Really want to know as well :(
dharmacurious
joined 1 year ago
My favorite part of this is the way you made me pronounce forehead in my head. Like far-eds. I don't know how to spell it out, but it was very Yankee, and that was a treat for my southern brain
White. Male. Able bodied. Neurotypical. Christian (Catholics need not apply). Straight. Republican.
If you or someone you know doesn't fit each one of those, then they are at risk of persecution in the US.
That's me this time around!
Speak to the author about allowing folks and their parents to immigrate, please
Not just Christian, not all of us believe in an antichrist. Even among biblical literalists it's not 100%. Rapture, too. I don't believe in either
For what it's worth, you're objectively correct, regardless of what anyone else says. The majority of the country didn't vote for him, and yes, inb4 "not voting is voting!" The people who didn't vote are making a civic choice, and that choice lead to a trump presidency. But it doesn't mean those people wanted him, or like him. It means they were politically un/underinformed, or didn't want to have to make a choice between fascism and slower fascism (I hated making that choice, voted for Kamala). we are a nation of 340 million people. 75 million voted for trump. That's 22%.
There's your number. 22% of the US wanted this guy. Anything else is speculation. The only thing we know is that 22% voted for him.
Give Americans a politician worth voting for, someone with a backbone who believes in the universal right to healthcare, childcare and all the other things industrialized countries have by this point, and who doesn't believe a little genocide is okay, as a treat, and you'll see a different fucking result.
In other words, to my dear European friends blaming every American for the act of 22% of us, if we had a politician to vote for who would even try to give us 1\10th of what you already have maybe more people would have gotten off their ass and voted. But our elections have a different fucking vibe. We're not fighting to keep what we've got here, we're fighting to get some level of human decency so that we won't have to watch our parents work into their late 80s with 3 days of sick time per year, and then die sleeping on the sofa in our living rooms because God knows their can't afford to keep their house in this economy.
I can't really speak for 41 million people
Of course you can! Just say it louder than other people, it works for politics in the US...
Yeah, I was familiar with, like, the nuts and bolts part. It was the emotional reaction, I guess, I was looking for. So most people just don't have a problem with it?
In the us, we used to not be able to vote for senators. We elected the house, and the house elected the senators, and that shit didn't fly. Lol. One thing about Americans, we want to have opinions on shit. Even when we shouldn't, we gotta voice ourselves. If we tried to switch to a Westminster system here, people would be up in arms about not being able to vote directly for the PM, like we were about senators. Even if it's a better system. It's not the greatest trait our country has.
Question from the American here. Does it ever bother folks that you don't get a direct say in who the prime minister is? It's a superior system to the bullshit we've got going on down here, and clearly, being able to directly vote for the head of state/government doesn't guarantee shit, I've always felt like it not being able to choose the PM was kind of shitty
Yeah, you nailed it. Obvious in hindsight, but until this I had just assumed it was accurate, like, even if everyone wasn't counted, I guess had I been pressed, I would have assumed there was some formula or something to account for the uncounted or some shit. Kinda wild
Also, village isn't a word we really use in the US, but now that you say it, I guess that's kind or exactly what it is. A little village of insane, isolated, meth makin' hillbillies up in the woods that aren't accessible by road.
Obligatory it's bullshit, will never happen, et cetera preface...
The problem with splitting it into multiple states is that each new state would get 2 senators. Our house is capped, the amount of reps we have is how many have, which means they can fuck around with the numbers a bit and potentially take democratic seats away to give to state of Canada, but with the Senate, if it were to split it into 10 new states, we'd have to add 20 additional senators, all of whom would be Democrats (or, at least, most of them). Some of the Canadian parties might last for a bit, but eventually the two party would take over, and they'd all become Democrats, and it would fuck the Republicans. Better to keep it as a single state, do some fuckery on who loses seats to add Canadian reps to the house, and only add 2 senators. Much easier to buy 2 senators than 20.
But honestly, the smartest route would be to make Canada a territory. No senators, no reps, no voting for president. But still citizens. Give it the Puerto Rico treatment.
Oh shit. I didn't know that was illegal. I worked security in several hotels in the Knoxville and tricities TN areas, and probably 3 out of 10 of them did this. Mostly upscale hotels.