Elon Musk

[Angrboda]

Part two:

I was reflecting on what i had posted and looking for a potential approach to deal with "them". What i came up with is: AL CAPONE

We need to engage them like AL CAPONE was engaged. A direct approach wont ever work, since they/AL is playing the system. What you need to do is
#1 Stay within the given limits of the law (and order)
#2 But go as far as you can legally go. Take off the (suede) gloves!
#3 Think out of the box

Al was finally caught for tax evasion. It never would have worked to get him for murder. Once you realize this, you can go "out of the box". Getting him for tax evasion was completely legal and moral. Nothing to complain about here. At the end he was exposed, thats what counted. You need Elliot Ness and his untouchables/incorruptibles. Impeachment of Trump by Mueller was kind of the correct approach (instead of trying to get him for rape, etc.), but unfortunately he already had subverted the Senate (namely Republicans) too much. Trying to get Höcke/AfD for unconstitutional $hit is a good approach. Arguing with those on the political stage is a losing game before you even start.

North Carolina's legislature in the waning days of their super-majority before the new legislature is seated has hollowed out what started as a bill related to dentistry and in the empty husk crafted a bill to basically emasculate the governor and such so as to prevent Democrats from exercising power. Examples include requiring judicial nominees being required to be approved by the Republican party and moving responsibility for running elections from the hands of the secretary of state, who will be a Democrat, into the hands of a state auditor, as that was one of the few elections the Republicans won, getting crushed all across the down-ballot races. Now, the thing is, for the time being, this all appears superficially legal. It's possible there's some constitutional overreach. Still, even then, if the Republicans held sway on the North Carolina Supreme Court, all these last-minute changes aimed at stripping power from an incoming administration would ostensibly be legal. This leads to the question of whether something being legal is the right bar if we're putting a ceiling upon how low the left should go to see that their policies and priorities are enacted, and contrary goals excluded. I have made, and will make, the argument that what restrains left-wing politicians in some measure from "going low" is that a part of the left's values is doing the right thing because it is the right thing, and that abandoning that would be a pyrrhic victory at best because we would then be modeling the same behaviors which we oppose and encouraging people to be ruthless and without scruple, something which in the long run is not good for the whole (as much of game theory regarding things like tit-for-tat and the prisoner's dilemma suggest). So while we could abandon the high road, would it make practical sense to do so beyond any question of mere expediency?