Related, BDS is illegal in the US meaning that you are legally obligated to purchase things from Israel. It’s unenforceable on an individual level, but it’s used to come after people who promote or organize the boycott. If Trump and the Republicans wanted to make it illegal to boycott Tesla, they would have legal precedent because of that absolute lunacy.

There’s a reason that the country abandoned that approach, despite virtually everyone being ideologically committed to it: it doesn’t work in practice. Time and time again in this country’s history, people tried the decentralized, weak federal government but then we faced crises that could only be solved with a stronger and more centralized federal government. Whether it was the Articles of Confederation being unable to pay soldiers from the Revolution, or states seceding and starting a war because the elites felt their interests were going to be threatened someday if they didn’t, or the Great Depression - despite being the “face” of big government, FDR was actually quite restrained in the New Deal and tried at times to roll parts of it back (resulting in harm to the economy), and it was only WWII that gave an excuse to do the kind of government spending necessary to recover - or desegregation, where the federal government had to deploy troops to force schools to integrate. Your approach was tried again and again and it failed again and again, and the reason we don’t have it anymore is that it’s fundamentally dysfunctional.

You can’t just decide what the best policy is through pure reason, you have to look at what’s been tried and what happened. Like, point me at any point in the country’s history where the problem was not enough state’s rights and a too powerful federal government as opposed to the opposite.

So you disagree with the idea of “one person, one vote,” then? Absolutely ridiculous. People living in densely populated areas have just as much ability to think and arrive at a diversity of opinion as rural people do, if anything, moreso because they’re more likely to encounter a range of views. This also doesn’t account for minority enclaves, the various Chinatowns and similar, that can exist in cities, or the more diverse populations in general. The electoral college disproportionately favors white people.

Just do the following mental excercise: Texas and Florida are the two fastest growing states at the moment. Let’s say they remain red and manage to get a bigger population than all the blue cities combined (because of all the space they have) and now because of them every election a Republican president wins. Would you be ok with that? If not then you have to be in favor of the electoral college.

That’s a terrible argument. If that happened, perhaps I would be in favor of the electoral college for purely pragmatic reasons, very reluctantly. If I’m operating on ruthless, unprincipled pragmatism (the only reason I would ever, even hypothetically, consider supporting the electoral college), then obviously, in the present situation where the electoral college is disadvantageous to me, then I should oppose it.

During the Civil War, Lincoln temporarily suspended certain civil liberties due to the existential threat the south posed - and it was probably necessary and the right call. But just because I might support suspending certain liberties in extreme situations, facing a true, existential threat, it doesn’t mean I “have to” be in favor of suspending them on some kind of principle.

Obviously, all else being equal, it’s better for everyone to get an equal say. You can conjure up a situation with a horrible population and a benevolent monarch keeping them in line and argue that in that hypothetical monarchy is superior to democracy, but that in no way proves it in the general case or as a principle. In the same way, when you conjure up a situation where the electoral college is keeping an evil population in line, that in no way proves that the electoral college is better than democracy.

The system your beloved founders created wasn’t just “the person with the most votes gets the whole state” because there were no votes for president at all! It was entirely up to the political elites in each state to decide who to support between two nominees who were also not voted on because primaries were not a thing and were again picked by party elites in smoke-filled rooms based on corrupt deals with no democratic input. And even in the cases where people could vote, women and slaves were of course excluded from the process entirely.

Unless you’re either a billionaire or a high-ranking member of a major political party, your beliefs are directly opposed to your own interests. “Populism” guess what, you are part of that population, your voice and your interests are the ones being suppressed when “populism” is suppressed. You’re shooting yourself in the foot.

But really it just seems like “populism” is just a meme in your head. If you want proportional representation instead of winner-takes-all, you’re supporting “populism.” The alternative to “populism” is the suppression of democracy by a political elite. The “winner-takes-all” system is already considerably more “populist” and democratic than what the founders set up.

By the way, the “bipartisan politics” that “corrupted” the “good system” emerged immediately, before the ink was even dry on the constitution. It was an inevitable result of the system that the founders created and they didn’t understand that because they had nonsense ideas that politics could be “nonpartisan,” a process of people randomly coming up with different ideas through reason as opposed to competing socioeconomic groups asserting their material interests. But immediately one party emerged representing the southern slaveowners and another representing the northern capitalists, because that’s how politics works. You can even see this in the constitution itself, things like the Three-fifths Compromise which was blatantly a political compromise and not reflective of some transcendent truth.

Even if you were to argue that some of the founders had good ideas, it’s absolute nonsense to suggest that they all did, especially, you know, the ones who supported slavery as a precondition of signing off on the project and insisted on provisions to grant slavers more power and to bar congress from making any laws about it for a specified period and wanted to suppress “populism” out of fear that it could lead to the slaves being freed. Your reverence for them is both completely irrational and against your own interests.

Exactly one political party in US history ran a candidate from a prison cell, do you know who it was and what the party was called?

Hitler put all the leftists in camps and also purged the left wing of his own party, he came to power by being appointed by center-right big business interests specifically as a way to crush the left and destroy labor unions, and those interests did quite well under his rule, the term “privatization” was literally first coined to describe the Nazi economy.

So those are the points showing the Nazis were right wing. The points showing the Nazis were left wing are… they censored speech (which the right also does, all the time) and they have socialist in their name (curious on whether you consider the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea a democracy).

Of course, the classic “don’t ask, don’t tell” of the national security state. The careerists don’t want oversight and the president wants plausible deniability so they’re left to just do whatever tf they want with no democratic accountability whatsoever.

Despite his contributions, he was forced to undergo chemical castration because of his sexuality, so it’s a pretty big deal.

due to choices made by the Indonesian government

If you knew anything at all about the thing you’re talking about, the democratically elected Indonesian government were some of the ones being targeted in the genocide, by far-right groups who were able to overthrow it due to US backing. Absolutely disgusting to try to blame this on the Indonesians and trying to absolve the US of guilt.

If I go through your post history, what’s the over-under I’ll find you blaming Russia for the rise of the far-right in the US?

There’s a lot of diversity of opinion between leftists and liberals. Generally speaking, conservatives don’t contribute anything and drag down the quality of debate because they are openly anti-intellectual, and their presence also drives away people who are actually worth having. The only thing that would happen if there were more conservatives on here would be more cable news tier screaming matches and more verbal attacks on minorities. Liberals still only want to talk and think at a cable news level, but at least they aren’t openly hateful and anti-intellectual.

People are more likely to change their minds or have productive conversations when they approach a topic from the same basic values and beliefs about the world, like if two people agree on the goal of uplifting the global proletariat, they can discuss how best to go about it, but if one person’s goal is to uplift the global proletariat and the other’s is, idk, to drop minorities out of helicopters, then both are just going to be screaming at each other. Not only that, but if two people are discussing how to uplift the poor while the other guy’s in the room, it’s going to have a negative effect on their ability to do so, because they’ll constantly have to worry about everything they say getting attacked by dumb, right-wing arguments. Imagine two doctors trying to discuss the nuances of their profession in the same room as an antivax nutjob.

All I can do is joke about it because my feelings about it are too angry to express.