I suppose the alternative is to stop raising boys to be such selfish little shits, but that’s going to take at least another generation.
OK, Democrats, who are the progressive women you’re going to support in the next election? (No, not Hillary Clinton, who I know would be better than the current toxic TV personality in chief, but I said progressive).
Also, I know women can also be toxic. Wanna bet the Republicans are grooming aggressively paranoid and disconnected from reality NRA mouthpiece Dana Loesch for high office?
I used to think that till Margaret Thatcher….
The only solution is to take away the vote from white men for the next ~400 years.
I’m willing to make the sacrifice.
New York’s Gillenbrand, my own state’s Warren come to mind. But there are a lot of those counterexamples (Palin, anyone?)
Put the black and native american women in charge. Just for a decade to see how it works. If it works OK let’s give them 200 years like the white guys had.
What a Maroon @2: Because having a large class of disenfranchised folk has always worked out well. I would focus on a much smaller class; the rich. Then they have a choice; acquisition or suffrage.
Hillary Clinton was the most progressive Democratic presidential candidate we’ve ever had.
#6: Which isn’t saying a lot. Both parties currently serve at the behest of the wealthy donor class.
@6
A hexagon is more circle-like than a square, but neither is a circle.
Rob,
Fine, make it 50 years. Should be long enough to restore a bit of balance to the force.
I know I disagree at my peril, but, but, but . . . Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski and Joni Ernst and Liz Cheney and Cathy Rodgers, et al. Sorry, but that XX does not mean a thing when you’re a congenital liar and morally bankrupt.
Laura Moser for Congress in the 7th district in Texas — trying to flip it to blue, looks like she has a good shot at it.
https://moserforcongress.com/
@4: Even without the need to make reparations for centuries of systemic racism, sexism, and colonialism; given current US demographics it should be about 30 years on average between when a white man is POTUS/VP and when another white man is POTUS/VP. So let’s start by not having any more white men as POTUS or VP for the next 30 years.
Re. PZ’s question:
Here in California, Kamala Harris is doing a good job as Senator.
Dianne Feinstein is seeking re-election to the Senate next year. While I would vote for her in the general election if is were her and a GOP opponent; I would like a more-progressive candidate to take the position. There was a suggestion that Barbara Lee might run, but I find no confirmation of that.
Anna Eshoo is almost certain to be re-elected to the House from my district, with 70% or so of the vote.
Elsewhere in the Bay Area; there will be a special election for the mayor of San Francisco next year, following Ed Lee’s sudden death earlier this month. London Breed is currently acting mayor, and she appears to advocate good policies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Breed .
I’ve put it as more diversity. Government in this country is dominated by rich white men, the vast majority lawyers. We need people of all kinds participating in government.
#5 Rob Grigjanis
A different idea: if you want to run for higher office, you need to get rid of ALL your possession.
For the entirety of the service and a few years afterwards, the state maintains you and your finances are completely public, just to clearly see where is your money coming from.
We ask our soldiers to die in service for the country, surely we can ask politicians, who are there to serve just as well, a much smaller sacrifice.
This would help avoiding some corruption and excessive concentration of power.
I’m not a selfish little shit, its the other 5 1/2 billion guys.
I am not convinced that any change in the rules including campaign finance reform will eliminate corruption or the concentrations of power. Humans are very creative and will always find a way to get what they want, nothing I have seen would indicate anything different.
there is no quick easy solution to fix our democratic system once and for all
it is involvement everyday, one vote at a time, one issue at a time and then do it all over again the next day
I would really enjoy watching a debate between Kamala Harris and any GOP leader.
uncle frogy
The late, great Molly Ivins started writing decades ago that the single thing she could see that would do the most to restore democracy and freedom to the republic was campaign finance reform. I’ve never been able to understand why every member of the electorate does not immediately see that she’s right.
one the biggest problems I see with political campaigns now is the electorate does not know who is putting up the money in anything like an open or timely manner.
you need a forensic accountant to dig the truth out of the system we are currently using. let anyone spend what they want but make it immediately open and clear. it would work for a while until the workarounds were figured out
uncle frogy
I kind of think teaching the idea that sexual predation is an inherent part of masculinity is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I know “Not All Men” is really just an excuse not to deal with some pervasive problems in our culture, but the attitude of “you can’t expect men NOT to be sexual predators” seems like it normalizes the problem rather than tackle it.
zibble, yeah, there’s no one who despises men so much as anti-feminists, with their carryings-on about how men are brute beasts with no mind, no humanity.
Feminists are the only ones I’ve ever run into who seriously think men are even human.
@20 Helen Huntingdon
Yeah, exactly. Like those pieces of shit whose response to rape in the military is “well what did you expect when you have men and women working together?” Like all of it was unavoidable because boys gonna be boys.
I’m ready to criticize my gender, but I’m not going to just give up on it.