No issue is actually decided as a monolith. There's always some in the minority. But society has finite resources and attention; so EVERYTHING needs some degree of cost-benefit analysis. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the 75% who wanted to remove the social safety nets feel it.

Lol you are clearly my spiritual music brother. I almost never do suggestions unless I'm deeply in the mood for something new (1-3x/yr), then I spin up a bespoke playlist of candidates for long-term additions to my library.

^ this is exactly my feeling on the matter. I have a very few but rather precious esoteric uploads I'm loathe to give up, too.

Their own power. They won't do it on their own because of the assymetry. Therefore, that has to be removed; but it needs to happen in good faith _wanting_ the power gone.

I'm not saying its easy or pleasant, I'm saying "unitary president and rules for thee-not-me" is itself the death of democracy.

As opposed to? Asymmetric battles where it's infinitely easier to destroy than build? We need politicians from both sides to reign in the presidency, or a Democratic supermajority.

The latter _isn't_ happening, so we either need to accept christofasicst rule or get Republican buy-in to curtail

Honestly, I would run saying "I think Republicans judges and congresspersons have no morals, but Democrats do - so the only way to fix the country is to actively abuse all the power given the President for progressive goals, and I promise to sign any legislation that boxes that power in".

Link: utexas.box.com/s/b91ggd9h1k...

"Looks like they're gonna say no to a second indictment, Pip"