4 ms·

The assumption that one side was going "extra-constitutional" whilst the other was always acting in good faith, is ridiculous.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
eightysixfour 1y ago
I think you're missing the point if you're in "whataboutism" mode. Members of the current administration have used the term "extra-constitutional" on their own, I would argue that is far more acute than the slow elitist take over from the other party. However, this argument isn't about the "teams" it is about "the playing field." We the people need to defend the playing field, the one that makes us citizens not subjects (as the article put it), by acknowledging the game needs to be changed, so that the teams work for our benefit. The game, of course, being defined by what the goals and metrics of the system are.
- bigbadfeline 1y ago
  > Members of the current administration have used the term "extra-constitutional" on their own They've used more that that, like Plenary Authority, but it's only the movement of the Overton window and it means nothing more than that, for now. These calls sound OK to the people because of the total dysfunction of both sides in Congress which justifies the need for a "strong hand" at the executive level. I wrote some more about it in another comment, but the multi-trillion dollar question is why "our" side have kept and keeps coasting along the disaster driven politics in front of us? > by acknowledging the game needs to be changed, so that the teams work for our benefit. It's not clear who you ask to acknowledge the game but it's very clear that neither team is going to do it, much less to work for our benefit. > The game, of course, being defined by what the goals and metrics of the system are. The game is well into its end stage and the people who defined it, play it every day. What are the chances of those who haven't even figured it out yet? Edit: typo
  - eightysixfour 1y ago
    > It's not clear who you ask to acknowledge the game but it's very clear that neither team is going to do it, much less to work for out benefit. I see very people trying to define a new platform for the US that clearly redefines the terms in these ways. Mostly just fringe folks, closer to Yarvin than a politician. I don't think the ideas are hard to grok, or to package and sell, but I do believe it is possible to create alternative political beliefs and brands (e.g. MAGA), and fully co-opt an existing political party. I don't even think it takes that long to get a train rolling if you have the backing money and fame/platform. If you look at polling results on policy instead of party, there are some alternative alignments that can be drawn that have broad population support across many of the hot button topics, and then you can enter a few new topics into the mainstream discussion point. Barring that, it is millions of people who agree these things are bad (see No Kings protests, even if some are just anti-Trump and not actually aligned) and are willing to stand up for it. > The game is well into its end stage and the people who defined it, play it every day. What are the chances of those who haven't even figured it out yet? People are fickle, that plays against them as much as for them. Trump is proof you can shift the paradigm in less than a decade but, ironically given their slogans, opponents are stuck trying to take us back to "normal" instead of defining a new one. Old people die. Vision can overpower nostalgia.
    - bigbadfeline 1y ago
      > Trump is proof you can shift the paradigm in less than a decade. > I do believe it is possible to create alternative political beliefs and brands (e.g. MAGA) and fully co-opt an existing political party. Co-opting is a rich man's business, and Trump is indeed a proof of it. > Old people die. Vision can overpower nostalgia. Again, that's their playbook too. It's going to be their vision, you can't outshout a bag of money when it comes to new and unproven ideas. > opponents are stuck trying to take us back to "normal" instead of defining a new [paradigm]. Those opponents got at least that right, America should stick to being America, anything else will be a lot weaker and a lot more susceptible to attacks which are, as I already said, enabled by money we can't match. I mean, the paradigm is here and well known, keeping the flies away from the honey is the tricky part.
- horns4lyfe 1y ago
  Seriously? The entire article was just calling out obvious problems while tapdancing around the heinous possibility of (gasp!) blaming liberals for any of it
  - eightysixfour 1y ago
    Do you mean Liberals (freedom) or liberals (aka the US Democratic Party)? Because in this article, the Democratic Party (quite honestly, the entire NeoLib/NeoCon complex) is best associated with the technocratic elite and centrists. He is directly blaming them for failure. I don't see any tap dancing about that.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

eightysixfour 1y ago

I think you're missing the point if you're in "whataboutism" mode. Members of the current administration have used the term "extra-constitutional" on their own, I would argue that is far more acute than the slow elitist take over from the other party. However, this argument isn't about the "teams" it is about "the playing field." We the people need to defend the playing field, the one that makes us citizens not subjects (as the article put it), by acknowledging the game needs to be changed, so that the teams work for our benefit. The game, of course, being defined by what the goals and metrics of the system are.

bigbadfeline 1y ago
> Members of the current administration have used the term "extra-constitutional" on their own They've used more that that, like Plenary Authority, but it's only the movement of the Overton window and it means nothing more than that, for now. These calls sound OK to the people because of the total dysfunction of both sides in Congress which justifies the need for a "strong hand" at the executive level. I wrote some more about it in another comment, but the multi-trillion dollar question is why "our" side have kept and keeps coasting along the disaster driven politics in front of us? > by acknowledging the game needs to be changed, so that the teams work for our benefit. It's not clear who you ask to acknowledge the game but it's very clear that neither team is going to do it, much less to work for our benefit. > The game, of course, being defined by what the goals and metrics of the system are. The game is well into its end stage and the people who defined it, play it every day. What are the chances of those who haven't even figured it out yet? Edit: typo
- eightysixfour 1y ago
  > It's not clear who you ask to acknowledge the game but it's very clear that neither team is going to do it, much less to work for out benefit. I see very people trying to define a new platform for the US that clearly redefines the terms in these ways. Mostly just fringe folks, closer to Yarvin than a politician. I don't think the ideas are hard to grok, or to package and sell, but I do believe it is possible to create alternative political beliefs and brands (e.g. MAGA), and fully co-opt an existing political party. I don't even think it takes that long to get a train rolling if you have the backing money and fame/platform. If you look at polling results on policy instead of party, there are some alternative alignments that can be drawn that have broad population support across many of the hot button topics, and then you can enter a few new topics into the mainstream discussion point. Barring that, it is millions of people who agree these things are bad (see No Kings protests, even if some are just anti-Trump and not actually aligned) and are willing to stand up for it. > The game is well into its end stage and the people who defined it, play it every day. What are the chances of those who haven't even figured it out yet? People are fickle, that plays against them as much as for them. Trump is proof you can shift the paradigm in less than a decade but, ironically given their slogans, opponents are stuck trying to take us back to "normal" instead of defining a new one. Old people die. Vision can overpower nostalgia.
  - bigbadfeline 1y ago
    > Trump is proof you can shift the paradigm in less than a decade. > I do believe it is possible to create alternative political beliefs and brands (e.g. MAGA) and fully co-opt an existing political party. Co-opting is a rich man's business, and Trump is indeed a proof of it. > Old people die. Vision can overpower nostalgia. Again, that's their playbook too. It's going to be their vision, you can't outshout a bag of money when it comes to new and unproven ideas. > opponents are stuck trying to take us back to "normal" instead of defining a new [paradigm]. Those opponents got at least that right, America should stick to being America, anything else will be a lot weaker and a lot more susceptible to attacks which are, as I already said, enabled by money we can't match. I mean, the paradigm is here and well known, keeping the flies away from the honey is the tricky part.
horns4lyfe 1y ago
Seriously? The entire article was just calling out obvious problems while tapdancing around the heinous possibility of (gasp!) blaming liberals for any of it
- eightysixfour 1y ago
  Do you mean Liberals (freedom) or liberals (aka the US Democratic Party)? Because in this article, the Democratic Party (quite honestly, the entire NeoLib/NeoCon complex) is best associated with the technocratic elite and centrists. He is directly blaming them for failure. I don't see any tap dancing about that.