sxan

Right? The beginning of the end, maybe. Or maybe a fluke; until it is repeated across the country, we don't know.

Shamelessly shilling my OSS project, rook. It provides a secret-server-ish headless tool backed by a KeePass DB.

• Headless server
• Optional and convenient integration with the kernel keyring (on Linux), for locking the server to only provide secrets to the user's session
• Provides a range of search, list, and get commands
• Minimal dependencies and small code base make rook reasonably auditable

You might be interested in rook if you're a KeePassXC user. Why might you want this instead of:

• Gnome secret-server, KDEs wallet, or pass? rook uses your (a) KeePass DB, while most other projects store secrets in their own DBs and require (usually manual) sync'ing when passwords change.
• One of the browser secret storage? Those also keep a bespoke DB which needs to be synced, and they're limited to browser use. Rook supports using secrets in cron jobs or on the command line (e.g. mbsync, vdirsyncer, msmtp, etc, etc).
• KeePassXC? KeePassXC does provide a secret service that mocks Gnome secret-service, but you have to keep KeePassXC (a GUI app) running even if you only rarely use the UI. Rook can also be used on a headless machine.
• The KeePassXC command line tool? That requires entering the password for every request, making it tedious to use and impractical for automated, periodic jobs.

Rook is read-only, and intended to be complementary to KeePassXC. The KeePassXC command line tools are just fine for editing, where providing a password for every action is acceptable, and of course the GUI is quite nice for CRUD.

I hate the modern reefer madness that has doctors afraid to prescribed appropriate pain medication.

I'm not a history buff, but what I remember about the successful violent ones is that they tended to end up little better than what they replaced. So, point for non-violent ones.

Circumstances are important, though. For non-violent protests to be successful, the oppressors have to see the protesters as human. A theory I believe which has weight is that Ghandi didn't understand that the British may have thought Indians were lesser, but they didn't systemically dehumanize them, and were generally reluctant to treat them as animals, and so protests could have an effect. The Nazis made an effort to dehumanize Jews (and other minorities), and had fewer reservations about wholesale slaughtering. Uprisings were squashed by the sheer expediency of mowing down entire crowds.

What concerns me is the same rhetoric used on the far Right to dehumanize the Left and minorities. The real danger is the precedent of training people to see the opposition not as people, but as animals.

I'm sidestepping the fact that humans are animals; the science doesn't matter, the important thing is the desensitizing and moral rationalization.

I read the same 3.5% article, but I don't see where you're quoting it and am not sure what "democracy movement" means in this context. Could you explain?

Ah, Ok!

If they're living in a ghetto as they say, telling them to spend money - which for you may seem affordable - seems entitled.

Also, I don't know how cameras help. They're blaming ICE. ICE dresses in black and wears masks. They're the new Secret Police, Trump's brown-shirts, and regular LE isn't going to do shit about their illegal activities; so far, all LE has done is support them.

The key word is "democracy." WWII Germany wasn't a functional democracy. It is debatable whether America still has a functional democracy, or if it's just in pre-failure.

What other groups?

Neonazis make up a good part of MAGA. People who oppose the genocide don't (by and large) hate Jews; they hate genocide.

I would never suggest that Democrats don't have their own crooks and con artists. It's clear they do; and some liberal communities will overlook these. Although I don't believe infidelity precludes being a good President, I understand outrage that Democrats, nationally, were willing to overlook Clinton's affair(s). I don't, however, believe they'd have overlooked convicted felonies, clear treason, graft, or pedophilia, and that's the difference.

You're right that this state of affairs has not always existed; Nixon stepped down, after all, and prior to Nixon - farther back - Democrats were the party of segregationists. I'm suggesting that, for the past 40 or so years, Democrats have broadly been less hypocritical than Republicans, and held their representatives to higher standards of ethics. Maybe the difference is slight, but when Al Franken was accused of sexual misconduct, reaction was swift and he stepped down. Meanwhile, Mark Foley is texting underage boys, and his own anti-gay party (even ignoring the pedophilia nature) turned a blind eye.

I am not defending the two party system. I am certainly not defending FPTP. I stand on the evidence that no third party has come anywhere close to a plurality in the electoral college, much less the popular vote, for the Presidency in the past 165 years, and this - pithy quotes - demonstrates that voting for the lesser of two evils is currently the only option.

If we want to change this, we change our voting system, and we eliminate the electoral college. Voting for third parties, no matter how idealistic, affects no change.

It seems you confused liberals with leftists

There's no hard, fixed definition, but Ok. Liberals, progressives, leftists. Democrats - the established Democratic party - has historically been less willing to overlook sins of their members. When Democrat pedophiles are outed, they've been kicked out; Republican ones just get overlooked by their party and re-elected.

The D party is weak, ineffectual, geriatric, and has lost its moral center. Democrats tend to think more critically about who they vote for.

However: the "voting Blue no matter what" is a different issue. That's the reality of our FPTP voting system, and the electoral college. When it comes down to the final vote in the general election, if you aren't voting for the lesser of the two evils from the two major parties in the US, you may as well not vote. No third party candidate has come even close to winning the presidency since 1861. As long as we have the electoral college, no third party candidate will.

I am in complete agreement that the political divide is manufactured to mask the class war that the rich have effectively won. They've won, because they're the only ones fighting. The gains by Unions is good, and may be the only hope; but when we have a dictator in the White House, the political divide factor can't be ignored either.

Right?

I would argue that it's because, unlike conservatives, liberals are not blind followers willing to overlook any sin. OTOH, it also demonstrates a lack of foresight and understanding about the realities of the FPTP voting.