I defend them because for all their moral failings they did design a system that is more resilient than any other to autocracy. We could have extended participation to all without destroying that system, and Trump would have never happened. Or if he had he would not have had the power to do the things he’s doing now. But every president takes a little bit more, and you don’t say anything if they belong to your party but cry bloody murder when the other one does it. And then when you’re back in power do you ask your lawmakers to stop the power grab? No, why would you, you like what’s being done. And that’s how we get here.

But I digress, you wrote all of that and never refuted the fact that the electoral college does in fact work. Land might not vote but states need equal say regardless of the population they have. If New York and California decide all elections, how soon until the other states start to secede because their votes count for nothing?

States have strong individual cultural and administrative identities and unless you erase that, there’s no way you can abolish the electoral college without also destroying such a thing as the United Staes of America.

Just do the following mental excercise: Texas and Florida are the two fastest growing states at the moment. Let’s say they remain red and manage to get a bigger population than all the blue cities combined (because of all the space they have) and now because of them every election a Republican president wins. Would you be ok with that? If not then you have to be in favor of the electoral college.

It’s kind of the same thing right? I mean when I mean socially conservative, I mean a candidate that when asked about trans right will say what Newsom said not too long ago. The fact of the matter is that the republicans rely on democrats staying mum about trans issues. They will spend hundreds of millions to stir up grievances that don’t really affect most of the voters but it stirs their emotions. If dems don’t address it directly, the voters think (rightfully), is because they agree with this agenda, so I won’t vote for the dem candidate because I do not want men in women’s bathroom.

You need a dem candidate that says he is not for that. The progressive wing might not like it, but the progressive wing is not gonna win the elections alone.

Tim Walz wouldn’t win an election even if he ran unopposed.

The DNC needs a socially conservative but economically progressive candidate if they want to reclaim the narrative that they are the party of the working class. Like it or not, middle America wants to keep trans people in the margins. I know it’s awful to say, but they will need to keep fighting to win acceptance in society. The government simply cannot forc, coerce or even nudge people to accept them.

No they’re not. Abolishing the Electoral college removes yet another barrier to populism and it could have unintended far reaching consequences down the line. I know MAGA is already a populist movement, but it can be so much worse. Just because the popular vote will get you what you want now doesn’t mean that it won’t hurt you in the future. Much like we’ve seen the damage that the reckless expansion of presidential power has done. The founding fathers created a good system and bipartisan politics have corrupted it, it’s restoration should be top priority.

The system works if used as intended. Winner takes all is not using it as intended, just like electors voting in the same way as the voters mindlessly is not using it as intended. Yes it’s elitist. Current state of affairs prove that the founding fathers were correct in their beliefs.

The electoral college is not a problem, it’s a great system. Winner takes all is the actual problem.

Frogs being based as always.

Hard pass, doesn’t have a chance in hell unless the Trump admin really fucks up. The only reason Harris chose him was because they thought he would appeal to the Midwest hardcore MAGA, but he’s pretty a pretty weak and boring candidate. Dems need their own outsider or at least outsider passing candidate. AOC or Pritzker might be the best choices atm. I know, another billionaire, but that’s the game.

I have a theory about us returning to our natural state as our end game, but I haven’t put it down to paper yet. That being said, for now, it’s either all the good things industrialization has brought (along with the bad of course) or we return to the short brutish lives we lived before agriculture.

Anarchy at this point has no real way of being implemented without another state forming the moment we decide we can do better than die short tragic lives.

That just sounds like nothing will ever get done, but it would be worth simulating. Maybe it is good, who knows.

Las time I looked at that institution ownership was lower, but we are still talking about a 40% retail owned company though, that’s a lot and it’s a big driver in the overvaluation.

I think the answer is that no one knows because it’s not a publicly traded company. But I would bet on no, it isn’t profitable, nor will it be for the next 100 years. It is however the good part of Elon’s legacy, and if he stayed out of politics he would have been remembered as one of the greatest men in history for the leapfrog in space exploration that he ignited.

You really do have to die a hero or you live long enough to become the villain.

How could I profit from his death? Just asking so I know to do the short position of whatever that is since he clearly will never die. I wonder if he’s like Dorian Grey except he dies if he goes red for 12 quarters or something like that?

This is so naive I can’t believe there’s people who think like you. I think Epstein was probably a low level player compared to what goes on in Russia and the Middle East.

If might makes right a state will end up forming anyways. A populist commune is still a state. Anarchy is not possible in any sense of what one might describe as a functional society. As soon as there’s a society a state will form.

But that’s also not how chimpanzee society works anyways, since mostly it’s an alpha challenged by a younger stronger chimp who takes their place and makes sure everyone else follows the rules. They even have something like a police force.

I don’t think so, no. Mostly because I think there’s a high likelyhood that we’re the most advanced species on this side of the galaxy.

I’ve been trading TSLA stock for a few years now, and Elon has been manipulating the stock price using his celebrity status for just as long. I remember that at one point the SEC was gonna press charges but instead they came to a compromise in which Elon would not tweet anything about TSLA without first submitting the tweet for SEC approval.

The other thing is that TSLA is majority owned by retail investors, who generally speaking buy based on vibes and hype rather than sound fundamental analysis. The price is not logical and most analyst have said so for ages now. The company had like one or two real good years, anything before that and after that has been a nonstop hemorrhage of cash. But in my analysis the reason TSLA stock can no longer sustain this price is that their strategic advantage has been almost entirely eroded. Self driving cars? China beat them to the punch. Robotaxis? Awfully behind, they are going to be entering a crowded market by the time their tech is ready. Robots? Same as above, I mean Boston Dynamics has been doing this for two decades now. Cars? Every automaker makes an EV at this point and quite a few of them are actually nicer than Tesla even if they don’t have all the gimmicks.

TSLA is for electric vehicles what IBM was for computers.

I guess you can call it that but as I understand it bio-essentialism denies that society has any roles at all in shaping the individual. For me there’s obvious environmental pressures that force us to act a certain way in order to survive which in turn shapes us as individuals and our societies. Of course I’m talking back to the very first human societies, but all modern societies by necessity must trace their origins there. But at a certain point we started to add rules that are based on idealized humanity, divinity, which is in my view inherently hostile to human nature.

We are animals and we have no real way to discern instinct from rational. For all you know every “rational” thought you’ve ever had is actually just an instinct. How would you be able to tell that it isn’t? But that’s neither here nor there, my point is we need to form societies that are sympathetic to our biological realities, instead of societies formed on moral values sourced from anti-human religions or idealized human religions. We would be much much happier.

I know people don’t like these type of stances because they are sometimes used to exclude trans people, or to justify racism but that’s just using science to arrive at the wrong conclusions.

Im sure there’s people from every side in this shit show so this is one of those bipartisan type deals where everyone covers everyone up. If that weren’t the case, Biden would have released this last year. This is a nothing burger just like JFK files will be a nothing burger, just like the alien files were a nothing burger. NOTHING EVER HAPPENS.

Yes, it’s a little bit better than the anti-science pro terrorist combo in Islam though.

How would you reach consensus between hundreds of millions of people?

Look, I am sympathetic to the cause behind anarchism but it doesn’t work because it insists on ignoring biological realities. We need to look no further than our ape cousins to see how some hierarchical structure is inherent to our society. Only through the existence of a state can we reduce hierarchy and increase equality.

A stateless society wouldn’t last 10 minutes before establishing a state.