@DigitalPatch @carnage4life you guys wanna argue with the scholars, go for it, meanwhile we are doing something about it right NOW https://infosec.exchange/@codinghorror/116032070438731854

@codinghorror @carnage4life Familiar with your commendable initiative, but I guess I'm not following your argument. The Constitution is comically rigid and partisanship -- especially on the right -- is one of a perpetual, ideological/cultural war trying to rollback the progress of the 70s, 30s, etc.

Those seem like side points to the original post IMO.

@codinghorror @carnage4life If the gist of the counterargument is that the broadly stable, prosperous, & free order we were under before didn't benefit everyone -- sure.

But those same people would very likely be even worse off under a less stable, less prosperous, & arbitrary order in this country. A lot of us have family that lives in such places & there's a reason subset of those people would love to emigrate to a US of the previous era, if given the opportunity in spite of the challenges.

@DigitalPatch @carnage4life buried lede. New country time. There is precedent. See map in my earlier post the magic number is not 2 but 3.

@codinghorror @DigitalPatch @carnage4life This is light on actual mechanics. Federal taxes are collected directly by the Federal government, and you personally face prosecution if you withhold them.

How do you convince every taxpayer in the state to simultaneously commit tax evasion?

@codinghorror @carnage4life You do *not* have a polarized two-party system. You have one boring middle:of-the-spectrum party and a corrupt lying cheating fascist-adjacent ultra-extremist party. The problem is unipolar.

@codinghorror @carnage4life I forgot to mention racist and misogynist.

@codinghorror @carnage4life There are definitely problems in the US. Neither party will address it because it means doing something about income inequality and get wealthy people paying their fair share.

@jgg @timbray @codinghorror @carnage4life it’s not even that people will pick the outsider just to try something different but a lot of people just give up and don’t bother.

One day hopefully the democrats realize that the strategy of ‘you don’t have a choice but to vote for us’ isn’t inspiring or even democratic.

@qkslvrwolf @carnage4life or perhaps they feel there is no point engaging. That the process is rigged, and largely serves political donors, and they might be justified in thinking so.

@allsumnull @carnage4life Blah blah blah that means "they" are comfy enough you don't understand what we all have to lose.

This kinda bullshit is exactly the point carnage4life made.

@jgg @timbray @carnage4life I agree with this and the people talking to the actual folks affected knew with 80% certainty the baseball bat was coming. Email me if you want specific citations and details. I have them all.

@fds @carnage4life I'm working on a few things that will help that I can't quite talk about yet. On top of what is visible.

@timbray @carnage4life I agree but scholars disagree with you on this point (that we don't have a wildly polarized two party system). That's .. demonstrably untrue. Email me for all the citations. They are in my timeline, too. Either way. Doesn't matter.

@codinghorror @timbray @carnage4life I think both things are true: politics in the US are heavily polarized between Democrats and Republicans, but also neither of them is leftist: the Democrats are centrists and the Republicans are far right. Occasional leftist politicians run as Democrats, not because that party is left-leaning, but because in that country there is only one other party and it is a far right one.

@isonno @DigitalPatch @carnage4life my bad. This avenue will not work, but I think Illinois is on to something; check latest news.

@oantolin @timbray @carnage4life with >2 parties you can form coalitions. How do you do that with a hard lock on two parties? How?

@codinghorror @carnage4life I guess the problem is the word "polarized" - the etymology is straightforward from "polar" as in "polar" opposites", and thus the word has the strong connotation that the poles are unreasonable and truth is somewhere in the middle. When you're talking about current US politics, that’s actively misleading and dangerous. I think anyone wanting to argue seriously about the current scene should really stop using "polarized" and "polarization".

@timbray @carnage4life yes, I mean in terms of extremes us vs them, either you are with us or I have sworn a blood oath against all of your kind, etc. It’s palpable here and disturbing

@timbray @codinghorror @carnage4life how about “diametrically opposed” instead of “polarized”?