When considering unfolding legal matters, yes, maybe this should be pursued. Maybe this is the smartest course to follow. I don't know if Yang would be best choice as he had less favorability among voters than some of the other candidates. It would be something to hear McCraven and Yang discuss the second amendment. Yes, that would be something.

Another note is the show itself, Rising. I have only seen a few clips, but I did read a little about the show and would like to hear more. Also specifically Saagar's commentary based off of another clip I saw and the position he took on it.

Stupid idea.

What does he mean "the rght hasn't played their cards and over the next year we are in grave danger"?

I think the overall idea is creative. I can't see it ever working though. Would the two sides ever really agree to a coin flip? When Dr. Weinstein describes his position as radical, I think he is not naming it correctly. Isn't it more of the same, but in a different combination? I mean it is creative, new in the sense that it hasn't been done before, it could possibly lead somewhere different. But maybe we really are getting to a point where you have to accept two sides can never agree and on certain issues you have to find more ways to allow for differences. For example protesters who want to defund police - you can't really make yes police and no police into a workable agreement can you? Allow people the ability to create the spaces they want but it has to be done by democratic choice and no citizens should be forced to live in the areas if it is not by their choosing, I mean because of reason due to poverty. The defund movement should have to pay to relocate the uninterested parties. Then they can have their self-policing units and use their share of tax money to invest in the services they are looking to have. It's not a federal issue, but a local one. But how does it get facilitated? All of this protesting has occurred all over the nation with a recurring theme. Some people want this. Others do not.

One of the biggest concerns facing the nation is the highly destructive force of the riots we recently experienced. Yes, I agree with this point. The cities should be really brought to task for their failures to adhere to the first amendment. No citizen's best interests are served when protests devolve into riots. City responses should be closely studied, and reported on for everything that was done wrong. We also need to know about the $. How much is all this costing the taxpayer both directly and indirectly and make sure next time your paying your increased taxes (or not, depending), insurance and increased cost of goods (because business has to recoup expense somehow) that you thank your local governing officials for that one! Cities should have to present plans on how they will comply in future much more rapidly. Additionally, the federal government needs to step in sooner. Everyone is always worshipping the second amendment, how about demanding enforcement of the first amendment from the government? If it cannot successfully execute this very basic role how can it be trusted with any other?

Look at CHAZ. A child is dead because the government failed to govern. That is horrible! And that is the government that allowed it. They allowed it. How many other people died across the country when lawlessness was not quelled sooner? Who was responsible? This itself should initiate protests, but that would be somewhat contradictory, protesting not being policed enough. The point is it was a lot of frustration that was allowed to go too far and it should not have been.

Ridiculous and silly. Waste of time. As if Republican super-rich would ever share the wealth with the fellow republican voters. Democrats are not that disappointed in Biden; only the Bernie progressives who can't win and don't vote. Yang is an idiot; he has one good idea, moving toward a minimum income. His DOA tax schemes don't substitute for clear-thinking leadership.

Interesting concept