So that whore queen was misogynizing with foreign ants!

Well, the Tribunate helped curtail be Patricians excesses for 400 plus years. Quite a bit longer than we have as a country.

I think they got their first ones around 500 BC when the plebs did a general strike encamping to a hill.

Then they had another general strike what was it 300 BC ish where they got more tribunes and got some other reforms.

It was just decorum putting assets in trusts for prez, modern era laws did restrict other officials to some degree.

In 2016 the Republicans just refused to honor those laws and nobody held them to account, now they are not really bothering to pretend. Open corruption.

The Constitution does forbid emoluments, but that is ignored by our captured (in)justice department.

I am intrigued as to their system of electing two of everything. I think that could help alleviate a lot of our problems. Two attorney generals, to secretaries of Agriculture or state, Etc.

More than anything though I think we should reestablish the Tribunate, vested with the power to veto government actions and offer sanctuary and all that.

Experience in politics is a detraction nowadays. They are all sold out to greater and lesser degrees with a few exceptions like my man bernie but even he backs off some issues.

Jon Stewart 2028!

The people accusing them of being privileged are all ivy league aristocrats.

Hindenburgs.

Vassals of the US, and by extension of the connected organized owner class, of corporations. Government is the middleman and the rich control them all.

There is a carrot, It is corruption. There is so much going on behind the scenes right now with these guys. Any carrot would be self-serving by the administration obviously. The president has made 3.6 billion dollars he would not have since he got re-elected, that we know about according to some journalists that looked into it recently.

The amount they have made under the table in deals through surrogates is surely a lot more than that. For reference it is estimated that Putin is the richest person in the world in reality.

The truly great see money as a means to an end, these guys see money as the end.

You haven’t seen anything yet as to increasing the debt I am afraid. Every and any excuse they will milk the credit card.

If they do manage to make a supreme leader that sticks they will ad hoc default by over printing money and paying off the debts with that devalued currency.

Probably doing it at the behest of the western oil companies.

The point however, regardless of if you are willing to surrender our high standards of living to the rich under Democrats that do not restore our position to before the Republicans, is that by not being popular, and not instituting that reform, the Democrats lose and allowed the Republicans to win.

We all know what the electorate is, that being better than the other guy is not enough to win, so why do we support running people only being better than the other guy that cannot win? It is very simple.

He did not support abolition until well into the civil war look it up.

He removed missouri’s general or whatever keeping them from joining confeds for endorsing the idea in fact.

Regardless that same party abandoned the former slaves to steal an election after rampant corruption.

So any example of the civil war era is also disallowed by your logic. It was not perfect so therefore your example can be discredited.

Lincoln did not even want emancipation at first, and grant was corrupt and let his admin loot the government, then abandoned reconstruction to jim crow in a deal to get to keep the 1876 election they stole from tillman for hayes.

That republican party? Hardly.

Yet you do not indulge my question, give me one example that cannot be dismissed with your logic dismissing the new deal?

Yes anytime the new deal is brought up the detractors say that minorities were discriminated against, so, nothing they did counts. Defective logic, nothing anyone did ever would count using that logic.

Give me one historical example where you could not find injustice to negate using an example from? Just one. Nothing now would count. Nothing in us history.

Using that argument is telling of where your head is at, perhaps actively stymying resistance, to accelerate the decline mistakenly believing something better would replace it. That is the more charitable take on your use of that argument too.

Madami could be the start of an avalanch, if we organized even a little, to find and groom candidates to primary dems, candidates fitted to district not all madami style but all reform minded and aggressive.

Like have public groups for it, but spin off private groups that cooperate where the agents of the polits cannot interfere. We could do that on this fedisphere perhaps, or connected to it.

Their reason for being is to keep control of the party, winning elections is secondary. They are serving the donor class, playing good cop to Republican bad cop like this is 1990, even while the Republicans are now playing King of the Hill if not hitler.

They must either think r’s threats are perfunctionary and they will not follow through, or idk what. If they were systematically rigging elections for decades as r’s project, they would have to be punished. No assurances they have received from r’s or rw power brokers or billionaires will stop the r’s from persecuting them if they get absolute power, yet they still seemingly do not get it and think they will be fine and kill populist reformers in the cradle and gang up and quash any real reformer that gets in.

My point is we organize and take the dem party, strong leadership that can build and run a pol machine, we could get back there in 2029, assuming r’s are too busy infighting and too disenchanted to steal an election they clearly lost. All state level cheating still losing the election that is and congress and scotus not granting it to the loser anyway.

I don’t know what you think you are even arguing here. I know the system can work because it did work. In the post-war years until the 1970s. Only after business started to cooperate on a long game to undo the New Deal did it all go to shit. Piece by piece. In 1972 the business Round Table made a long game and it has since been refined.