The current Dem leadership can't really do much to stop it if they get voted out by the party members... And no, I'm basically saying the opposite of that... Vote smart, vote for leadership change in the party so the party is run by people like Bernie not Clinton
Wes4Humanity
joined 1 year ago
Only Democrats are allowed to vote to elect Democrat leadership... Need everyone in that coalition to register Dem and then vote for new leadership... 3rd party will always be spoiler until we take over and unrig everything
Party leadership is elected by regular party members at the state level, and then those choose the national leadership (oversimplification)... I'm sure the current leadership would fight back, but I don't think it would be all that hard to vote them out anyway
It would be easier for progressives to take over the DNC and state Dems than to form an entirely new party and make it viable.
It would be easier for progressives to take over the DNC and state Dems than to form an entirely new party and make it viable.
I've always thought "the guillotine society" had a nice ring to it... Not party isn't bad either
Man I hope she's playing the long con
Ah yes, just as Jesus would have wanted.
I'm sorry you're going through that, that sucks.
I think we're trying to find a level of neurological development that describes a level of consciousness we'd mostly agree is sufficient to warrant responsibility for ones actions... For instance if a toddler shoots and kills someone, we know there's no way it was intentional, it was an accident or at least there's no way the toddler knew what they were doing or could grasp the consequences. But at some point in the development of that brain something changes. At puberty a whole section of the brain starts developing rapidly, and it just so happens it's the part that processes decision making. Exactly the part that changes us from what kids are to what adults are. So figuring out what a fully developed vs not yet fully developed one looks like seems pretty important. Then making scans regular procedure for when you need to determine if someone is developed enough to be responsible. But like you said, when a particular person gets there varies a lot, based on a lot of factors. I would hope a simple scan could help you prove you don't need your rights taken away.
25 isn't a hard line. The reality is that our brains continue to change forever. But, to use a metaphor, around our mid 20s is when it's done "cooking", but just like you might let meat "rest" on the counter for a bit after it's done cooking, your brain keeps changing, just not to the same degree. Maybe some day if brain scanning technology gets better, and we have a real healthcare system, people could get scans to see when their brain seems to have reached full maturity, especially if they've committed a crime. Of course "full maturity" will always be sort of an arbitrary choice because as I said, our brains are never truly finished.
25 isn't a hard line. The reality is that our brains continue to change forever. But, to use a metaphor, around our mid 20s is when it's done "cooking", but just like you might let meat "rest" on the counter for a bit after it's done cooking, your brain keeps changing, just not to the same degree. Maybe some day if brain scanning technology gets better, and we have a real healthcare system, people could get scans to see when their brain seems to have reached full maturity, especially if they've committed a crime. Of course "full maturity" will always be sort of an arbitrary choice because as I said, our brains are never truly finished.
No, this is called a healthy boundary... And if they stick to it, all the better... It shouldn't even be a difficult boundary for Dems to respect... Just stop running evil candidates... If the Dems can't adopt that strategy, well it's their strategy that will cost minorities, and they should be shamed and stripped of power for it.