re: My experience with "normies", is they are basically hopeless and will reject the red pill

quote:

---

Ok. Then you probably agree with me on the need for subsidiary and much more localism/federalism type governance?

---

I am more of a fan of less power in government, generally, at all levels.

What I think you miss in my commentary is that the people/groups pushing this extreme, polar partisanship are doing it explicitly to increase the power of government. THAT is why the lunatic fringes are such a concern to me and why I routinely attack the insanity presented on this board.

quote:

---

My experience with "normies", is they are basically hopeles

---

They follow the company line 100% because they are more terrified of disapproval than they are of being wrong.

quote:

---

This is why it requires vigilance on the part of we the people to police our elected officials, and most importantly, to send people to Congress who actually represent our values and desires,

---

I’d have a hell of a lot more faith in the voting system if all states required in-person election day and early voting with limited exceptions and required proof of ID (photographic or via declaration/affidavit).

quote:

---

I’d have a hell of a lot more faith in the voting system if all states required in-person election day and early voting with limited exceptions and required proof of ID (photographic or via declaration/affidavit).

---

Yep. Absentee ballots must be requested by the voter, in person voting for everybody else, make it Friday/Saturday if you need to so you have one weekday and one weekend day. There's only one reason to be against this.

quote:

---

A perfectly normal reaction to a dumb idea.

---

I can’t think of a better argument for abolishing the IRS than you calling it a dumb idea.

quote:

---

By the current standards of the right-fringe, nothing.

Even if you had video of people voting, there would be somebody on Twitter saying it was a Deep Fake and then that would be bounced around the echo chamber

---

If half the country believes our elections are rigged or even worse "fraudulent", does it really matter if they are truly secure or not?

If the people participating in the process don't trust the process, then you have a broken process.

Shaming and name-calling won't fix the problem. Instead of attempting to provide more transparency and ways to ensure trust, they do the opposite and try and clamp down on dissent.

Do you not see the inherent problem? I am simply stating the reality, I am not throwing out wild accusations about server raids in Germany. I am simply stating that our elections have become way to centralized, way too digitized, and way too complicated, and there for when odd results and anomalies show up, people are rightfully not happy about the process.

The solution is simple, decentralize everything and simplify everything. Let localities control their elections, make everything one day, paper ballots, hand count, etc.

Your side is not interested in any of these solutions, and will only dig your heels in deeper and act confused why people don't believe in elections anymore. "But Jake Tapper said they were!"

quote:

---

Again, people wanting to believe propaganda and spread it as NPCs is a major function of the hyper polar-partisan scenario we find ourselves in.

---

This is the inherent problem with centralized power. There is no pressure relief valve. You keep wanting to blame it on polarization or propaganda. When power is localized, it allows for people to have direct control in the process, when it is nationalized and centralized, and you have people from different tribes who hate eachothers guts competing for power, radicalization and extremism (both sides) forms. It's a constant tug of war, and no one trusts anyone.

The problem becomes worse when you take away transparency (the image of cardboard going up in Philadelphia comes to mind), and you have ballot harvesting, machines, etc. And then anomalies. None of this is a "conspiracy", everything I am speaking of is real. It's how people perceive that reality is what matters, and likely whoever doesn't benefit will be upset and vice versa.

quote:

---

When it's completely localized, it's not the ideal scenario you are painting. Most localities are not exactly diverse and there is a clear super majority population.

Have you never seen Footloose?

Why I said earlier that power is bad. Giving localities more power just makes potential abuse more localized and intensified.

---

The beauty is, you can just move the next town over. Sure you will have some corrupt localities and maybe abuse of power, but when it is spread out over thousands of localities, this will even out. Competition and being able tondraw contrasts will bring about better results than everything being pushed down from the top.

It just doesn't work in as diverse and large of a population as the USA. The whole melting pot theory has always been a lie and a pipe dream.

Decentralized authority will allow all of the different communities in this country to live side by side without being at eachothers throats constantly about the vision they have for the entire country.

quote:

---

The tax might start at 23%, but it wouldn't stay there for very long.

Your whole lengthy diatribe requires absolute faith in free market economics PLUS a willingness to hold our representatives accountable - two things that have proven to be completely unreliable.

---

I'm not sure that my posts in response would be categorized as a "diatribe," but everyone's experience is varied. There's a significant difference between skepticism and cynicism. It's every skeptic's choice whether or not they accept the evidence offered.