Well, I suppose one way to look at it is that we needed the unified front against Trump, but didn't get it. So for now, and especially for the midterms, maybe now's the time to get an alternative party started?
And then they can choose to run a presidential candidate in 2028 or not, depending on the momentum they get?
I dunno. Mostly thinking out loud here.
What would it take to get a primary system up and running for Independents (or more accurately I guess it would have to be a proper party for a primary to make sense)?
I assume it's some combo of setting up the event hosting ($$$) and somehow coming up with the rules for deciding on how to operate the primary (schedule, thresholds for qualification, voting system, etc). And unfortunately I have no idea how to accomplish either.
Does India particularly differ? I think nods still mean yes and shakes still mean no there. They just also have the "noncommittal head bobble" that tends to confuse people outside India (and, presumably, Pakistan).
I sympathize with Gen Z. It's pretty natural to see your parents' generation having done way better than you are doing at the same age and feel like you've had something stolen from you. It's a pretty profound sense of loss, esp. when you do look at history and think, "Jesus Christ, do we have to suffer like the Great Depression to turn this shit around?"
So I don't know if the WPA itself would be considered socialism. I imagine it depends on your working definition of socialism.
What I can say with a little more confidence is that the WPA and a bunch of other New Deal programs were a direct result of pressure from American Socialists and Communists at the time.
I can't recall if this is apocryphal or not, but the story goes that FDR told a private gathering of America's biggest capitalists about his plans for the New Deal and told them they were going to pay for it through taxes. When they protested for a compromise, FDR said "this is the compromise. The alternative is guillotines." But I can't find that quote anywhere, so I may have made it up.
I'll be the first to admit I have no idea what my Chucklefuck in Chief means by trying to get rid of voting booths.
But if I had to guess, I think he means literally the booths. As in, no privacy. Just paper on a desk where anyone can see what you're doing.
If it isn't clear, this fucker has no idea what a free and fair election is SUPPOSED to look like. He just wants to make sure whatever system we end up with favors him and him alone. And for some reason, voting booths are catching his ire. Maybe he feels insecure not knowing if Melania actually voted for him.
I'll have to check those out! Thanks for the rec.
I haven't used Ground News past the free trial, but a decent feature that I liked was simply that you could look into "a story" and get virtually all of the possible news reports about that one story. Just handy, tbh. If there are other free aggregators doing that sort of linking and grouping, I'd be interested.
The thing about "sources" I can understand, but I think they still have their place. For example, I really like Ars Technica as a tech and science source. One of the things that sold me on them was seeing them make predictions based on their "sources" and those predictions coming true (or close enough). When it comes to politics, the same thing applies. Have they established enough credibility to warrant me believing their "sources", at least provisionally?
But if you don't need or want to be on the cutting edge of political conspiring, then waiting for the court filing, full bill, etc. makes complete sense. I just often might need news, anyway, to understand the broader context of a primary source.
I'm extremely happy with the process I've had, but I understand it's very likely not representative of the rest of us here.
By and large, you're right though. My wife has gone through similar struggles and hasn't been medicated for over a year because of it.
To be fair, that does limit your ability to decide what is newsworthy to begin with. Ain't nobody got the time to read every primary source ever, and sometimes the news is literally just "sources say" until an actual court case or whatever drops.
Granted, if you already know what you want to stay updated on, then cutting out the middleman could be workable. You're just kinda limited in terms of what you'll ultimately be exposed to.
I just don't think the average American can (let alone would) read enough primary sources to keep "up to date" in the political sphere. Add science and tech, and that's just way too much to wade through. Even seasoned beat reporters miss stuff on their beat.
I haven't gotten back to that yet.
But I'm on meds now. So the next thing I'm gonna try to do is fill my schedule a bit more. If I'm doing more, that's less time for my brain to fill that time with analysis paralysis and more time doing stuff I enjoy. The byproduct, hopefully, is that my brain will just be happier overall with the added stimulation. Or so the theory goes, at least.
I'm not super informed here. Why do you think the new DNC chair will change how the Dem primaries will be operated?
I tried googling around myself, but couldn't really find anything meaningful. But that's probably more a reflection of how tired my brain is than anything (work's been hell).
If you have anything readily available you could share, I'd love to feel some positivity about the Democrat party.