Even if we ever get that again, people will be sorely disappointed because legislation will be too busy fixing damages from the previous administration to make much actual progress. Which will be forgotten by the next election (same as it ever was).
In 2048 Reagan’s ghost will still haunt the country, plus Trump’s ghost too.
Funnily enough (for a brief moment at least):
I think it was the asker who also said “great.” sarcastically when gang violence was mentioned (just before the shot), adding to the timing.
I expect they’re guarding it until that chunk of the wall can be extracted to sell (before someone else does).
Some parts of those governments do have proportional representation (like Scottish Parliment where the SNP has the most representation).
Other than that, I would guess there are a lot of small reasons… like differences in structure/operation/rules, that recall elections are a thing, larger gov’t bodies, and election frequency. From the outside, I’d also guess that some of these parties do/have held power for a while until they mess things up and the voters switch it out.
Also a lot of the issue here is with US presidency, and the electoral college cements it even further. That is where it is the biggest inevitability as it’s a big race that largely decides the next 4 years (also a partisan senate and house can enable or stall legislature, also how the right stacked the supreme court).
This is also a long-term imbalance (as shown by the video I linked) that intensifies over time. Other systems having different factors may be what prevented it from being a huge issue there, and it probably helps that they are older/more-stable (and less individualistic) countries.
The two-party system is not fake, it’s a very real inevitability of FPtP voting.
For example: This 60-second animation shows how divided Congress has become over the last 60 years
Ignoring that also turns everything to the right (if not through actual voting, through lower turnout).
Had this thought in Michigan last week when riding my bike in just-above-freezing air on a trail and seeing trees tapped for maple syrup. I bought a bottle of Canadian sparkling water, too. If the state is not Canadian, why mitten shaped?
If I weren’t ~200 miles away with only a bike (and most of that is not bike-friendly) I’d definitely be like
because I know they wouldn’t (health/money). Even if I could get an ID then passport, I am not social enough to get sponsored.
Can’t they just take my brain for science instead?
If everybody could get insulin (even if they stock shelves or got laid-off from a tech/gig company), that’s when it’s a Joseph Stalin.
After seeing the bird-flu cows story, I made this reference:
“There are things you must know. The village is dying; the signs are everywhere. Withering crops… dying brahmin… …sick children.”
Particularly because of the other headline about the outbreak of measles in Texas (children) and multiple possible interpretations with crops (not getting picked due to deportation/fears of workers, forced dam release onto fields, drought/heat/fires)
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Also, obligatory
Now you’re pushing cautious optimism?
In OP’s defense, the description here is the subheading for the article. Thus me saying
posting this without comment
Wrong? Certainly not. But do you think spending the entire election demoralizing closest-to-the-left had no effect? (note: the iceberg of non-voters who aren’t directly counted in the uncommitted movement)
This is not to say that the DNC strategy was great, but I am not sure by what metric your own was much better. Particularly as even from the beginning it seemed like a gamble, requiring Harris to win while also having notably high 3rd-candidate turnout.
EDIT: Newer headlines make this even more obvious:
‘Very troubling’: Leader of ‘Abandon Harris’ movement now anxious about Trump appointees
Key leaders of the “Abandon Harris” movement, which encouraged voters to oppose Kamala Harris due to U.S. support for Israel during the Gaza war, are now expressing unease about Trump’s incoming administration.
concerns are growing over his Cabinet picks, such as Mike Huckabee and Tulsi Gabbard, which some see as troubling for Muslim communities.
You of all people posting this without comment. The only thing funnier (and sadder) is “cautious optimism about Trump”.
A new YT video by a chemist (NY66qpMFOYo, go to 6:35) just came out highlighting that the acidity causes sucrose to invert into 50:50 glucose:fructose over time anyways, so it makes even less sense. And there’s more sodium.
I like Isomaltulose (glucose-fructose with a stronger bond, making it metabolize slower) but it’s expensive and not as sweet. Though maybe other types of sweeteners could be used like this, perhaps in combination for a better flavor profile.
My assumption here is that sugar would need to be dissolved, mixed, and emulsified with more care/difficulty than hfcs. Though if there is any issue here it might not be present until a product has sat on the shelf (or in your house) for too long. Also for gritty, I was thinking more for something like ketchup or other sauces.
I’m also not saying this is a fault of sugar itself, but that hfcs allows highly sweetened products to be produced more easily (which may present said issue if high sugar content is kept 1:1 despite no longer using hfcs).
Agreed, but I have doubts that this will be a massive improvement if the same amount of other sugars are used. I’m sure some things would reduce sugar to fit with production, but if some foods just became gritty (or, soda with sugar sinking to the bottom) I would not be shocked.
Particularly because that seems like the easy-but-wrong-answer. Not that “maybe we shouldn’t make sugar cheaper than water” and “food doesn’t need to be loaded with sugar to taste good” should be unpopular opinions.
This sounds completely backwards, like if you are talking purely about investment.
If not it seems to completely ignore that high prices alone would discourage spending, particularly on non-essential things (even then, don’t think for a second that there aren’t people skipping healthcare or meals).
The only other way I could interpret would be that high prices force people to spend more money on just essentials (even if they’re buying less than they otherwise would), somehow painting living paycheck-to-paycheck as a good thing because it means more money in the economy.
In an alternate universe:
“Why’d he do that?”
“Why wouldn’t he?”
They don’t use it everywhere. And even then in the House of Commons (where it is used), out of 650 seats, only one 3rd party (and independents) is in the double digits. 80% of the seats are 2 parties, the same 2 parties that have traded power for the past century.
Some other parts of their government do have other voting methods or even proportional representation, allowing other parties to govern.
They also have recall elections(/no-confidence) and more common prime-minister resignations (and probably tons of other rules that change how political power works), meanwhile we have the Electoral College for the presidential election which further ensures a 3rd candidate can be a spoiler assuming they can even win in 1 state.