Its reductive. If you view him and politics as best at theater you are not devaluing the platform/policies. Do you vote for policies or the performance artist?
What a mind f*** picturing T doing all this as a D. I would like to think there are some D pols who are not complicit. But the majority sure seem to be from their actions/inactions.
I do think this is how he has been able to consolidate power over the GOP, nearly 400 Rs politicians. And I'm sure billionaires are part of whatever is going on the the D politicians inability to have a spine.
I was referring to 2016. And he definitely had name recognition. But how did he take over the whole party? You don't see DSA taking over the D's because Bernie is popular.
Also, I think very few politicians operate on judging people by their actions instead of their words. You and I see the actions. All they see are the words they choose to believe.
I think part of the answer is what people say about how different he can be in private vs public. I think people pick one of the persona's and think that's the "real" one because its what they want to believe.
If you try a lot of things to get leverage, then you have a lot of things you can bargain with. Bullies want easy targets but don't want to look weak. They would quietly negotiate and dial it back and bully some other blue state. If the blue states did things in tandem it would multiply the effects.
Its indirect. If blue states started passing laws that billionaires didn't like and wanted repealed... The idea is that would create leverage that could be used to negotiate. So if IL passed a 150% wealth tax on x millions (unlikely). Some billionaire would scream bloody murder loud enough.
If you have alternative ideas that the create leverage against the current administration, offer them up. Seems to me they primarily care about money, specifically giving more of it to their preferred rich friends. How else would you get leverage?
Also, just because you don't think something will get through the legislature doesn't mean you shouldn't try. It would have many beneficial effects anyway. It would still act ad a threat/warning. It would test those progressive waters. It would show voters who they have elected.
But I think my point stands about getting leverage. Seems like squeezing billionaires is a pain point. Smarter folks could find the things he could do unilaterally.
I'm sure I am. I also don't think they would do anything to jeopardize the financial position of the state judging from the number of posts touting industry and partnerships.
If you don't have leverage then create leverage. There are ideas out there that could create leverage. Redefining corporate charters is one. An strict set of AI regulations would be another. A 150% wealth tax. Those are just things I've seen here. I'm sure they could be even more creative.
Its a shame. I know it gets complicated. I don't know all the angles/problems...I just think trust is the key. If I can see my ballot was counted properly after the fact then I personally would not lose faith in the process.
We do. But the truth was pretty clear when that happened. Those people wanted to believe that. They could have hand counted every vote themselves and they still would have been there and done what they did.
I think a lot of places could benefit greatly from it. I do see that without resources not everywhere could implement it quickly. I personally would like a receipt with a ballot ID. So I could verify in the images my ballot. But that only adda to the complexity and resources required to manage.
Its about trust. This doesn't look/feel like it enhances trust in the process. That would have been avoided. I don't know the specific processes that states use to verify voting machines or tally outcomes. What I do know is that my trust that my vote will be counted accurately has diminished.
