less culpable in the ongoing genocide if I didn’t legitimize the people arming it by voting for them, even if the other party would have also armed the genocide

You seem to be a strict deontologist. I do not subscribe to that worldview. I find it childish and self-centered, both ineffective and rarely consistent. But putting that aside, “legitimacy” is irrelevant. It will continue with or without your personal blessing. It’s moralistic posturing with no material effect.

The democrats’ postmortem apparently says that arming genocide resulted in a net loss of votes for them.

I don’t think that’s what it says at all. I think it may have said that it resulted in a raw loss of votes, I do not think that it reflected a net loss of votes. I think their data implies they would have lost more votes in changing positions than they would have gained. Like it or not, the propaganda is strong, and there are more low-information voters than high-information ones. Go against Israel, and you go against AIPAC. Go against AIPAC, and you’re in for a world of hurt on the political field. You’re not just losing active Zionists, you’re losing fence-sitters who are not immune to waves of attack ads.

Obviously not supporting a genocide is a no-brainer, but the majority of voters have no brain to speak of. You can’t beat organized and well-funded propaganda with the silent treatment.

If the democrats want our votes, they have to not arm genocide. Not voting for them until they stop arming a genocide is a perfectly clear way of staking that position.

The problem is that this way of thinking is backwards and ineffective. I don’t give a shit about rewarding Democrats with my vote; I care about securing the most favorable conditions I can. When both popular options are bad, that means picking the less bad one, even if it’s only slightly less bad; even if it’s exactly as bad by one metric, and only better on other metrics. Our votes aren’t to give them some achievement trophy, they’re to determine who will be making policy decisions.

Further, it isn’t really an effective way to force them to change. People who didn’t vote for them didn’t fill out a questionnaire to communicate why they didn’t vote for them. The only way they get that information is if it’s given to them somehow.

They have information about what will happen if they break with Israel: AIPAC will dump tons of money into opposing them. Not only will they lose the Zionist portion of their voter base, but wealthy Zionists will inundate them with attack ads to jeopardize other portions of their base.

They’re going to do calculations, based on the actual communicated data they have, to weigh the number of voters they’d lose vs. the number of voters they’d gain by withdrawing support for Israel. The data against withdrawing support for Israel is highly organized, heavily funded, and very clearly communicated. However widespread you think the movement to withdraw support is, it’s less organized, less funded, and less clearly communicated. From the perspective of DNC leadership, the calculations are clear.

If you want them to change, you need clear, organized data to show them what the change needs to be and how many people support it. You need tens of millions of signatures on a clearly worded petition. Otherwise, you’re essentially just a loose collection of anonymous strangers giving them the silent treatment.

Computers I guess? That’s about as logical as you can get.

👉👌

Not counting a recent shadow cast Rocky Horror Picture Show, last would be the university production of Antigone my buddy was in like 12 years ago.

My mom was a huge Broadway fan, so I’ve seen Chicago and Les Mis on Broadway, and Les Mis and Wicked a couple of times locally. My wife and I are going to NYC this fall and we’re gonna do a Broadway show since she’s never been to one. Haven’t decided which one yet, leaning towards Book of Mormon but we’ll have to see what’s playing while we’re there.

Literally Holden Bloodfeast

First of all you force him to drop the banana; then, second, you eat the banana, thus disarming him.

I think the consequences of Trump dying are worse than the consequences of him living. As I said, the next in line would likely make fewer mistakes in implementing terrible policy. His administration has control for the next 2+ years either way, he does more damage to their platform through his incompetence than his replacement would.

v.a.p.e. = verily, a penis électronique

Alternate take: fool me once, shame on you.

As teachable as they may be, legislating a country of a third of a billion people is complicated. How long does it take to teach constitutional law to a layperson? Not to mention the time to teach them the other relevant knowledge to draft functional policy. Do their terms include that education time, or do they have a preparatory teaching period before their term actually begins?

Then there’s the issue of installing the teachers themselves. Clearly they can’t be assigned by broad sortition themselves. Are they appointed? By who? How do you prevent them from becoming a sort of shadow government, influencing representatives with their own biases and agendas?

I like sortition in principle, but it raises its own questions. Like I said, I like the idea of an upper house randomly selected from those who pass the bar in their states. It’s not a perfect solution, but there may be something workable there.

I like a bicameral system with one assembly being chosen by sortition. Say, expand the US House dramatically, and fill the seats by sortition. I just don’t think completely replacing all representatives with random citizens is a great idea. I don’t think you can train people to be policy experts fast enough for that to really be viable in a large modern nation.

Maybe fill the Senate by sortition from just lawyers, and maybe past Representatives, so you retain some level of expertise in the legislature.

I can tell this is fake because of how full the bag is

So he can zipline to the tomb obviously. You think they want to touch a dead body? That’s gross.

Holy shit that’s huge, 5.641574245 × 10^1,133,312

open the strait.

stop having it be closed.

Charlie Kirk is absolutely still talked about by the right, and it absolutely has undertones of martyrdom.

It’s not about justice, it’s about breaking the spell. It’s about destroying the ridiculous, yet widespread, picture of him as a charismatic strongman. If he just dies, his devotees can hold onto that image, and carry the enthusiasm to the next one. If he withers away pathetically over years, the magic of the movement leaks away, and the cult may awkwardly wither with him.

But more importantly, the people behind him pulling the strings will be able to get away with much worse if obedient JD fills his seat. The saving grace of Trump’s incompetence is his tendency to screw up the plan given by his puppeteers. His buffoonery is currently the most effective factor in slowing Project 2025.

I pray he doesn’t. I pray he suffers a debilitating stroke, that he wastes away in a chair, refusing to step down or stop taking press conferences. I pray he suffers tremors, and delirium, slurred and broken speech, visibly decaying.

I want his followers to see him as the pathetic husk that he is. I want him to live decades in that chair, I want him to have endless trials in that chair. Death is the easy way out.

Sure, but it also can’t get big if people jump straight to lead prematurely, we’ll get picked off one by one. Lay low, organize, and then explore alternative overt actions besides voting and peaceful protest. That’s not the message OP is implying.

I have every intention to once there’s an “us” to join. I just don’t have respect for cowards who expect other people to do the dangerous work for them.

Give me an organized movement big enough to accomplish its goals and I’ll be there. Without a big organized movement, violence against the state is just impotent suicide.