Founders Folly aka Grimace
@paxpurpura.bsky.social
We have a federal system full of checks & balances that decentralize power to prevent tyranny.
But it’s moderated by 2 parties that fill all the bodies of govt, vertically & horizontally, thereby rendering the checks impotent.
Disruption to function.
But it’s moderated by 2 parties that fill all the bodies of govt, vertically & horizontally, thereby rendering the checks impotent.
Disruption to function.
Glad the “we can do this the easy way or the hard way” guy is pleased. He is not fit for that office.
November 13, 2025 at 4:49 PM
Glad the “we can do this the easy way or the hard way” guy is pleased. He is not fit for that office.
small fractions of the most ideological voters boss tweed power in primaries.
November 12, 2025 at 9:26 PM
small fractions of the most ideological voters boss tweed power in primaries.
Also, while a totally different issue, the same outcome might’ve been reached if one (or better 2) of Kasich, Rubio or Cruz had dropped out at some point as happened w/ Dems in 2020 w/ Buttigieg & Klobuchar for Biden.
Or, you know, we didn’t have this stupid two party system that gives
Or, you know, we didn’t have this stupid two party system that gives
November 12, 2025 at 9:26 PM
Also, while a totally different issue, the same outcome might’ve been reached if one (or better 2) of Kasich, Rubio or Cruz had dropped out at some point as happened w/ Dems in 2020 w/ Buttigieg & Klobuchar for Biden.
Or, you know, we didn’t have this stupid two party system that gives
Or, you know, we didn’t have this stupid two party system that gives
or the presidency with its its own kind of unilateral control) to positioning your party for the real prize which is the ability to influence the direction of legislation; only ever achievable through compromise.
November 12, 2025 at 8:25 PM
or the presidency with its its own kind of unilateral control) to positioning your party for the real prize which is the ability to influence the direction of legislation; only ever achievable through compromise.
Elections become relevant only to the extent they give you power to govern, which is only relative power, dependent on your ability/willingness to compromise. The political incentive is shifted from winning elections (to the
end of getting unilateral control over legislation,
end of getting unilateral control over legislation,
November 12, 2025 at 8:25 PM
Elections become relevant only to the extent they give you power to govern, which is only relative power, dependent on your ability/willingness to compromise. The political incentive is shifted from winning elections (to the
end of getting unilateral control over legislation,
end of getting unilateral control over legislation,
the ability to govern, or at least to prevent the opposition from doing so. If you don’t solve the problem legislatively you cede that ground *to* the opposition for them to solve it bc they will always have the ability to secure their own majority if they can compromise where you won’t.
November 12, 2025 at 8:25 PM
the ability to govern, or at least to prevent the opposition from doing so. If you don’t solve the problem legislatively you cede that ground *to* the opposition for them to solve it bc they will always have the ability to secure their own majority if they can compromise where you won’t.
Do you see that as a two party system problem? Bc imo it definitely is.
In a multi party system “winning” an election is only doing relatively better than the other parties but likely doesn’t get them their own majority.
That’s good n all but in that context power is only useful if it comes with
In a multi party system “winning” an election is only doing relatively better than the other parties but likely doesn’t get them their own majority.
That’s good n all but in that context power is only useful if it comes with
November 12, 2025 at 8:25 PM
Do you see that as a two party system problem? Bc imo it definitely is.
In a multi party system “winning” an election is only doing relatively better than the other parties but likely doesn’t get them their own majority.
That’s good n all but in that context power is only useful if it comes with
In a multi party system “winning” an election is only doing relatively better than the other parties but likely doesn’t get them their own majority.
That’s good n all but in that context power is only useful if it comes with
Is it really necessary to go thru the semantics? The last clause of her statement implies that women are full people capable of experiencing the exact same emotions as men do. That’s the formulation I was referring to in citing the reverse. My apologies if I was unclear.
October 14, 2025 at 11:17 PM
Is it really necessary to go thru the semantics? The last clause of her statement implies that women are full people capable of experiencing the exact same emotions as men do. That’s the formulation I was referring to in citing the reverse. My apologies if I was unclear.
Shocked, shocked I tell ya! Have a good day
October 14, 2025 at 6:18 PM
Shocked, shocked I tell ya! Have a good day
So women are unique and have unique experience but men do not. Ok then glad to know you think that.
October 14, 2025 at 5:26 PM
So women are unique and have unique experience but men do not. Ok then glad to know you think that.
Um, so is the reverse also true? Or women are unique/have unique experience but men do not?
October 14, 2025 at 4:56 PM
Um, so is the reverse also true? Or women are unique/have unique experience but men do not?
Funny is one way to look at it - I should probably try to have more humor. I’m stuck in “this is not helpful” mode.
October 14, 2025 at 4:45 PM
Funny is one way to look at it - I should probably try to have more humor. I’m stuck in “this is not helpful” mode.
“Accidentally” is the wrong framing for the headline. It’s a Freudian slip revealing who is calling those shots. Framing it that way demands Trump be asked if he has ceded that authority to Miller. Don’t let these things be one and done.
October 11, 2025 at 4:36 PM
“Accidentally” is the wrong framing for the headline. It’s a Freudian slip revealing who is calling those shots. Framing it that way demands Trump be asked if he has ceded that authority to Miller. Don’t let these things be one and done.
What’s the point of this? There’s plenty of things that are actually happening that we shouldn’t need to talk about things that *could* happen. Doing the latter makes us look like we’re crying wolf.
October 11, 2025 at 4:07 PM
What’s the point of this? There’s plenty of things that are actually happening that we shouldn’t need to talk about things that *could* happen. Doing the latter makes us look like we’re crying wolf.
Is that to say that Tory activists or supporters can be fully on board with reform’s agenda while maintaining their affiliation with and support for the Tories?
I’m curious if reform is seen as an anti democratic threat in the way that MAGA is, and If there is any evidence to support that view.
I’m curious if reform is seen as an anti democratic threat in the way that MAGA is, and If there is any evidence to support that view.
October 7, 2025 at 6:36 AM
Is that to say that Tory activists or supporters can be fully on board with reform’s agenda while maintaining their affiliation with and support for the Tories?
I’m curious if reform is seen as an anti democratic threat in the way that MAGA is, and If there is any evidence to support that view.
I’m curious if reform is seen as an anti democratic threat in the way that MAGA is, and If there is any evidence to support that view.
Have any prominent Tories moved to Reform? Are they actually pretty well aligned with Reform at this point? Is there a reason besides tradition that they would be a part of the Tory party rather than reform?
October 6, 2025 at 11:01 PM
Have any prominent Tories moved to Reform? Are they actually pretty well aligned with Reform at this point? Is there a reason besides tradition that they would be a part of the Tory party rather than reform?
That seems like a good strategy if they share goals, or think they can use them to achieve their own, but that’s the mistake establishment republicans who (privately) hated Trump made almost 10 years ago now. I think if they could go back let Hillary win to set up a Republican win in 2020 they would
October 6, 2025 at 9:41 PM
That seems like a good strategy if they share goals, or think they can use them to achieve their own, but that’s the mistake establishment republicans who (privately) hated Trump made almost 10 years ago now. I think if they could go back let Hillary win to set up a Republican win in 2020 they would
But isn’t it in the Tories interest then to strongly oppose at least an aspect of Reform (one would think the fascism)? Even if they go farther to the right on certain issues, if they don’t differentiate themselves from Reform then why would anyone support them over Reform?
October 6, 2025 at 7:41 PM
But isn’t it in the Tories interest then to strongly oppose at least an aspect of Reform (one would think the fascism)? Even if they go farther to the right on certain issues, if they don’t differentiate themselves from Reform then why would anyone support them over Reform?
I assume Reform is the primary threat. Are Tories on board w/ it? There were Republicans who opposed Trump, but bc of our two party system it was impossible for them to survive to oppose him. I would hope that what would distinguish Tories from Reform would be the fascism. Is that not the case?
October 6, 2025 at 5:31 PM
I assume Reform is the primary threat. Are Tories on board w/ it? There were Republicans who opposed Trump, but bc of our two party system it was impossible for them to survive to oppose him. I would hope that what would distinguish Tories from Reform would be the fascism. Is that not the case?
is broader & more diverse than the Republican coalition that it replaced. Some of it is motivated by extreme opposition to the status quo, some by extreme opposition to the left. A true leftist party would appeal some of the former, a centrist party could at least be tolerated by some of the latter.
October 6, 2025 at 5:22 PM
is broader & more diverse than the Republican coalition that it replaced. Some of it is motivated by extreme opposition to the status quo, some by extreme opposition to the left. A true leftist party would appeal some of the former, a centrist party could at least be tolerated by some of the latter.
the structural (ie electoral) reasons we have one. Eventually we will need to do this federally but we can start in the states. And we can achieve a multipolar political environment there too by letting/helping Dems to fracture. Let the left be fully left. Likewise for the center. The MAGA coalition
October 6, 2025 at 5:22 PM
the structural (ie electoral) reasons we have one. Eventually we will need to do this federally but we can start in the states. And we can achieve a multipolar political environment there too by letting/helping Dems to fracture. Let the left be fully left. Likewise for the center. The MAGA coalition
The mission should be to understand how they were able to achieve their ends politically so we can fix that defect - that *political* defect; hint: it’s the two party system. Trump never ascends but for a bipolar political environment, and he never survives impeachment but for it. We need to reform
October 6, 2025 at 5:22 PM
The mission should be to understand how they were able to achieve their ends politically so we can fix that defect - that *political* defect; hint: it’s the two party system. Trump never ascends but for a bipolar political environment, and he never survives impeachment but for it. We need to reform
judicial activism, free speech, meritocracy etc. Instead of using the rubble of the foundations of our democracy as blunt force tools to achieve our own political ends we should rebuild the foundations. Maybe we can use them *to* rebuild them, but only for that, & thereby eliminate them as tools.
October 6, 2025 at 5:22 PM
judicial activism, free speech, meritocracy etc. Instead of using the rubble of the foundations of our democracy as blunt force tools to achieve our own political ends we should rebuild the foundations. Maybe we can use them *to* rebuild them, but only for that, & thereby eliminate them as tools.
I sympathize w/ the schadenfreude implied here - the “what goes around comes around” - but those of us who oppose what’s going around should resist it coming back around, else we become like MAGA. They are nihilists. Decrying cancel culture only to embrace their own version of it, likewise with
October 6, 2025 at 5:22 PM
I sympathize w/ the schadenfreude implied here - the “what goes around comes around” - but those of us who oppose what’s going around should resist it coming back around, else we become like MAGA. They are nihilists. Decrying cancel culture only to embrace their own version of it, likewise with