Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

> Yeah I think symbolically that would have good chance of triggering political action before the election.

Ah there we go, you’re trying for “progress” despite the economy limping along right now. Kick them while they’re down ey?



sort by: page size:

> absolute brink

I would agree, but in an election year maybe they won't play it that way. The party in power has more incentive to keep voters mollified than they do in preserving their ideological purity.

> we're also going to be dancing from one stimulus to another without addressing the long term

100% agree. This is the classical American response, we have mastered the art of kicking the can down the road.


>implying they listen to us and not the people who have money

you should know better than that by now, come on. vote, do whatever. i sure do. but until you're disrupting things, they won't listen.


> I assume that any years where the Republicans control government will be years where nothing happens.

Now now, I think you are being too generous. In fact, it takes a lot of effort to actively set the country back socially, culturally, and environmentally. Give credit where credit’s due. They work (in reverse) hard.


> rather than the root

So run for office. I would certainly vote for someone who was against this crap.

> It's everyone's civic duty to contribute to the noise

That's a tactic. While it may be useful, a strategy that works to gain political influence is better in the long-run.


> they chose to vote in Nero to watch Rome burn.

I don’t know if you noticed, but out democratic institutions have remained intact.

I don’t appreciate my country being held hostage to extortive tactics: “vote for my candidate—the other guy is a literal Nazi!”

It is not game-theoretic optimal to give into extortion, because things will gradually trend in worse and worse directions. Sometimes a protest vote to the system itself is required to reduce the long term damage.


> Easy to pass any legislation that changes voting and threatens all the incumbents? Not without a HUGE push, which I don't see happening anytime soon but why not try?

Agreed. Open to ideas.


> Best thing to mitigate the problem would be a knee-jerk reaction that does least amount of damage. Because in democracy you will have that knee-jerk, sooner or later.

That's an interesting take on it, and I don't really disagree with it. Maybe I hate that I don't disagree with it though. I hate having to settle for something. :/


> I hope politicians are planning ahead.

Excuse me?


> People that are getting angry need to point that at the cause, their own government.

This is correct, but your actions are going to silence (or at least muffle or interrupt) these people's voices. Don't double down on it because you're riding some righteousness high. You still have time to backpedal and not act like a vain fool.

The tax dollars you are talking about are pennies to the oligarchs. You are only hitting regular people with this selfishness. It's a pathetic gesture, and I'll never use your services.


> People are being pulled in a thousand different directions by people with their calls-to-action.

Is that a bad thing?

> "Taxes are due by April 15th" would work fine, for example.

"Climate action is due now"


> Maybe I will give it a shot. At the very least it force the candidates to address rent control as an issue.

I doubt it will force anyone to do anything, least of all the candidates.


> ok, so he's basically suggesting to get of rid government

Really doesn't feel like it.


> I love this. I hope this trend catches on, I can't wait to gut these bloated agencies and force Congress to get back to work at the risk of a completely paralyzed society if they don't.

You seem to be making the bold assumption that both parties are acting in good faith. A completely paralyzed society is actually a victory for one party.


> This particular administration only has a guaranteed relevance of about 7 months.

That is a deeply cynical view on the nature of politics.

> So, why bring it now?

Why help anyone else if you can't score political points off the back of it? Possibly because it's the right thing to do and ideologically motivated people actually do successfully exist in government.


> i think it's time for your laws to change as well.

So if I don't agree with the laws in your country then you should change them too?

overall your comment reminds me of this:

“The problem with the race to the bottom is that you might win.” — Seth Godin


> But a large part of me tells me this would just make things worse

Agreed. You'd end up with more of the folks who just want power for power's sake, instead of growth/validation.


>The effects of this will and should be felt in the next election and beyond.

Should? Yes. Will? No.

>Your sophisticated world-weary cynicism is counterproductive

Painfully naive idealism isn't any different. You have to work with reality, not deny it.


> Surely that runs counter to their goals, right?

Goals are what voters are apathetic to let happen.


>Are you giving up on society yet?

The answer to this for me depends on what the election in November holds.

Making a mistake once and having to live with it for 4 years is manageable. Institutions can recover. But another 4 years of this is would be an unmitigated disaster for the republic.

next

Legal | privacy