Clairvoidance

Yeah but it'd benefit the administration at least, I'm not saying it'd benefit anyone else!

I think that's a pretty fair question, especially as I am kinda globalist (or at least see majority EU cooperation and correcting itself as a net-good)

if we take aside potential hoping-to-weaken-EU Russian involvement, and a lot of its de-legitimizing language, my very first concern would be making it harder to enforce common standards for instance to prevent democratic backsliding, as I see European democracy as being the best tool currently for results that both allow experts to weigh in and for the nuance of public concerns that spontaneously emerge, even if we all can argue that it will always need improvement to a lot of people.

Heightened unanimity requirements hold a lot of the union hostage, when it in general would be nice to be on the same page, but I understand it also shouldn't be so low as 60%, I would argue that current standard or maybe a tinge less is fair in that it tells you that most everyone is on-board with a decision (simplifying a lot of how the people making the final decision got in power of course, where there are maybe half of their citizens who could still oppose whatever they voted for)

So far this has helped a lot in human rights protection within the EU, collective bargaining power with the outside, enforcing a climate policy which pretty much requires everybody to step up, and like, other things that in the short-term can make for instance authoritarians be very popular at the cost of the long-term.

i realize my wording is a bit wonky, when i say "we'll exempt any tariff that goes to it", I meant the getting resources from elsewhere would be subsidized

also just lower the minimum wage to $2 :^)

Bernie and Warren were definitely contributers to making Biden move on minimum wage,

but everyone who actually remembers when the Democrats had the majority knows better than that

the democrats did not have the overwhelming majority (60) that can surpass a filibuster, and yeah, the big-tentism hurts to an extent with more conservative democrats, but the states they come from don't have a lot of alternatives in terms of what type of politician is going to get voted.

Democrats have the power to stop Trump right now, which they’re failing to do

Trump is engaging in a lot of bypassing that the judicial branch should be taking care of, but the judicial branch is compromised. They could in theory prevent bills that require overwhelming majorities yes.

They can and should protest it, but a lot of it is on the judicial branch saying no and reversing demands by the executive branch

e: yeah i flipflop

~~I empathize a bit, but it's not like democrats haven't been getting more leftward either.~~

~~The truth is though that ultimately, politicians are gonna be malleable to those who are going to vote, both because of the very simple "if I focus here, I will be more likely to get the most votes while providing due change", but also because the idea of democracy is based in the trust that publics will emerge to voice their concerns to the politicians.~~

~~Most politicians are just not online enough to gather the discourse that we would be experiencing, and also there's the whole issue of not knowing how much of it is foreign interference in a trench-suit pretending to be the voices of the locals. That's why direct calls to voicing these concerns to local politicians, and being willing to hear them out as much as they hear you out matters a lot. Some do forget over the years, but a lot join politics because they genuinely want to make life better.~~

if the last month has taught us anything, real 4D chess would be "make the Switch 2 here, we'll exempt any tariff that goes to it, and lift the ones on you"

Clearly he visited India today to discuss a Hindu Nationalist takeover of America