The jello has apparently confused your brain into thinking that logic and political negotiation have something to do with each other. Some say it could have been worse. Others say at least the economy didn't crash. Still others say elect other people so that Manchin and Synema don't have such power. I agree with those people and observe that it can't happen instantly.
How do we deal with blowing past the warming target in the Paris Agreement? How do we deal with more than 100 House Democrats voting to kick people off food stamps and rubber stamp Manchin's pipeline? How do we deal with super-majorities of both parties throwing a trillion bucks to the war machine? We're just sitting around waiting for the next catastrophe. I've called both my senators and my lone House representative begging them to highlight the threat of climate change in every public appearance. Have you? Really, how do we deal with this? Replace 200 Democratic sluggards in the House and 50 or so senators? Not gonna happen, so we need to squeeze the ones we have.
Dealing with things doesn't necessarily mean solving them quickly, or at all. Sometimes it means enduring. Yes, I write my senators, representative, and the President; most recently to urge use of the 14th Amendment to shut off the debt relief game. You may have noticed they didn't do that. If they had, we'd have faced all of this again in the budget and appropriations bill but the Republicans and conservative Democrats would have to specifically owned the things they were voting for and against. Then, as now, compromise and vote trading would probably have been necessary to avoid shutting down the government. Ultimately, the only hope is for working in the elective process. If you come up with a way to actually squeeze the existing legislators, pleas let us know.
We who are by nature rebellious expect, naturally, that what we're rebelling against was created by a rational system. I mean, you know, we feel reasonable and rotund with sagacity, rebelling against a rational, but wrong, system. But - what is it about rebelling against what we've got now that feels useless, because we're stuck in what will, a hundred years later, be explained as an almost inexplicable sinkhole of history? And what is making me write like a pundit? Help!
Probably depends on who's writing the history. I do feel rotund with sagacity, but I don't think it's actually sagacity; just rotundity.
It isn't all that often that something looms as a certain disaster, possibly a civilization-ending disaster, from a long way off, as in we have time to do something about it, and then we categorically refuse to do anything about it.
The jello has apparently confused your brain into thinking that logic and political negotiation have something to do with each other. Some say it could have been worse. Others say at least the economy didn't crash. Still others say elect other people so that Manchin and Synema don't have such power. I agree with those people and observe that it can't happen instantly.
Well, wake me up when Democrats hit 65 Senate seats.
In the meantime, we gotta deal with it.
How do we deal with blowing past the warming target in the Paris Agreement? How do we deal with more than 100 House Democrats voting to kick people off food stamps and rubber stamp Manchin's pipeline? How do we deal with super-majorities of both parties throwing a trillion bucks to the war machine? We're just sitting around waiting for the next catastrophe. I've called both my senators and my lone House representative begging them to highlight the threat of climate change in every public appearance. Have you? Really, how do we deal with this? Replace 200 Democratic sluggards in the House and 50 or so senators? Not gonna happen, so we need to squeeze the ones we have.
Dealing with things doesn't necessarily mean solving them quickly, or at all. Sometimes it means enduring. Yes, I write my senators, representative, and the President; most recently to urge use of the 14th Amendment to shut off the debt relief game. You may have noticed they didn't do that. If they had, we'd have faced all of this again in the budget and appropriations bill but the Republicans and conservative Democrats would have to specifically owned the things they were voting for and against. Then, as now, compromise and vote trading would probably have been necessary to avoid shutting down the government. Ultimately, the only hope is for working in the elective process. If you come up with a way to actually squeeze the existing legislators, pleas let us know.
We who are by nature rebellious expect, naturally, that what we're rebelling against was created by a rational system. I mean, you know, we feel reasonable and rotund with sagacity, rebelling against a rational, but wrong, system. But - what is it about rebelling against what we've got now that feels useless, because we're stuck in what will, a hundred years later, be explained as an almost inexplicable sinkhole of history? And what is making me write like a pundit? Help!
Probably depends on who's writing the history. I do feel rotund with sagacity, but I don't think it's actually sagacity; just rotundity.
It isn't all that often that something looms as a certain disaster, possibly a civilization-ending disaster, from a long way off, as in we have time to do something about it, and then we categorically refuse to do anything about it.