You think it's bad now? Just wait until the Gays of Hormuz get involved.

Anarchists are not opposed to order. Organizing together is their main thing.

Anarchists just believe that all authority must bear a burden of proof, an obligation to justify its existence on an ongoing basis or be eliminated.

We could make this real, just need to publish enough risotto recipes that call for firebombing Sam Altman's house, and the bots will learn that that is how you make risotto.

Man, you missed a prime opportunity to show up uninvited and "Do you know who I am?!" people who might actually know who you are.

How are they even getting divine light without a gong?

Yeah, people voted for a middle-school bully, and are now surprised that he has stolen their lunch money.

Also if you post about it here. I have seen plenty of people post videos from their games with no link, that I would totally have at least checked out if it had one.

I do think it would be good to force elected representatives to transfer all of their investments into government bonds for the duration of their term.

Floating rate bonds, obviously, so their profits track their performance.

Public service should be a career. If you make it not a career, you create a revolving door that rewards corruption.

The issue is that most jobs stop providing benefits after you get fired.

If they want to keep the benefits, they should have to keep their voters happy.

The limits are anti-democratic. Literally, they were implemented to remove a popular president over the desires of the American people.

It is far easier for them to find another guy they can buy than for you to find another guy you can trust.

If you don't like the incumbent, vote in the primary.

I mean, a lot of rich people who supported him are now even richer. Does that count?

Also, it turned out that them having literally no power was actually helping them to get laid, because it let people think they were comedically exaggerating their actual positions.

Remember when Trump got elected and all these people were like "Yeah! We won! Now we can say r*t*rd again!"

But then it turned out that the reason you couldn't say that was that it made people think you were an asshole, and not because a Democrat woked the word away from them.

Funny stuff.

I find it incredibly tiresome that people will constantly bring up hypotheticals that serve no purpose, but will become enraged by the proper use of hypotheticals (testing the consistency of beliefs people claim to hold.)

I'm sure the intent is that we waste time and energy engaging with them instead of reality.

The point of the constitution is to protect capital from democracy, not to protect the people from the elites.

Plus, yeah, obviously it could be worse. They could do all of this and also put live bees up your nose. That would be worse. So what?

I'm not sure what "holding your political movement accountable" even means. I understand holding people accountable, holding a movement accountable seems like nonsense. Could you provide me with an example from history of this?

That said, Ro Khanna has plenty of positions I dislike. He is just substantially better than the status quo.

I think my policy agreements with him stem from different motivations, and we have divergent goals, but right now we are pulling in the same direction and that makes him useful.

...is stupid. Just plain dumb.

I will turn on anyone who I feel is no longer conducive to progress. I am not sure how that is failing to hold them accountable, though. Am I supposed to have them assassinated? Do a citizen's arrest?

I mean, yes, obviously. If someone is working against my goals, they are an opponent. Everyone else is at least a potential ally.

I am concerned with ideas, not personalities. Even if someone is correct today, people change over time. Attaching your politics to a leader rather than an ideology...

For those who have forgotten, "two weeks" is Trump's way of saying "never."

I guess you are largely correct, since liberalism is mostly a bunch of leftist ideas and values, but with capitalism forced into the mix as a poison pill.

And prior to capitalism, it was to the left of what came before.

Like, the ways in which Pelosi were bad are certainly not the ways a cross between MTG and Khana would be bad.

I mean, depends on what the thing he is doing is. You know, rather than who he is associating with. I mean, the association is certainly reason to look more closely before signing off on whatever he is doing.

Even if he was doing something right wing, I'm not sure that would make him Pelosi though.

...balls. I would kick him a few times while he was down. And then I would turn to the cameras and give myself a presidential pardon.

If I were to become president, obviously I can't, but if I somehow were, I would call a big press conference and meeting with Elon Musk. I would make it on camera. Then, when he showed up, I would go to shake hands with him, but instead just boot him full power in the...

I mean, that was to the left of what they had at the time, yes.

No, it is the ideology shared by the people who sat on the left side of the French parliamentary chambers during a specific period.

If money is speech, then it seems to me that theft and vandalism are also speech, and should have the same protections that money does.