I think we are talking about two different things. I’m talking about individual policies, and I think you are talking about elected representatives. I do agree that percentages of representatives should match the population, but votes on individual policies should always match what the majority of the population wants.
“Also majorities are slow to change, and it’s simply dishonest (and destabilizing) to have one’s vote weigh less depending on which group they are part of.”
It doesn’t. Just because you are a part of the minority doesn’t make your vote count less. It just means there are more people who disagree with you than agree.
I’d say countries that devolve into dictatorship aren’t due to too much democracy but due to weak constitutional protections.
Right now in the US we are in danger of devolving into a dictatorship because of the extra weight added to minority votes.
Edit: and by minority votes I’m talking about policies with less than 50% support.
That’s a bit more than just math. When considering a policy, I don’t tend to take into account where the different parties stand. It’s better to think for yourself and not resort to tribalism. With that in mind I do think the majority should win 100% of the time. It has been insanely annoying here in the US how some policies have had popular support for years if not decades yet go nowhere because of small interest groups who use cheap tricks like the fillibuster and the electoral college to ensure the will of the minority wins out. I do acknowledge the danger of the tyranny of the majority, but I think protections against it should be provided by the rights outlined in a strong constitution.
Still better than every other option.
Most of the Taylor Sheridan shows and movies. I don’t know if he writes the dialogs, but there is a lot of cringe lines and scenes.
Yes and he only cited the Bible to show that jews lived there thousands of years ago. He wasn’t citing the Bible to make any kind of religious claim, so this guy’s comment is completely missing the point.
What’s the difference between a cartel and a mafia?
Maybe I don’t know what I’m talking about but wouldn’t starlink know the serial numbers or Mac addresses of the dishes they gave to Ukraine? Couldn’t they easily filter that region so only those work?
Some issues really don’t straight up exist. Outrage TV will always come up with something to stir people up. Other issues are pretty complicated without any promising solutions, so it may just seem like they’re being ignored. Conservatives will focus on those and claim to have the answer, but then their answer is something like “to eradicate poverty we need to put poor people in jail”.
Then you learn that the “something” they want to do is the exact opposite direction of what solving the problem would look like. It takes 2 seconds of critical thought to realize I’d much rather stick with the “milquetoast centrists” than ever consider voting for regressive conservatives.
People always point to the worst of the worst to justify the death penalty, but it’s not about them. It’s about us. I just picture people who support the death penalty the same as medieval peasants cheering on the gruesome torture and execution of a criminal like its some kind of entertainment. People need to do more introspection about what part of their personality they are feeding when they give in to the desire for vengeance. That’s not even taking into account that no justice system is perfect.
I got a bunch of free Coca-Cola once, and some dude at taco bell overheard me say something about “all the coke I have in my trunk”. He then tried to sell me some of his coke.
I’ve always heard “in oder to be successful you have to be able or willing to do things others can’t or wont”. Global competition and increased technology has pretty well evened out the ability side of that quote leaving behind the other factor of what people are willing to do. I think the biggest decider on what people are willing to do is based on personal morals and ethics, so a person more willing to ignore ethics has a better chance of becoming successful. This is supported by statistics that show corporate executives and politicians exibiting psychopathic traits at higher rates than the general population. The only way I can think of to correct this is to have regulations on ethics, which is why I whole-heartedly support the CFPB and despise Republicans who try to shut it down.
I would say Trump might deserve some of the blame for the pandemic because he cut the CDC’s pandemic response funding in the 1st or 2nd year of his term.
If he gets excited his tail would knock things off counters and tables.
I mean it is an accurate description of it, so that might be a connection… but if you know the actual history of the term then please share
I don’t know why, but I never made the connection of this pose to the term “reared-up” (meaning ready to go/launch) until recently.
I don’t get out much, so I have no clue how others are doing. I’ll admit that shit sucks right now, but I haven’t been living paycheck to paycheck since working part time in my early 20s over a decade ago. I live in a low COL area and make about $35-$40,000 a year. I only spend maybe $15,000 a year. I may never be able to buy a house, but I’m far off from paycheck to paycheck. It makes me wonder if people who are living that way are maybe just living outside of their means?
I don’t remember where I saw it, but I watched a video about different exo-planets. One that stuck out to me was a planet that had miles of ice but possibly also a liquid water ocean underneath. If intelligent life evolved down there, they would probably have no clue about the wider universe and think their world is all that exists. Imagine such a being’s reaction if they ever drilled up through the ice. I feel like this could be turned into a good sci-fi book.
If I remember right, the rich confederates hid their wealth during the war in banks in Montreal. There were definitely Canadians who were allies with them.