You seem to think your experience is universal.

Scratch the surface, and people are the same.

There's a short story about a man who dies and goes to heaven. A person appears, and says the man can have whatever he wants. The man asks for this, and that, and voila! He gets it. Whatever he wants. His slightest wish gets fulfilled immediately.

But after a while, he gets bored. He asks the person, he didn't think heaven would be so boring. The person replies, you aren't in heaven, you're in hell.

Be careful what you wish for.

I wish at least to be protected by the army in some disastrous circumstances, I think. Pathetic or not.

My dad told me that during WW2, if a young man was walking down the street in street clothes (rather than in uniform) he'd be spat on.

I simply believe he'd be too stupid to execute any sort of Manchurian candidate plot. Letting him follow his capricious, ruinous whims is more advantageous for adversaries anyway.

To add, the idea that there tariffs in any way reflect neoliberal orthodoxy is bizarre as well. They are the antithesis for neoliberal free trade economics.

And where was that said?

> America is a one-party state. That party is neoliberalism. On economics and foreign policy there's almost no daylight between the major parties in the US and really foreign policy is economics.

There.

So you actually just ignored the rest of the comment talking about how the tariffs were a departure from the economic order?

It says following:

> Why tariffs have crossed a line is because the Republicans seem to have forgotten that protecting the economic order is the point of culture war issues.

It does not say it is not neoliberalism. Just that it is tactical mistake related to culture war.

What's the purpose of posting AI slop here? If anyone is interested we can all generate this sort of useless output ourselves

The point is that anyone here can ask the same question to the bot. You're not adding value. If you want to use a bot answer as source material, distill it down to its valuable essence in respect of our time.

Build the refiners next to your house then.

There's a happy medium where we scaled back regulations to allow enough production, but don't pretend there won't be losers from that.

Even more confusingly, in casual speech I'd probably respond to that question in English like, "yeah, no I didn't go" or conversely "no, yeah I did end up going"

I'd say it is more because "Orange man says we are bad at X, but only he can make X great again™".

People start believing we can't do anything at all.

>These policies also affect wealthy individuals and wealthy individuals want to be healthy (I assume).

They get to move to whatever enclave they want and buy expensive RO filters.

Or, they don't believe in science broadly and believe they won't be impacted. If scientists are so smart, why aren't they rich like me and exploiting everyone and everything to the maximum potential profit??

>that they think that the harm is being exaggerated and that the actual, non-exaggerated degree of harm does not justify putting restrictions on business and commerce

I struggle to find a topic where they don't think this. It seems the burden of "proof" is too high. They don't believe in risks to health, the environment, climate, or even functional democracy itself. They think all are fake and profit is more important.

What you say is true in general, but there are execeptions: for example, the Republicans judge the harm done by heroin, fentanyl, amphetamine and cocaine to be very high -- probably higher than the average estimate of the harm as judged by the Democrats. Ditto street crime.

My understanding (without data, sorry) is that the conservative position blames drug addiction on bad choices and evil, rather than circumstances. As well the focus is on authoritarian policing as opposed to “harm reduction”.

These are generalities, sure

They will think this right up until these things affect them or their community. Then it will be someone else's fault--someone outside of their tribe--that it happened.

As a democratic voter I don't like this either. I vote because I want rule of law. It's not as clear cut to me that discarding rule of law to beat the GOP is the best option. There is a chance they can be defeated without undermining having a functional electoral system

This went out the window as a viable approach when McConnell stole a Supreme Court seat. We’re at minimum-two justices being on the take, post a coup attempt with the leader of said attempt back in the Oval Office, and Republicans have already declared intent to gerrymander their way to victory with no roadblocks to that in sight. And this is not an exhaustive list of ailments.

You can’t go in with legal gloves and no hitting below the belt et c. while your opponent is bare-knuckle and going for nut shots and headlocks. You’ll just get your ass kicked, every time, no matter how morally pure you feel about it.

Meanwhile, fixing gerrymandering almost certainly means getting Republican votes to do so. The only way to do that, in this environment, is going to be to make them believe their odds are better without gerrymandering, than with it. That means using it against them, until it’s made illegal.

They can be "defeated" that way in the sense of a classic Pyrrhic victory, exactly like in 2020, sure. That's the absolute worst out of all options available. "Losing" in 2020 would have been much better. You need to start thinking about the game, realpolitik, and the patterns that have been happening. And the long-term. You think you're thinking long-term by prioritizing the things you do, but it's the exact opposite.

The first thing you need to come to terms with is that losing in 2020 would've been better for the long-term. Once you've gained that freedom, realizing that simply winning an election can be the worse option, you can start thinking about what would instead be better.

One possible solution is to get all the liberal/progressive voters to register as Republicans and run liberal/progressive candidates as Republicans. Built on the Eisenhower platform of 1956 and his record as a military commander. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-p...

Granted, it's not ideal, but coming in the back door may be necessary.

> get all the liberal/progressive voters to register as Republicans

Sorry, didn’t quite follow that! You can vote for anyone regardless of who you Registered for? Or, was that suppose to give a misleading signal to Republicans that they have way too many voters? :-)

Sorry, you have to register as a republican so you can vote in the primary. Primaries are frequently the only competitive race in an election.

Also, running as a republican gets past the automatic "reject liberal/democrat" reflex

It depends on the state (in some you can register as a democrat and ask for a republican primary ballot), but I did this so I could vote against George W three times. (If only we could have him again instead of Trump…). You can register for whatever party you want, but some states have early deadlines.

One problem with creating real change with this approach is that the party elites get to decide who are on their ballots.

A while back, Colbert (?) tried to run as a republican and documented all the roadblocks he hit.

To get an idea of how it went, imagine a popular candidate going to a southern plantation to kiss the rings of the great-grandchildren of slave owners.

After deciding there is no personal upside to them, they decide to keep the candidate off the ballot and ask a servant to freshen their mint julep.

This attitude is exactly what the far right is banking on to make sure there is never another liberal gov elected fairly.