman, Mises, Bohm-Bawerk, Constant, Bastiat, Say, Turgot, Jefferson, Yates, etc. dumb? The further America strays from its classically liberal roots the more it destroys the common person and the spirit of the country. Why don't you advocate for local and state secession instead of forcing folks from parts of the country who want nothing to do with your inanity into your "system"? Go live in Cali and have Cali seceede. That is going to be a lot easier than a "revolution" and foisting AOC onto the entire country.
The idea that AOC would turn the US into venezuela is so idiotic you should be genuinely embarrassed that you managed to think the thought, type the thought out on your keyboard, and press post. Big bright red flashing warning lamps should have been going off in your brain telling you 'hm, this doesn't sound right' during each of those three steps.
Edit:
I genuinely don't want to be rude. But your previous two posts were really stupid and you're really not, so I believe you can do a lot better.
|
On October 27 2020 19:12 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2020 19:03 Wegandi wrote:On October 27 2020 17:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys need to really define what you call a revolution very precisely or this will be another nonsense discussion.
I think it's quite clear the US would need another constitution and I think it's quite clear that it's unlikely to happen considering so many folks on the right think the constitution is basically a religious text. I don't subscribe to the GH revolution model of change, obviously. But I think that a lot of our problems will only be solved by shutting down the minority voices this country can't seem but to bend the knee to. A definite redesign of the constitution will only happen once the boomer generation is gone. The power they hold is too vast to overcome and then it begins with taxing wealth passed on to their children. If by revolution you mean a change of constitution, I'm all for it. And very skeptical it will happen. It goes deeper than the constitution. It's an academic level of change. The very fabric of what the country is, can be, and should strive for is what all who live here have to fight for. AOC, in my book, is the future of the country. People like her, within reason, can push this country towards a future where everyone is somehow or another taken care of. I don't follow individual politicians so much as the generality of their proposals. The change is unlikely to happen because there are a lot of people who either are comfortable with the status, complacent by inaction to change it, or they are too ignorant to understand that they are the very people who would gain the most. I've given up on most conservatives being rational actors in regards to a lot of things. Most is the keyword. Some still surprise me. AOC would turn this country into Venezuela. Stop acting like you have the monopoly on "reason" and everyone else is dumb. Would you call Hayek, Friedman, Mises, Bohm-Bawerk, Constant, Bastiat, Say, Turgot, Jefferson, Yates, etc. dumb? The further America strays from its classically liberal roots the more it destroys the common person and the spirit of the country. Why don't you advocate for local and state secession instead of forcing folks from parts of the country who want nothing to do with your inanity into your "system"? Go live in Cali and have Cali seceede. That is going to be a lot easier than a "revolution" and foisting AOC onto the entire country. The idea that AOC would turn the US into venezuela is so idiotic you should be genuinely embarrassed that you managed to think the thought, type the thought out on your keyboard, and press post. Big bright red flashing warning lamps should have been going off in your brain telling you 'hm, this doesn't sound right' during each of those three steps.
All of her economic policies would ravage the country. She's not far removed from the likes of Kshama Sawant. (After-all AOC is a DSA member...)
|
On October 27 2020 19:19 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2020 19:12 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 27 2020 19:03 Wegandi wrote:On October 27 2020 17:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys need to really define what you call a revolution very precisely or this will be another nonsense discussion.
I think it's quite clear the US would need another constitution and I think it's quite clear that it's unlikely to happen considering so many folks on the right think the constitution is basically a religious text. I don't subscribe to the GH revolution model of change, obviously. But I think that a lot of our problems will only be solved by shutting down the minority voices this country can't seem but to bend the knee to. A definite redesign of the constitution will only happen once the boomer generation is gone. The power they hold is too vast to overcome and then it begins with taxing wealth passed on to their children. If by revolution you mean a change of constitution, I'm all for it. And very skeptical it will happen. It goes deeper than the constitution. It's an academic level of change. The very fabric of what the country is, can be, and should strive for is what all who live here have to fight for. AOC, in my book, is the future of the country. People like her, within reason, can push this country towards a future where everyone is somehow or another taken care of. I don't follow individual politicians so much as the generality of their proposals. The change is unlikely to happen because there are a lot of people who either are comfortable with the status, complacent by inaction to change it, or they are too ignorant to understand that they are the very people who would gain the most. I've given up on most conservatives being rational actors in regards to a lot of things. Most is the keyword. Some still surprise me. AOC would turn this country into Venezuela. Stop acting like you have the monopoly on "reason" and everyone else is dumb. Would you call Hayek, Friedman, Mises, Bohm-Bawerk, Constant, Bastiat, Say, Turgot, Jefferson, Yates, etc. dumb? The further America strays from its classically liberal roots the more it destroys the common person and the spirit of the country. Why don't you advocate for local and state secession instead of forcing folks from parts of the country who want nothing to do with your inanity into your "system"? Go live in Cali and have Cali seceede. That is going to be a lot easier than a "revolution" and foisting AOC onto the entire country. The idea that AOC would turn the US into venezuela is so idiotic you should be genuinely embarrassed that you managed to think the thought, type the thought out on your keyboard, and press post. Big bright red flashing warning lamps should have been going off in your brain telling you 'hm, this doesn't sound right' during each of those three steps. All of her economic policies would ravage the country. She's not far removed from the likes of Kshama Sawant. (After-all AOC is a DSA member...)
Please explain how her policies would turn your country into Venezuela and not another more left leaning country (e.g. Germany)?
|
Norway28797 Posts
On October 27 2020 19:19 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2020 19:12 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 27 2020 19:03 Wegandi wrote:On October 27 2020 17:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys need to really define what you call a revolution very precisely or this will be another nonsense discussion.
I think it's quite clear the US would need another constitution and I think it's quite clear that it's unlikely to happen considering so many folks on the right think the constitution is basically a religious text. I don't subscribe to the GH revolution model of change, obviously. But I think that a lot of our problems will only be solved by shutting down the minority voices this country can't seem but to bend the knee to. A definite redesign of the constitution will only happen once the boomer generation is gone. The power they hold is too vast to overcome and then it begins with taxing wealth passed on to their children. If by revolution you mean a change of constitution, I'm all for it. And very skeptical it will happen. It goes deeper than the constitution. It's an academic level of change. The very fabric of what the country is, can be, and should strive for is what all who live here have to fight for. AOC, in my book, is the future of the country. People like her, within reason, can push this country towards a future where everyone is somehow or another taken care of. I don't follow individual politicians so much as the generality of their proposals. The change is unlikely to happen because there are a lot of people who either are comfortable with the status, complacent by inaction to change it, or they are too ignorant to understand that they are the very people who would gain the most. I've given up on most conservatives being rational actors in regards to a lot of things. Most is the keyword. Some still surprise me. AOC would turn this country into Venezuela. Stop acting like you have the monopoly on "reason" and everyone else is dumb. Would you call Hayek, Friedman, Mises, Bohm-Bawerk, Constant, Bastiat, Say, Turgot, Jefferson, Yates, etc. dumb? The further America strays from its classically liberal roots the more it destroys the common person and the spirit of the country. Why don't you advocate for local and state secession instead of forcing folks from parts of the country who want nothing to do with your inanity into your "system"? Go live in Cali and have Cali seceede. That is going to be a lot easier than a "revolution" and foisting AOC onto the entire country. The idea that AOC would turn the US into venezuela is so idiotic you should be genuinely embarrassed that you managed to think the thought, type the thought out on your keyboard, and press post. Big bright red flashing warning lamps should have been going off in your brain telling you 'hm, this doesn't sound right' during each of those three steps. All of her economic policies would ravage the country. She's not far removed from the likes of Kshama Sawant. (After-all AOC is a DSA member...)
I have a very hard time picturing AOC being left of the Norwegian labor party of the 1950s. Anyway, if you wanna say 'AOC would be disastrous for the economy', that's okay. But you're doing the right wing version of 'trump wants to ban muslims from entering the USA, he is only a couple years away from instigating the final solution now'. Extreme hyperboles like this really just ruin your argument (and also the potential for a productive discussion).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
