GarbageShootAlt2

Some things aren't compatible, and trying to combine them results in having one with the skin of the other. Liberal democracy, for instance, is incompatible with monarchy, and we can see in the UK for instance how the liberals kept on gaining ground until the monarchy became totally symbolic (a very expensive symbol, but a symbol nonetheless). If the workers having democratic control of the means of production precludes capitalists having plutocratic control, it's very simple. Put in the same environment, these two forces would bear what Marxists call "class antagonisms" towards each other and struggle until one was subordinated to the other.

The US (we'll use that example because I know it the best) does borrow ideas from various economic theories, those being various sects of classical liberalism, Keynesianism, and the odd bit of Austrian School or Christo-fascist policy. That is to say, different sects of capitalist ideology. You do not see policies based on Marxian economics or anything of the sort, it's just empirically not how US policy gets written, and that shouldn't surprise you.

First in our current system the president needs Congress to get things done

There is quite a lot that the President can do independently using Executive Orders. Even tasks that, on paper, require congressional approval can be subverted, and you can look at the US's record of entering undeclared wars as evidence of that.

Beyond that, see what I already said about how there's no such thing as an autocrat.

Second, we’ve seen with the freedom caucus that a small group of congressmen can wield a lot of power

These are people who would do the best in an imaginary Fuhrer Trump political machine. Think of it like getting promoted to a bigger, more powerful Freedom Caucus.

Third, I think we definitely can expect a very different Trump in a second term versus his first term and he definitely HAS expressed an interest in this with all of his dictation envy too become Fuhrer and worse there is a large portion of the population that is content to be rolled under a Trump dictatorship.

People have been talking about him admiring dictators before he was elected and all throughout his first term. There's nothing new here, no evidence that suggests something has changed.

I promise you it's just hysteria. So there's a chance of something beneficial happening in this conversation, I want you to just take note of this conviction you have that Trump will be Hitler and then, if he is elected, just remember it as he blunders his way through being racist and doing war crimes just the same as he did before with no particular change besides Vance leading a new rhetorical tact.

No, I won't be doing a mirror version of this exercise. I'm a communist, so if I'm wrong and he's a neo-neo-Nazi, I get the wall anyway and it's no harm done.

How do you think that will play out with Palestine should he get in again?

Liberals keeps saying that Trump will do genocide x 2, but they have no evidence, nor any indication of how.

Look, it does actually work in Western Europe, the UK, Australia and NZ. All this talk that it can’t work is plainly wrong.

Your courts are mostly more professional than America's but I don't find that to be a compelling argument when every country you listed is a reactionary shithole, Australia especially. NZ is the only one that I'd give kind of a pass to there.

It has very little support, it's DOA. That's just what happens. Look at all of Bernie's failed bills; they just don't push the needle. You can tell me that at some point in the future the Rapture will definitely happen, the righteous will be saved and the sinners will be cast into perdition and so on, but I don't see any reason to believe it considering the history of the Democrats for the last 40 years and their incredible ability to pretend to want good things while either conspiring with open rightists or making limp gestures like this.

You will not see the Democratic Party vote its own power away, it just won't happen.

Given how high rent is getting combined with price deflation from the lack of scalping in this hypothetical, they might realistically be able to swing a mortgage, yeah.

Obviously the Republicans are completely hostile to rcv, but the nominal progressives here aren't hoping the Republicans will implement rcv, they think Dems will. I have someone arguing exactly that to me in another thread because three congresspeople are currently setting a proposal up to be shot down.

Making a declaration is worthless. This is three people saying that they'd like to do something and they will fail just as these attempts have always failed. I can give them as people some amount of credit for trying to make the world better, but that does not exonerate the system! The system -- including the rest of the Democratic Party -- will still put their attempt down regardless.

Do you not see the difference here? The fact that people can and do propose to do good things now and again and those attempts are shot down even by the so-called left wing party is not a defense of the republic, but an indictment!

I said

admitted that there may be

Which is what you said. I characterized your statement correctly.

Campaigning on the issues will lock judges into their biases.

What does this mean? Everyone has biases, I don't see how campaigning matters for that. Do you mean, perhaps, that it prevents judges from changing for branding purposes? Because that objection has two serious problems: 1) what the public wants will change over time and 2) people should do what they're elected to, so what does it matter if someone keeps getting elected for maintaining the same popular platform?

It really frustrates me when people talk about "mixing capitalism and socialism." Whatever thing you're talking about is not what socialism is. Socialism is not when the government does stuff. Socialism is not when the government uses taxpayer money to fund social services or welfare. Socialism is the workers controlling the means of production.

Eclecticism doesn't work, it imagines that it can pick out the best of everything, but in reality it ends up either being fundamentally dysfunctional because you can't just decontextualize things from their theoretical framework and have it all work out, or they just end up being one thing with a partial veneer of other things. Almost every country you thought of when you wrote that comment unambiguously has nothing to do with socialism, they're just versions of liberalism that believe in some level of welfare, etc.

There's no need to be so smarmy. Anyway, the individuals may behave in aberrant ways (or perhaps as a red herring, up to your interpretation), but the Democratic Party will reject it just as the Republicans will. I'm talking about classes and political parties, not every person as an individual.

If it passes, I'll eat my hat, but it doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell.

My point is that the landlord is not providing some integral service, but inserting themselves as a middle man in the process to collect money like a ticket scalper.

But you yourself admitted that there may be no such thing as "neutral," "apolitical" justices. If there aren't, what good does pretending do?