This article is complete trash who’s upvoting this garbage?

Standard of living is relatively high in the U.S.

But the alternatives that people are proposing leaves people with no representation at all. You can’t have representation when you aren’t even allowed to discuss ideas that the government already disagrees with.

Agreed

Can you link something describing what that system of government looks like. Because all I’ve heard of is descriptions of the principles and the Italian party from history. And looking how, that’s all I can find also.

Bu what metric does that system work though? It’s hard to judge it because the info is all unreliable and the government doesn’t share data. We don’t know how bad or good wealth inequality is there.

Those are some wild and unreliable sources for why it isn’t a genocide. You’re burying your head in the sand.

It doesn’t define how leaders are chosen or how laws are enacted. It can’t be a system of government. Unless you have selected a specific implementation of government that uses it and are conflating the term with that government system. If that’s the case, then I agree that arguing over the definition is pointless. So what implementation or design do you think is better.

China is totalitarian and becoming more autocratic by the year.

When dictatorships go badly, they go extremely badly. Far more badly than even a broken representative democracy. The odd of having a sold string of reasonably good dictators are vanishingly small. A good dictator is the best form of government. Good luck maintaining that though.

It’s it though. It’s a principle applied to Chinese communism. It’s not a required part of communism and it isn’t form of government on its own. It’s not even the most major part of a government system.

That could be a nice improvement to the US’s representative democracy also. The nice thing about ranked choice voting is that it forces people to have more than one choice. People may only approve of exactly their favorite choice.

Name one. One actually concrete form of democracy that would work better.

You’re talking about an implementation of representative democracy and you’re not offering any concrete alternative. So I refer you to my first comment where I said that representative democracy is bad, but still better than the others.

What definition of proletarian democracy? It’s not well defined and means vastly different things to different people.

Democratic centrism is more of a rule or process or principle. It isn’t even a form of government and it’s compatible with many forms of government.

Proletarian democracy isn’t well defined so I can’t say anything since it means 1000 different things to 1000 different people and often does include representative democracy.

Participatory democracy similarly is a spectrum and is compatible with representative democracy.

So to actually talk about this you would need to be more specific about how the “better” form of government would work.

Worse than what form of democracy exactly?

That’s not a political system at all. It’s a process that could be implemented in many styles of government. It is not incompatible with representative democracy either. It is a bad idea though. It means that a government has a hard time changing course, even when it needs to. Because it silences people from questioning decisions.

That’s not a political system at all. It’s a process that could be implemented in many styles of government. It is not incompatible with representative democracy either. It is a bad idea though. It means that a government has a hard time changing course, even when it needs to. Because it silences people from questioning decisions.

One problem in the US is that the purpose of the House of Representatives has been completely subverted. It was supposed to scale up with the population so the representatives really would be part of the community they represent. But we stopped increasing the number of representatives and that lets the ruling elite control them better. The representatives no longer come from their community and the wealthy have less candidates they have to prop up. And the lower count means that gerrymandering is far more effective.

What’s better?

It’s still the best way even if it’s bad. Ranked choice voting would make it better.

In the book, I remember that sookie says that someone “had her engine running like the pace car at the indie 500”or something like it.

Your previous comment has dishonest paraphrasing among other things. You’re fundamentally dishonest in your messages and not worth talking to.

If you saw us get overthrown by a dictator, as Trump attempted to do, you’d see the difference between a flawed democracy and no democracy at all.

He did a lot, but one thing he did was try to overthrow our democracy. Flawed as it is, it’s still better than not having a democracy at all.

The perspective is that things aren’t black and white. You are making them black and white. There are degrees of bad and Trump is worse. And yes, that’s disappointing. But we still need to keep him out of office because that’s the only actual choice we have in our broken democracy.

That’s no different than not voting at all effectively. Our democracy is a broken system. Biden is the best choice we have realistically and if we don’t vote for him, then we risk having someone so much worse.

Our democracy is so broken that we have to choose between this shitbag and a wannabe dictator. And we really do have to vote for this shitbag unfortunately. Our system sucks.

Starship Troopers (the book), is only fascist if you assume that anyone that’s pro-military is fascist.

In the book, the military is literally in the middle of genocide and killing unarmed families in civilian villages.

The cards were great, and I thought I would hate them.

The weird childish conversations and activities really killed the game for me. It was funny sort of. But it was like a 2:1 ratio of bullshit to strategic combat.

The rich lower middle class and up aren’t doing anything wrong here. They’re being offered free lunch and their kids are accepting it.

That it’s a religion. Except for a few groups, which I find kind of strange, being an atheist is the lack of religion and belief in a god. It’s not a religion or anything like a religion and so often I see atheism discussed by the religious in religious terms l, as a monolith, and other ways that just totally miss the mark.

Is the AI as bad as horizon? Do all the reverts jump out in front with impossible acceleration and tire grip just so you have people to pass throughout the race instead of making the ai racers behave the similar to real players?

I didn’t even give Forza Motorsport a shot after horizon was ruined for me when I realized the AI cars weren’t bound by physics and were basically just artificial obstacles on what was basically a solo time trial every race.

Software development is never profitable?

To me, Bernie proved that there can be no positive change in the US via voting. When Bernie was looking strong, the democrats and the news media did everything they could to stop him and they succeeded. They were willing to do it even though the polling numbers showed that Hillary was the only legitimate primary candidate who couldn’t beat Trump. They wanted Bernie out no matter what because he represented the positive change that would hurt the ruling class just a little.

If you ignore the actual usage of words then you’re speaking your own language and talking only with your own in-group bubble.

This was not a conversation about the political science term “liberal”. It is about lies told to everyone. We’re obviously discussing common usage.

That’s only true if you use the international definition of “liberal”. In America, “liberal” means “left wing”. And we’re talking about American politics.

“Democrats are liberal/progressive”

In reality, they’re pretty conservative.

Manipulative, interactive sex workers are not the same as “nudity”.