EPTOn July 07 2026 06:44 Fleetfeet wrote:
LOL that one got me, good work.
What was the issue again with kneeling on a football field in Trump's first term? Did anyone let the US and/or Trump know that they pay taxes so its fine?
Show nested quote +
On July 07 2026 05:39 Razyda wrote:
-Civil Disobedience and Non-Cooperation - if they get problematic for the government you going to go to prison and eventually get shot at.
-Parallel Institutions/Mutual Aid Networks - A mutual aid networks have 0 impact on policies and pretty sure already exist. Parallel institutions - if they start having impact they will either be taken over (fancy word is "regulated"), or... you going to go to prison.
-Non-Reformist Reforms - thats basically trying to play snooker with basketball. Kinda fun, but its not going to work
-Symbolic Defiance - nobody gives a damn, as long as you pay taxes...
-Legal and Constitutional Challenges - Despite what you may want to believe law is not equal, it is on the side which has better lawyers and more money to pay them. And GH interpretation is I believe treason? Which coincidently rhyme with outcome for the one engaging in such activities.
On July 07 2026 03:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Why couldn't any of those five methods affect change?
On July 07 2026 03:50 Razyda wrote:
Dude, neither of this is going to work.
On July 07 2026 01:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
What is a significant political stride forward you believe followed this "convincing people" method you're imagining rather than the methods like :
-Civil Disobedience and Non-Cooperation
-Parallel Institutions/Mutual Aid Networks
-Non-Reformist Reforms
-Symbolic Defiance: Basically, publicly treating the government’s symbols, laws, or leaders as irrelevant or void
-Legal and Constitutional Challenges (My interpretation on this is probably a bit of an outlier but I would include appealing to the international community for help/condemnation of the US's illegitimate government in this)
I have recommended?
On July 07 2026 00:41 dyhb wrote:
There's no easy fix. Frankly the small strides I think would eventually matter get met with thread-mainstream commentary of "Don't bother convincing people, it won't work" or "it's the other guy who must change, not us!"
On July 07 2026 00:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
Ah yes the good ol' Hamster Wheel again.
1. There's a problem
2. Politicians won't fix it
3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will
4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works
5. Need to fix the system
6. Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them)
7. Repeat ad nauseam.
Probably not any easier since SCOTUS lifted restrictions on campaign finance.
https://www.ms.now/news/supreme-court-campaign-finance-spending-limits-democrats-republicans
How far gone and corrupt can US democracy get before we call the government illegitimate and take commensurate positions?
I'm into educating the public and finding moderate ways around the hyper-politicization. I'm not into the violent, revolutionary methods that must be utilized to overthrow the "system." Even campaign finance reform must be integrated into (and subservient to) civic education: you stop people from getting their name out there by imposing spending limits, and you're just endorsing "incumbency" and "names I recognize" as the means of choosing representatives.On July 07 2026 00:02 dyhb wrote:
I'm not holding out any hope for Congress telling itself that their families can't trade stocks while in office. Or working in lobbying firms (doing strategic advising or whatever workaround) or joining corporate boards after leaving office. Especially in today's age of hyper-partisanship.
I'm not holding out any hope for Congress telling itself that their families can't trade stocks while in office. Or working in lobbying firms (doing strategic advising or whatever workaround) or joining corporate boards after leaving office. Especially in today's age of hyper-partisanship.
Ah yes the good ol' Hamster Wheel again.
1. There's a problem
2. Politicians won't fix it
3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will
4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works
5. Need to fix the system
6. Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them)
7. Repeat ad nauseam.
Probably not any easier since SCOTUS lifted restrictions on campaign finance.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court dismantled one of the few remaining limits on money in politics, striking down spending limits imposed on political parties themselves. The law had been on the books since 1974, passed as a post-Watergate safeguard against corruption.
Democracy is perverted and corrupted when the wealthiest Americans can use their money to blanket the airwaves with their political messaging.
This case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, began in 2022 when JD Vance, who, at that time was a candidate for U.S. Senate in Ohio, sued to challenge limits on campaign spending.
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan spelled out the consequences of this move. “With no limits on coordinated expenditures, the party can serve as the candidate’s checking account,” she wrote, adding that the decision creates “a legal regime increasingly unable to stop political corruption, and thus to preserve our institutions’ democratic legitimacy.”
Democracy is perverted and corrupted when the wealthiest Americans can use their money to blanket the airwaves with their political messaging.
This case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, began in 2022 when JD Vance, who, at that time was a candidate for U.S. Senate in Ohio, sued to challenge limits on campaign spending.
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan spelled out the consequences of this move. “With no limits on coordinated expenditures, the party can serve as the candidate’s checking account,” she wrote, adding that the decision creates “a legal regime increasingly unable to stop political corruption, and thus to preserve our institutions’ democratic legitimacy.”
https://www.ms.now/news/supreme-court-campaign-finance-spending-limits-democrats-republicans
How far gone and corrupt can US democracy get before we call the government illegitimate and take commensurate positions?
There's no easy fix. Frankly the small strides I think would eventually matter get met with thread-mainstream commentary of "Don't bother convincing people, it won't work" or "it's the other guy who must change, not us!"
What is a significant political stride forward you believe followed this "convincing people" method you're imagining rather than the methods like :
-Civil Disobedience and Non-Cooperation
-Parallel Institutions/Mutual Aid Networks
-Non-Reformist Reforms
-Symbolic Defiance: Basically, publicly treating the government’s symbols, laws, or leaders as irrelevant or void
-Legal and Constitutional Challenges (My interpretation on this is probably a bit of an outlier but I would include appealing to the international community for help/condemnation of the US's illegitimate government in this)
I have recommended?
Dude, neither of this is going to work.
Why couldn't any of those five methods affect change?
-Civil Disobedience and Non-Cooperation - if they get problematic for the government you going to go to prison and eventually get shot at.
-Parallel Institutions/Mutual Aid Networks - A mutual aid networks have 0 impact on policies and pretty sure already exist. Parallel institutions - if they start having impact they will either be taken over (fancy word is "regulated"), or... you going to go to prison.
-Non-Reformist Reforms - thats basically trying to play snooker with basketball. Kinda fun, but its not going to work
-Symbolic Defiance - nobody gives a damn, as long as you pay taxes...
-Legal and Constitutional Challenges - Despite what you may want to believe law is not equal, it is on the side which has better lawyers and more money to pay them. And GH interpretation is I believe treason? Which coincidently rhyme with outcome for the one engaging in such activities.
LOL that one got me, good work.
What was the issue again with kneeling on a football field in Trump's first term? Did anyone let the US and/or Trump know that they pay taxes so its fine?
It would seem so, given that final conclusion was "let them do it, who gives a damn"
