2a
mlinksva
2a8abc02465b428ffbec2281947503d1ecb6136384ede43a16cc130ab2c5549f
parasite→scavenger→compost; messages are calls for refutation
Replying to Avatar rabble

## A Plan for Defending Democracy: Building a Strategic, Cross-Party Coalition

We urgently need a concrete plan—a grand coalition—to defend democracy. If we truly mean #NeverAgain, the moment to act decisively is now. Democracy, basic freedoms, and human dignity itself are under threat.

Trump’s administration openly defies the Supreme Court, imposes extreme tariffs (up to 143% on China!), and now even threatens prison camps for political dissenters. To me, this isn’t just politics—it’s a terrifying erosion of civil liberties, constitutional norms, and the rights we once assumed were untouchable.

But outrage alone isn’t enough. We need a practical, targeted strategy that can truly stop this authoritarian slide.

### My Proposal: A Cross-Party Centrist Coalition in the U.S. House

Given how narrowly divided the House of Representatives currently is, I believe a small number of moderate Republicans from agriculture-heavy, purple or swing districts—especially in states with "top-two" primary systems like California and Washington—could join with centrist Democrats to flip the balance of power.

The goal isn’t a traditional partisan victory. Instead, it’s to create a powerful legislative firewall that can:

- Uphold and enforce Supreme Court rulings against an administration inclined to ignore them.

- End economically catastrophic tariffs that devastate American farmers and workers.

- Block authoritarian measures, like prison camps for political dissidents.

### How This Coalition Could Work Practically:

1. **Moderate Republicans take a stand**:

They commit publicly to oppose unconstitutional actions, reject extreme tariffs, and protect civil liberties, even if it means breaking from party leadership.

2. **Strategic Electoral Guarantees**:

- Democrats, especially in California and Washington’s top-two primary districts, would strategically "stand down," pledging not to run strong Democratic challengers against these Republicans.

- Progressive activists would temporarily focus their resources elsewhere, understanding that preserving democracy must come first.

- Centrist Democratic donors and influential grassroots groups would promise robust funding, political defense, and organizational support for these moderate Republicans, ensuring their survival against inevitable MAGA-backed primary challengers.

3. **Electing a Coalition-Friendly Speaker**:

The coalition could elect a moderate, compromise Speaker—someone from either party who firmly commits to:

- Protecting constitutional norms and enforcing judicial rulings.

- Ending catastrophic trade wars and protecting U.S. agriculture.

- Stopping authoritarian actions, including any plans for political imprisonment of dissenters.

4. **Allowing Independence for Progressives**:

This arrangement does not silence progressive voices or policies. Progressives would still freely critique and push for their agenda. But, crucially, on foundational issues—civil rights, human dignity, rule of law, economic sanity—the entire coalition would stand united.

### Why Would Moderate Republicans Take This Risk?

The threat from Trump and the MAGA wing will be fierce. Moderate Republicans will face harsh political backlash. That’s exactly why the coalition must pledge, explicitly and publicly, powerful electoral support and funding. These Republicans must know they’ll not stand alone. A true coalition demands solidarity and strong defense for its courageous members.

### Why This Unconventional Coalition Matters Right Now:

This strategy is not politics-as-usual. It’s bold and challenging. But with democracy itself on the line, ideological purity tests must be set aside. Coalition-building is the most pragmatic choice in extraordinary times.

I urge all who value democracy—progressives, centrists, moderates, libertarians, independents—to come together. Protect our courts, preserve the rule of law, safeguard livelihoods, and stand firm against authoritarianism. The stakes are too high to let partisan differences keep us divided.

### If #NeverAgain Means Anything, We Must Act Boldly:

Let’s move beyond partisan comfort zones. Let’s support principled Republicans who bravely oppose authoritarianism. By uniting now, creatively and courageously, we can prevent tyranny before it fully takes hold.

This coalition is how we protect each other. This is how we ensure freedom survives.

The moment is here—let’s act.

I'm all for this, or any variation. For example, moderate Republicans could switch parties with similar very difficult to enforce electoral guarantees (but maybe a better gamble for switchers than electoral or authoritarian wipeout). Is there any prominent project working to make any variation happen?

Gracias. Te valoro.

I wish everyone would make their birthday April 1 and make that the sole joke of an otherwise expired day.

forecast. (to be more apples:apples; or simplify: air quality > weather; unless you were making a subtle point about time value; but generally agree, ignore previous silly statements)

Whoops, apologies for duplicate replies, was getting an inaccurate error message, should've checked rather than clicking like a rodent.

Apropos, HK was the gateway to the east longer and more significantly than STL was to the US west, really deserves its own.

and goodie nostr:note1rt0j3a8ky4sh503ewdjwnct2rxsc0tzll46744slzsxnvehlw3xs493pj5

I doubt 90% of developers are making web apps, but are 9x more making web apps than mobile apps? Conceivably https://survey.stackoverflow.co/2024/developer-profile/#4-developer-type though that might hinge on whether "full stack" is understood to be _web_ front+back end (full stack: 30.7%, mobile: 3.4%). Note that Desktop is not even an option; possibly the reason for more developers working in web than mobile rhymes with the reason more developers are working in mobile than desktop?

I'd consider that a hopeful thing given commentary like https://infrequently.org/2024/10/platforms-are-competitions/ or maybe the flipside is that web bloat is a cause of so many developers working on web apps!?

Oh and I hadn't seen yet that you posted nostr:note1sdhhpkr8nkfmquynfc3t3tgtfukwyzn0fpz8y4jsljmxn2sgv9vs4v9rj0 here's the (minimal) Equaldex article which I should've looked up anyway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equaldex and lots more at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_rights_by_country_or_territory

Freedom to 3d scan and share cultural heritage https://cosmowenman.substack.com/p/secret-3d-scans-in-the-french-supreme

Makes me think of nostr:npub1matmfxr293jejewrm72u50l2x5e6ypasn0ev2kns6srv05zfzf8s0z6fsr though I suppose #NEWPALMYRA based on reconstructions rather than scans.

Is there a nostr client that focuses on one post at a time? Like eg newsblur focuses on one [blog] post at a time.

I dislike scrolly things more every day.

OTOH anecdotes in nostr:note1qlzlqnhqnlnr2dpptpzrn44dkup29upalvyz0kpj59k3kr6j6ckqtu5tqh sound toxic. It seems people have different experiences on different services/protocols, I guess in part based on some path dependent thing of who they are following, conceivably even what bucket they are placed in if it's an algorithmic system. Lots of people report that twitter is a cesspool, and much more so recently. I've never experienced that, but then I don't look at big accounts or the "for you" feed much. On Mastodon I see almost no garbage, probably in part because I turn of retoots. Here I see almost no garbage, because I follow almost nobody. But if I look for garbage, it's in massive abundance on all of these (as well as BlueSky and Threads, just haven't looked in awhile).

Twitter-style social media (all of the above are basically that) is kind of undifferentiated and general purpose, which means people don't necessarily get the experience they wanted without significant work including self-restraint. But for other styles of website/service, you pretty much know what you're there for and will get (eg reddit or particular subs; not that those experiences couldn't be improved, but at least there's some level of agreement among participants about what they're doing).

I wonder if some kind of signaling of intent about what kind of interaction one is looking for, and use of that by clients, would be helpful. This is kinda accomplished on Mastodon-and-adjacent through instances, and on specific posts by some people with reply guidelines. But could same or better be accomplished without instances, and guide not only people who see posts, but guide people who want a style of interaction toward posts where the author signaled a compatible intent? There's a vast amount of people posting on any given topic (say NZ visit suggestions: aside if that's really what one wanted, as opposed to random convo, wouldn't they ask a search engine, chatbot, or Wikivoyage? but anyway...) and is there really any reason for people desiring trolling to not get that, for people who want affirmation to get that, for people who want literal-minded helpful responses to get that, etc? Anything else is wasting people's time. Well, except that figuring out what you want and taking time to signal it, may well be a bad use of time?

Hmm, my kneejerk reaction: all too easy for me, resulting in too little execution. But, maybe kneejerk is wrong, I should sit with my thoughts, longer still. I shall think about that...

I'd like a world in which they converged such that the G one becomes as wealthy as the SF one and the SF one becomes as huge as the G one.