Interesting:
Gen Z says government needs changes
A report from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University found that 62 percent of adults aged 18-29 said that the design and structure of our nation’s government needs significant changes, no matter which party is elected.
…
Forty percent of Gen Zers said political violence is justified to some degree, compared with 30 percent of millennials and 11 percent of baby boomers.
Prepare appropriately.
On the other side, we have a white-pill.
I would not be surprised if he’s a presidential candidate (or at least being heavily recruited for it) in 2028 or 2032.
“…62 percent of adults aged 18-29 said that the design and structure of our nation’s government needs significant changes…”
I do not doubt that similar sentiment exists on both sides of the political spectrum; I, for one, and I doubt I am an outlier, would be quite supportive of the total elimination and future prohibition of non-Constitutionally authorized executive branch operations and repeal of the 16th, 17th and 19th amendments (or, at least, substantial modification of the 19th to require a “stake in the game”, a la Heinlein), and modification of the terms of Article 1 as to establishing caps on length of elected service, which would have to be described as “significant changes.”
And, to accomplish “significant change” “Forty percent of Gen Zers said political violence is justified to some degree, compared with 30 percent of millennials and 11 percent of baby boomers.”
OK, then.
Unspecified is the direction such political violence should take, but if “political violence” is authorized to modify conditions, it would seem similarly authorized to maintain them and exert control over direction and amount of “significant change”; goose, gander, etc.
I assume this will be a “come as your are” type of event?
“Unspecified is the direction such political violence should take, but if “political violence” is authorized to modify conditions, it would seem similarly authorized to maintain them and exert control over direction and amount of “significant change”; goose, gander, etc. ”
Selective prosecution is the method used by those in power to assure that violence is only used for the things THEY want it used for.
Violence that they like? Nothing.
Violence (or even something they can claim is violence) that they don’t? Throw the book at that guy. Invent new charges. Ruin his life. “The process is the punishment.”
Or, the try to quote from memory:
“For my friends, everything. For my enemies, the law.”
They’re not wrong. We might disagree on details, though.
One of Heinlein’s greatest ideas was the suggestion that adopting a law should require a 2/3rd vote, while repealing it can be done with 1/3rd.
I for one would be happy with a government that obeys the plain English text of the Constitution — which we haven’t had for well over 200 years. (For one view of what that could look like, see “Hope” by Aaron Zelman and L. Neil Smith.)
I also liked his “solution” for voting to declare war.
Only those eligible for the draft/military service get to vote, they do so via a post card sent by overnight mail. There are Three options on the postcard- vote to go to war, vote to NOT go to war, and “Abstain”.
The postcard itself serves as the selective service registration.
If the vote to go to war wins, the first rounds of draftees are selected only from those who voted for war.
If/when those are exhausted the next rounds are draw from those who Abstained.
Only afterwards are those who voted against the war drafted.
“Forty percent of Gen Zers said political violence is justified to some degree,”
And yet, they hate guns and have never been on the receiving end of a punch in their lives. Just how do they imagine this ‘political violence’ is going to play out?