>>8961690

Yes, and expand. The 2008 crisis accomplished quite a few things. It wiped out home ownership (and the chance at ever owning a home) for millions of Americans, forcing them back to rentals. Rental companies were gobbled up and consolidated into mega corps, and rents bundled into derivatives (ahh, same fucking game).

If you annihilate small businesses and, eventually, force everyone to work for a handful of corporations, and live in rented units owned by a handful of corporations, one black mark for "wrongthink" or protest gets you blocked from employment and a place to live. A death sentence.

>>8962021

2 major parties will still "need" to exist after the Dems implode.

Likely the more reasonable members of the Dem party will unite with the Libertarians to form that balancing party.

>>8962082

Why have checks and balances at all? Why not just a "benevolent dictator".

Power corrupts, period.

One party will lead to that party becoming corrupt, eventually.

It's a natural formation. People try to get along under a single party until certain things arise that cause a seismic fracture which can't be repaired.

Plus you have the fact that those attracted to politics are generally narcissists craving power, which means there will arise some that want to start "at the top" even if it means the top of a weaker, less mature "party".

>>8962157

Hey, you wanna meet for lunch?

To do that we have to coordinate 3 dimensional location plus a 4th dimension of when.

How would you propose to do that without time?