Re:'Do Not Split': A Hong Kong protest film [video]
by scotty79 on Thursday March 25, 2021 @12:56PM
(#26582599)
> It's been flag-killed (possibly 50cent party? maybe just people disliking my abrasiveness) so this thread won't be seen, but I thought it was an interesting conversation.
That's a shame. I'm not sure if the whole thread is hidden. I got 3 karma points (base 1 + 2 upvotes) for some comments in our thread below your flagged post.
> I think this verges on conspiracy theory - democrats very much care about fixing gerrymandering (among other vote suppression tactics), it's just hard to fix.
They keep very quiet and mild about it. This should be like the most important issue that affects their voters. Their voters were denied what should be theirs (democrats in power), for decades in total at this point.
I don't think it's a conspiracy theory. Nobody conspires if it's a shared understanding that democrats should loose roughly 50% of the time for the good of everybody. It doesn't require any conspiratory action. Just inaction, which is way easier to implement even if not everybody understand that it should be implemented and why.
However, whether they are aware what they are doing or not, they are still doing it (tolerating Gerrymandering to a huge degree). And it has an effect of increased stability.
> I think they want different things (arguably even more revolutionary than the left in some cases), but I don't think they want things to stay the way they used to be.
At the root of republican vs democrat is this divide between orthodoxy and progress. Of course further details are built upon that. Especially since the country, economy and government can't stay in its orthodoxy.
Still, my observation was, why would that divide be roughly 50/50?
>> "And that would mean democrats winning all the time and we can't have that because that would ultimately lead to unrest."
> Or it could lead to a center-right party that's more sane that can get a larger share of the population to vote for them.
On last election a single win by democrats caused some unrest. I think democrats winning for few decades would just radicalize part of republicans and made the other part to withdraw from voting. I'm sure eventual peaceful return to some equilibrium would be possible like with Whigs. But I don't think it would be business as usual and economy likes to have business as usual.
Thank you for this discussion, but I don't want to speculate about future US too much, as I don't have a clear idea what will happen, apart from things staying pretty much the same and US really struggling to accept reality when China overtakes them.
That's a shame. I'm not sure if the whole thread is hidden. I got 3 karma points (base 1 + 2 upvotes) for some comments in our thread below your flagged post.
> I think this verges on conspiracy theory - democrats very much care about fixing gerrymandering (among other vote suppression tactics), it's just hard to fix.
They keep very quiet and mild about it. This should be like the most important issue that affects their voters. Their voters were denied what should be theirs (democrats in power), for decades in total at this point.
I don't think it's a conspiracy theory. Nobody conspires if it's a shared understanding that democrats should loose roughly 50% of the time for the good of everybody. It doesn't require any conspiratory action. Just inaction, which is way easier to implement even if not everybody understand that it should be implemented and why.
However, whether they are aware what they are doing or not, they are still doing it (tolerating Gerrymandering to a huge degree). And it has an effect of increased stability.
> I think they want different things (arguably even more revolutionary than the left in some cases), but I don't think they want things to stay the way they used to be.
At the root of republican vs democrat is this divide between orthodoxy and progress. Of course further details are built upon that. Especially since the country, economy and government can't stay in its orthodoxy.
Still, my observation was, why would that divide be roughly 50/50?
>> "And that would mean democrats winning all the time and we can't have that because that would ultimately lead to unrest." > Or it could lead to a center-right party that's more sane that can get a larger share of the population to vote for them.
On last election a single win by democrats caused some unrest. I think democrats winning for few decades would just radicalize part of republicans and made the other part to withdraw from voting. I'm sure eventual peaceful return to some equilibrium would be possible like with Whigs. But I don't think it would be business as usual and economy likes to have business as usual.
Thank you for this discussion, but I don't want to speculate about future US too much, as I don't have a clear idea what will happen, apart from things staying pretty much the same and US really struggling to accept reality when China overtakes them.