Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Shift-Subject t1_iyap8vh wrote

Reply to comment by chickey23 in At least 2 Pennsylvania counties fail to certify election results by deadline by BoggyRob

Whys that?

1

chickey23 t1_iyapf89 wrote

Because they are old

8

Shift-Subject t1_iyapzrv wrote

All of them are. If you're young and joining either of the two major parties, you really shouldn't be trusted. The "lesser of two evils" is evil.

−11

chickey23 t1_iyaq7b7 wrote

I agree in principle. The system must be reformed or replaced, but failing that, there is a marked difference in the social policies that conservatives put into law

6

Shift-Subject t1_iyarcbh wrote

Why not dismantle the power of government and nullify laws all around? I mean... I'm not going to follow unjust laws whether it was Shapiro or Mastriano. They're both pieces of shit.

−14

chickey23 t1_iyarx8z wrote

Government does more good than harm. Removing government policies and procedures without having replacements in place will be destabilizing. Rather, a progressive replacement of government apparatus is the only method to build a better future

8

Shift-Subject t1_iyatk2d wrote

Government does not do more good than harm. Government is the cause of most of our problems on both sides of the populist isles. Government should function on the local level and in accordance with the local populous.

−10

Muscadine76 t1_iyawctl wrote

Yes, hyperlocal control has historically worked out great for minorities and economically marginal groups. And for pretty much any problem requiring large-scale coordination, like: infrastructure, pollution control, healthcare, etc.

3

Shift-Subject t1_iyaytg4 wrote

Centralization of government is better? Lol

−1

Muscadine76 t1_iyaz6q6 wrote

That’s not what I said. But for some things a more centralized government is basically essential. The key is a good balance between more localized and more centralized forms of government.

3

Shift-Subject t1_iyazxgh wrote

I disagree. I think the more localized solutions are, the better focused they are, and the more autonomy (freedom) is given to the localities.

Everyone likes to say there's a social contract, but nobody likes to take responsibility for their end of it.

1

Muscadine76 t1_iyb1kyu wrote

Your disagreement isn’t based in anything different than a religious doctrinal declaration of faith. The idea that “government is the cause of most of our problems and those problems would be solved if we only had local government” is nonsensical to anyone actually familiar with contexts where there are no functioning government or only local/tribal governance. And handwaving wishful thinking doesn’t solve any of the issues I already mentioned.

3

Shift-Subject t1_iyb1z5k wrote

Well, we haven't mentioned any problems yet, so your accusation and argument are based on your imagination.

The only claim I've made is that localities can focus on local problems and provide solutions that centralized government can't... you've yet to refute the claim.

0

Muscadine76 t1_iyb28lw wrote

I literally listed problems earlier so I guess reading comprehension isn’t your strong suite. But also I’m not in the habit of arguing with religious fundamentalists. Have a nice delusional day.

2

chickey23 t1_iyav95t wrote

Your local, self-governed population will be absorbed by a larger neighbor. Happens every time

2

Shift-Subject t1_iyayqsi wrote

It should be defended with weapons if necessary. Decentralization should prevent larger absorption.

−2

chickey23 t1_iybaieu wrote

Your proposition is that we replace a global system of international cooperation with an endless series of armed camps

1

Shift-Subject t1_iybb0zl wrote

Lol you think we have an operational system of international cooperation?

You mean ideological colonization?

How many countries do we have to bomb into oblivion before it becomes concerning?

0

chickey23 t1_iybgg4k wrote

I'm in favor of a complete reform of government and social organization, but I firmly believe that cooperation is more efficient than competition

2

Shift-Subject t1_iybh4yx wrote

Cooperation and competition go hand in hand (economically) but states should be able to negotiate state concerns. With other states and across nations. The United States was meant to be a consolidation of mini-nations (not exactly, but essentially).

0

[deleted] t1_iyb341m wrote

[deleted]

2

Shift-Subject t1_iyb3vgm wrote

>One evil wants to deny my right to make life or death decisions about my own body.

Lol gross

>The other evil believes black, brown, gay, trans or female people deserve to be treated like people.

... what??

They're both evil.

0

[deleted] t1_iyawefi wrote

[deleted]

−4

Shift-Subject t1_iyayn0d wrote

They're totalitarians. They're the ones who will go along with what they're told to go along with no matter what. The democratic consensus now is pro-war. Never thought I'd see the day, but those people hold no value outside of the in-groups values. Republicans are just as bad, they just don't wear it on their sleeve the way dems do.

−3

Cogatanu7CC95 t1_iybid7u wrote

repubs literally wear antisemitism and anti-democracy on their sleeves they are the ones that committed treason with the terrorist attack on our capital

5

spoookytree t1_iybyfdb wrote

Lol WHAT? Republicans OOZE off their sleeves what the hell you talking about 😂

3

Shift-Subject t1_iybymvu wrote

Republicans don't seek absolute conformity the way democrats do. Theres Republicans running ads against people who doubt the 2020 election and are not happy with party leadership. Meanwhile, the democrat messaging is monolithic and mainstream. What the hell are you talking about?

−3

[deleted] t1_iyb7izn wrote

[deleted]

1

Shift-Subject t1_iyb8amg wrote

Lmfao 🤣🤣🤣 it's self-classification. Hearing that claim in 2022, the age of intersectionalism, is just cringe.

1