And many prefer to maintain the status quo rather than risk inconvenience to make the world a better place.
social unrest is not the same as inconvenience. and i donât believe the US is in a position where we HAVE TO destroy and start from scratch. believe me, i lived through a failed state.
if that is the status quo in your opinion, i donât really care. go ahead and manifesto harder.
The US needs a new constitution and thereâs no risk-free way to get there. Itâs certainly not going to get there through gradualism within the context of American democracy as the end of his history.
Fuck this guy
https://twitter.com/lhsummers/status/1561701542591356931?s=21&t=Y2vauPCg0akd4iazQvZc6Q
you are describing a constitutional convention, and yeah itâs not risk-free. getting there is gradual, in the sense that 2/3 of the states have to call for one.
Thereâs no mechanism anymore for any meaningful change to the status quo without destruction. In my wildest fantasies I canât even conjure up a scenario or a path where this would happen peacefully or without a lot of conflict.
this right here is histrionics.
if youâd like scenarios, you could read up on things like the fall of dictatorships in spain, portugal, de-communization of poland, and many more things i am not even familiar with
not all socialists are radicals, some centrists are socialists.
it literally isnât - what, IYO, is the path there? we can barely pass a budget every year. The right is becoming increasingly violent and militarized, voting rights are vanishing into thin air, and powerful lobbies with violent or destructive interests are becoming more powerful every day.
If acknowledging reality is histrionic, I guess I am, whatever.
when you have actually 30% of the country willing to go to actual war because of some contrived issue with starbucks cups or something, it feels a little silly to say that change will happen peacefully.
1 Like
how did voting rights get passed in the first place? did they destroy any state houses? did they jail and tribunal any officials?
not sure the civil rights era was really known for being particularly peaceful or without conflict
1 Like
it didnât throw away the constitution though. chessmate
1 Like
got em
good point tho, I mean I guess some major political movement like that could happen again, I have some doubts in the era of unfettered social media access and zero oversight to that though. Maybe zoomers and millennialâs kids grow up to not be terrible. I am losing hope for millennials, I think we have too much trauma already.
I hate to break the news to you, but the US is full of just as many âorcsâ as Russia, prolly more TBH. And the orcs are mostly running the asylum.
2 Likes
The second tweet
https://twitter.com/LHSummers/status/1561701543644127232
What am I missing here in this tweet from Clintonâs Treasury Secretary? Being in a position where loans are the only opportunity to go to college is a very common situation with which Larry here is totally unfamiliar.
Oh and next:
https://twitter.com/LHSummers/status/1561701545615441921
The lazy, bad faith âargumentâ that all these elite rich folks benefit when time and time again itâs shown the majority of those with student debt are not in those groups. Eat SHIT Larry.
3 Likes
Larry Summers may be surprised to learn that many of the richest people in America donât have any student loans
âobama/hillary/biden is a goddamn socialist/communist.â (paraphrased)
â foxnews 2008-2022.
but seriously, itâs a sliding scale, and socialist is a uniquely toxic label in us politics. my babe pramila and my dude inslee are progressive to different degrees, but really you could just call them centrists if you are looking at them from center-left, and socialist if you are looking at them from the right/center-right.
I guess if weâre adopting the rightâs definition of âsocialistâ as âanyone to the left of meâ then sure. But itâs an actual word with an actual meaning, so itâs pretty strange to see someone name themselves âVote For Socialistsâ while completely ignoring that meaning
3 Likes
i get your point, although i would again argue percentages. every country, state, county, and party has its orcs. hell, the democratic party has orcs. hard-line nationalists are a deep minority in russia that has captured political power and regularly inflate the polls upto 80% or whatever.
IMO the US couldnât even function unless the âorcsâ are outnumbered at least 51-49, but even that is a misinterpretation of those who can vote, and those who are actually armed for insurrection/sedition. boomers arenât going to be digging any trenches, iykwim. three percenters are just that.