It seems the right believes very strongly in hierarchy, especially hierarchies of supremacy. I think they believe these hierarchies are natural, like they are the way things are supposed to be. They believe the men at the top of the hierarchy are there because they are just naturally superior, and the people who are further down the hierarchy are there because they are naturally inferior. That's how they justify their hierarchies of dominance and power.

It's no coincidence that the men at the top of these hierarchies are almost exclusively all rich. Nothing proves a man's superiority more than wealth. He's rich because he's great, and he's great because he's rich. Similarly, being poorer is proof of inferiority.

That's why I think the US is headed toward becoming an extreme oligarchy. It's all about maintaining hierarchies based on wealth. It's all about making sure the right kinds of rich men are able to keep their natural place in the hierarchy, and that inferior people are kept in their place.

I don't expect people to ignore color, I just don't think we sound look only at color. I don't think physical characteristics are irrelevant, but you can't define a group of people by that alone.

I criticise the continued practice of grouping people together based solely on skin color. It's a horribly antiquated practice and we need to move beyond it.

I don't know exactly how bad a second Trump term would be, but I'd really rather not find out. At best it will be embarrassing and absurd, at worst it would be devastating and catastrophic for countless millions, both inside and outside the US.

I will be voting for Kamala, because I do think it's very important that Trump not get reelected. I hope she wins, but her winning alone will not be enough. We need to do a better job of figuring out why America is in the state that it is in, so that we can come up with ways to fix it (assuming it can be fixed).

On average, pay has risen faster than prices in recent years.

Fuck the average. Incomes vary far, far too much for the average to mean much of anything.

Everyone, from small business owners, to the self employed and independent contractors, to hourly wage earners who have not seen their income increase at a rate that is at least equal to the rate of inflation, every year, have had a pay cut. I can't say how many of these people there are, but I would estimate they number in the millions.

By 2030? Not going to happen, then.

You're right, that would be virtually impossible. I should have said that we need to decommission the fossil fuel powered machines as quickly as possible, to have the best chance of reducing global GHG emissions by >45% by 2030. But, we do need to have all fossil fuel powered machines that have GHG emissions that can't be offset by things like carbon capture and sequestration, decommissioned by 2050, to meet the Paris climate agreement goals. That gives us a couple more decades, but even that will be extraordinarily difficult.

with urgent, decisive action, we still can avoid unmanageable outcomes

But not just any urgent, decisive action, it must be the right action. The wrong action could be insufficient at best, and actively harmful at worst.

To meet the Paris climate agreement, we must reduce global GHG emissions by 45% to 50%, from current levels, by 2030. To achieve that, we must begin decommissioning all existing fossil fuel powered machinery, from power plants, to manufacturing, transportation, and agricultural equipment, and replace them with net zero emission alternatives, as quickly as possible. I don't think anyone really knows how best to do that, at least not on a global scale. It's not something we've ever done before.

That's true, but Germany is an outlier, and their population is still a little less than 1/4 that of the US. Plus, the US is a little more than 10 times the size of Germany in total area. I think that has an impact as well. But, it's possible Germany does represent the upper threshold of size and population for a strong democracy, and if that's the case the US is still well beyond that threshold.

I hope you’re not saying the solution for larger democracies is to make them not democracies.

No, absolutely not. My preference would be for larger democracies, like the US, to be broken up into many smaller democracies.

Denmark has one representative for every roughly 33,400 of its citizens. The United States, in contrast, has one representative for every approximately 626,000 of its citizens. For the United States to have a similar representation ratio to Denmark, the US Congress would need to be expanded from 535 (voting) representatives to over 10,000 representatives.

However, it is important to point out that the US is a federation, and that most US citizens also have state representation. The state representation, though, is separate from federal representation, as each state is a semi autonomous jurisdiction.