Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
ted (not lasso)
@ted
genuine political question: if you believe in a free democracy, how do you grapple with the fact that the DNC isn’t having debates for any of its presidential nominees and will likely not allow for a presidential debate? i genuinely don’t understand why it seemingly doesn’t bother anyone, regardless of party.
17 replies
1 recast
45 reactions
Dan Kenney 💜
@dankenney.eth
Yeah. Mostly because the risk of undermining the incumbent’s electoral odds isn’t worth the reward of seeing the marketplace of ideas in action. Parties are instruments of interests that want to win I’m with you, but I suspect the bother factor is less than odds-are-worse with-debate factor, so no debate
2 replies
0 recast
8 reactions
xh3b4sd ↑
@xh3b4sd.eth
An understanding I started to develop for some time is that it may not even be the actors within our systems but our systems themselves that we created and now ended up being captivated in. What I do now not like are the odds of fixing the system. Like, civil war would be one option. But that is not good.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Kenney 💜
@dankenney.eth
Institutions inform the incentives that drive behavior. For sure! Civil war is a low probability high impact scenario that most folks (me included) want to avoid. Fortunately, the US is Lindy as they say. And it’s why @packy’s stuff and e/acc and all the goodness that comes from the US should be more top of mind
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
xh3b4sd ↑
@xh3b4sd.eth
I did not want to estimate how likely war is. I am wondering what it takes to change the rules of the game. Because Lindy will not do that. Lindy will not make for responsible politicians. Lindy will not make for balanced fiscal policy. Lindy will not get the best presidential candidate into office.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
