TheSanSabaSongbird

joined 2 years ago
[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 8 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Yeah, sigh. That said, while I don't love it, if this is what it takes to take the orange bastard down for good, I'm all for it. It's just too important.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 1 points 2 years ago

I think they're probably thinking about it in a strictly Lemmy context, in which case tankies definitely are a much bigger problem than Nazis, who as far as I can tell have virtually no presence on Lemmy at all.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Also over a million Uighurs in prison camps.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Since Republicans can and do win the presidency without a popular majority, I'd say not voting at all favors them. They understand this and it's why they always try to reduce voter turnout.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 2 points 2 years ago

He's known for making stupid unproductive off the cuff comments. It's one of his trademarks. What really matters is that when it comes down to the work of crafting policy, he's actually a very skilled politician. Whether one agrees with said policy is another matter, but no one can argue that he doesn't get things done.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The US is an outlier among our so-called peer democracies in having a functional (as opposed to purely ceremonial) upper house. Everyone else has done away with it and they seem to have improved for it. I don't find any of the arguments in favor of keeping the Senate convincing. They all seem to amount to a version of institutional inertia, or, "it's the way we've always done it and I'm scared of change!".

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

"Great" in that sense doesn't mean "good," it means big. You see the same use in a lot of bird names as in the great blue heron or the great auk, just off the top of my head.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 1 points 2 years ago

The truth is that pretty much everything about the western US starts with California and then spreads back out. This is because, due to the gold rush, California was settled and made a state first, while the rest of the western states remained "territories" and only achieved statehood much later as they too became more heavily settled.

Basically, the settlement pattern of the western states is backwards after about 1852 or thereabouts, with the California and the west coast filling in first, and the interior states filling in later.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 1 points 2 years ago

Read a US history book on the westward expansion and it will all make perfect sense. Hint; it might have something to do with older names remaining in use up until the current day.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 1 points 2 years ago

No, it's actually true that a lot of people don't really think it through. I personally talked a friend out of flying it by appealing to how it might make others feel. It honestly hadn't really occurred to him. Now granted, said friend is semi-literate at best, but he is a genuinely kind and decent human being who just didn't know anything else.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 1 points 2 years ago

It very much depends on what you mean when you say "the spirit of it," which I think you have to admit, is open to a lot of interpretation.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I mean, southwest Colorado was part of the Dust Bowl. Culturally it's definitely part of the Great Plains area. I would argue that eastern Wyoming and Montana are as well. They have more in common with the Dakotas than they do with the Rockies.

I still wouldn't consider it the Midwest, but at least there's a tenuous thread of logic to the idea.

view more: ‹ prev next ›