That's an important issue, but if Democrats ever see power again, it'll be important to focus on re-enfranchisement (RCV, instant runoff, or anything fairer than FPTP; NPVIC; national mail voting; mandatory voting), on judicial reform to undo the corruption and incompetence that has been packed there. Without those, keeping any gains will be impossible.

Then, triaging existential threats is critical, which will mean fighting climate change, investing in public transport (trains), and breaking up trusts will have to be pursued simultaneously. Stopping any support for genocide needs to happen as soon as possible.

There will be plenty more structural changes to fix beyond that: Protecting whistleblowers and protesters, improving FOIA, replacing norms with laws (Emoluments Clause enforcement, financial records disclosure, no insider trading for Congressmembers, &c), and all manner of civil rights protections and police reform.

After all that, it'll be time for the stuff I've been hoping for: nationalizing healthcare and Internet access, and copyright reform.

Any solution that starts with purges is bad.

Democrats aren't authoritarians. It's a bad comparison. Democrats are always fragmented, it's virtually a defining characteristic. Post-Biden unity has been quite unusual.

The fixation is because there is no clear line of succession. If he fails, who steps in? They'll splinter and fragment. They'll still be deplorable, but less effective when not united behind a single authoritarian leader.

Skill issue 😉

I think you have confused several things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

These are what I use to dim them without blocking them entirely: https://lightdims.com/

Why simp for American healthcare?

Military, sure, but driver's licenses are state-level, not federal. Health care has been using birthdate like a password (one that is largely publicly available) for way too long now. At least financial institutions can use account numbers and financial history and code words, but even all that isn't great.

It's a messy patchwork, but I think at the time of the creation of the SSA, the US may have still thought of itself as a land of second chances. IBM numbering Holocaust victims probably didn't help the idea of a national ID, nor did the victim narrative of groups like the NRA.

I'm not sure if it's possible not to have a national ID anymore, so denial of it just forces a terribly kludgy implementation from whatever is around.

No, I'm sorry, that's dangerously naïve, and a self-serving, solipsistic moral panic. How old are you?

If we used RCV or anything better that winner-take-all, that would be different, or if we had a parliamentary system. But we don't.

That's not what you said. Your original "only" indicates that you think that votes + splitting your opponents votes isn't a strategy.

If splitting votes didn't matter, there wouldn't be so much effort put into gerrymandering. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP

Voting is a practical, strategic act, not an ideological one.

True, but two copies is one, and one is none. Multiple backups are critical, especially as archive.org has been targeted by the last few book publishers, who want it gone. As politicians and news sites quietly modify their content and hope nobody notices, this should really be a service of the Library of Congress, too.