Seems like they could just Google the lyrics and read that.
But I guess Spotify lyrics do give an idea on the pace of the song.
You are totally right.
Fascism appeals to humanity's most basic impulses and fascists will therefore always be a threat to democracy.
People crave the strong, authoritarian leader who will protect them from danger.
Indeed - and I really hope it passes.
I thought about mentioning it in my previous comment. But basically, it's another example that States hold most of the power. The States actually have the power to effectively replace the current system with a national popular vote if they choose.
Other examples are the IRV in Alaska and the district system in Maine and Nebraska.
Both elections exactly prove my point.
The federal system is set up to favor State power, which is why the US presidential election isn't decided by popular vote. By design, Wyoming and California are considered equals in many respects.
It's a bad system, but it's very much entrenched in the constitution.
And it also requires critical mass. It's basically impossible to enact meaningful change with a 50-55% majority. You need 60% or more to get big changes. And a majority of states.
A somewhat less pessimistic take: the system is set up to be self-stable.
And it was also designed so that States would have most of the power, not the Federal government.
At various points in history the common people did get benefits. New Deal. Universal suffrage. Civil rights. Abolition.
But it always requires a critical mass of the population to support change.
John Stewart always finds the best way to express what I'm feeling.
Regardless of the outcome, this election will go down as a shit stain on history.
I just hope the outcome doesn't turn it into explosive diarrhea.
Israel only bombs terrorists, not civilians.
Your German nationality will now be revoked for thinking the wrong thought.
Religion, sexual orientation, union membership and political beliefs have all been used in the past to persecute people.
To think that it's not possible again is naive.
Privacy is the most fundamental right to be free.
Without privacy, the Chinese CCP model will be the model we all will eventually live under.
Why make election season much longer than needed?
Printing ballots can be done quite quickly.
And is 6 months of campaigning really better than 2 months?
The way the US political system works is that it really requires solid majorities to want something.
So it will take a long time where nothing seems to happen and then suddenly big changes can happen.
I remember back in the 90s, it seemed impossible to ever get a black president, gay marriage or legal marijuana.
Or look at student loans or universal healthcare. Not perfect, but steps have been made.
So yeah, I do think the USA will lag for a long time and then suddenly surprise us all.
I know a lot of people don't like the American First Past the Post system, but to be honest, even in a proportional system like here in the Netherlands, you end up with very similar dynamics.
Truth is, progressives are always a small minority, in every country. Because they are always ahead of the curve on change.
In the US, this means that you only get a handful of progressives in the most progressive districts and never a really progressive national government.
In the Netherlands, this means progressives are always represented, but need to compromise to form a government. And often, they even get skipped and the centrist and conservative parties form a coalition.
Truth be told, Biden is as progressive as you could hope to get in the USA.
And, while I do think it is important to criticize him - and even threaten to not vote for him - to enable him to move more towards the left, it is also important to vote for him.
Progressives always win, not through getting majorities, but because they have the right ideas and eventually the other parties catch up to them.
For recent examples, gay marriage in the USA or marihuana legalization are now law in the USA.
I am 100% confident that American policy on Israel will also shift thanks to progressive voices. And it will not require a progressive majority.
I don't think you really have a lot of choices to be honest.
You'd first need to get new candidates to win a primary and then a general and the required majorities are lacking almost everywhere.
A more fruitful approach is to actually change public opinion.
It's a long uphill battle, but it's happening.
For decades, Israel and the US (and European countries) have pursued a policy to destabilize middle eastern regimes.
People don't realize this, but there was a wave of Arab nationalism that was killed by sponsoring Islamic extremists. Had that not happened, the middle east would be much more secular today than it is.
Israel attacking and destabilizing Lebanon and Syria and the US maintaining a dictator in Egypt are part of this strategy.
In turn, this leads to hate towards the West and Israel by the Muslims affected.
It won't stop as long as American voters care much more about gas prices than about human rights. American politicians are willing to sponsor genocide to have some control on oil prices in order to win elections.
It's really a global problem and I do think it's an inevitable problem of capital saturation.
After decades of economic growth and peace, the developed world has an overabundance of wealth.
Some of that wealth chases the stock and bond markets and private equity and things like art and crypto and that's fine. Those are proper channels to act as a sponge to absorb wealth.
But some of this wealth is chasing real estate and commodities, which makes the basic necessities of life unaffordable.
That's better.
But most rich people are old, that's not new.
That's just how wealth accumulation and inheritance works.
TIL Taylor Swift and Elon Musk are boomers.
Good post, but we really need to get out of the generational thinking.
I know rich and poor boomers. I know rich and poor millenials, and gen X/Z.
It's a class struggle. Always has been.
Stop making it a generational battle. That only serves to divide the working class.
Yes, there is racism, ageism, sexism. We should debate those things and improve, but we can't let those things divide us politically.
And since I'm ranting, let me end with a solution. We need to find themes that help all of us.
So perhaps we should say: for example, everyone with less than $1M in wealth gets a $20K tax deduction.
Who could oppose that? It doesn't benefit home owners vs. renters. It doesn't benefit students vs. retirees. It doesn't benefit city dwellers vs. rural. Or white vs. black.
But it does benefit the class who owns nothing and gives them a better chance to own something.
Once the alternatives become more profitable, they will move to legislate in their favour.
Here in Europe, we already have billions in subsidies for wind and solar energy.
Will it go smoothly, or fast enough?
No, I think 3 degrees warming is basically inevitable at this point.
But it will happen, about five decades later than it should have happened.
Guess we will see in the next two decades.
There will always be winners and losers with any change.
Plantation owners definitely lost a lot of wealth due to the abolition of slavery, while the industrial tycoons gained a lot of wealth.
Switching away from fossil fuels will similarly benefit those who invest in the energy sources and technologies of the future, while shrinking the fortune of those dependent on fossil fuels.
Already, some forms of fossil energy are losing new investment.
For example, the high profile Keystone XL pipeline was never built, even though Trump approved it, because investors doubted its profit potential. Biden revoking the permit was mostly symbolic.
Now, I do otherwise agree with this more nuanced take of yours. Morality needs to be aligned with financial incentives in order to achieve change. That's just how our current world works and I don't see that basic mechanism changing.
So it makes more sense to focus on making fossil fuels less profitable, e.g. through taxation.