Why is there still the thought that Presidential elections matter?
Krystal and Saagar, The more and more I keep thinking about it, I don't understand why anyone thinks presidential elections matter. Obama had the greatest mandate of any President to "change" Washington, and he did nothing. Trump had something very similar, running on draining the swamp, but (as expected) he did nothing as well. Biden got into office with complete and total knowledge of the suffering that people are going through, and also opted to not change anything -- also, very expected. So to think the presidency is the solution, you have to think these men are uniquely corruptible and there is someone out there with strong enough character/values that they won't be corrupted by Washington -- and you have to have the belief that Washington (deep state AND corrupt Washington media) wouldn't do everything to stop this person. To think the presidency is the solution, you'd have to ignore the JFK assassination, or all the ways the MIC and intelligence agencies leak information to stop modern presidents from being effective. Every positive change in this country has come from a movement, not from someone getting into office and unilaterally dragging the country in a new direction. However, our society is one that loves stories, especially stories with heroes, so we have this undying idea that the thing that is going to save us is a hero -- even though our own history shows that is not where change comes from. So Saagar, why would the Rock not be corrupted by Washington? All of his current politics seem like they come from mainstream media, so why wouldn't that same media turn him into a do nothing President? If you abandon the idea of Presidential elections being our only solution, what are the other solutions out there? What if we could change media somehow to be less friendly to the powerful elite? Probably not doable... What if we put all of our effort into getting progressives elected to the legislative branch? This has proven slow and ineffective at best -- as these folks are almost immediately corrupted by Washington brain as soon as they get there... So why not a third party? Well, if you think about third parties as only something related to Presidential bids, then this is probably a terrible solution. However, what if a third party was formed, and for the first 4-8 years, never ran a Presidential candidate and instead looked at what it could do on the local level. In other words, what if a third party didn't start off by trying to win a Presidential election, but instead started off by trying to make average Americans' lives better -- and only after this third party made a significant contribution to American life, would it even consider getting involved in national elections... Could this be an answer? I don't know. But it seems more viable than the Rock being our hero. I'm at the point in my life where I see so many examples of people making heroes out of people that shouldn't be heroes. It's a weird psychology we have that makes us do this. The only real heroes in history are people that built movements, so then is it really the hero we need, or is it the movement? How can independent media help us build movements? Can we ever get out of this vicious cycle where we think Presidents are going to solve all of our problems? Seems like the longer we think this way, the longer it will take to find the real solution. Regards, Dehron
Do We Really Need Money?
Is money, or exchangeable capital, a necessary aspect of a society? I guess a social credit system is a possibility but that seems kind of sus. What do you two think? Are there any alternatives to both a fundimentally money based society as we know it and a social credit system? I am asking because the income/wealth system in the U.S. is so inexorably unfair it infuriates me on a daily basis, and part of me thinks that this whole "money thing" is just not working. Also y'all are the absolute best! So much respect and admiration for what you are doing for Americans in today's world. Cheers, Jacob
Rank choice voting
On your show you keep talking about rank choice voting. I could see where this might be useful in a primary but in state and federal elections it would be useless until you have more than two parties. As well, rank choice voting tends to bolster the centrists as the left will usually pick them for their second choice and the same for the right party. Please explain to me how rank choice voting will change the government for the better.