I’m with you in your frustration, but this only furthers a class of elites being eligible to govern. The test needs to be at a level that anyone going through compulsory education could pass. Eg 8th grade.

Additionally, I would do the test at candidate registration. There is no pass fail, but the electorate can decide if they’re qualified enough (as it’s the right of the electorate).

Maybe it doesn’t fix it fully but we can directly point to who is a moron, and who voted for said morons.

See you in 2032

You should let her know so you can make your way into the next printing

Only two of what you mentioned are American brands, which is probably pretty relevant for a Senator to consider.

But doesn’t it though? Stabilizing it for transport saves lives in mining, but it also means it can be carried in the throes of war. Imagine lugging grenades filled with nitroglycerin instead of something stable. I can’t verify the story, but it’s a stretch to say it doesn’t make sense.

The better point is your last, I don’t think dynamite specifically was widely used.

This can also be the product of a stupid breeder selecting dogs with bad traits, and not the fault of the breed.

Knowing who you are buying from is important. This is relevant for any breed. I don’t have an opinion on labradoodles specifically.

That said, shelter dogs all the way.

Nobody buys less stuff with a single day boycotts. They just shifted their purchases before or after.

I hate to break this to you, but the customer pays in all scenarios.

But, yes, the employer should pay a living wage and include their overhead costs into the price of the goods.

And how does it look when he fires the guy investigating his son? That’s the same shit we derided trump for doing… tinkering with the Justice Department which has long operated with a high degree of independence for exactly these reasons.

No win situation for Biden, who assumed he would get another term in office. Don’t pretend it isn’t anything but.

No, the death penalty increasing violence is about incentives.

If I shoot someone dead and you are the only witness, I have a choice to make. If I do not want to be executed, killing you is the best chance for escaping punishment.

The more severe the punishment the more desperate one will become to avoid it.

They haven’t said they are seeking the death penalty. They have charged him with a crime where they could seek it.

But I agree they’re pushing for a deal.

Because the orange didn’t match their skin tone

George Bush “Mission Accomplished” or…

Even if the court says they can’t revoke, the court has no power to stop them.

All this will do is create a black market full of scalpers who are incentivized to buy the entire stock of a good if the market is willing to pay significantly more.

I’d like to see this on county level like voter maps.

Curious how cities and rural look compared to each other within a state, and how rural in low average states look across.

For example is LA just so skinny and populous it hides that rural California is as bad as rural Oklahoma?

Yes, and you abolish FPTP and now you elect a president how? I’m interested in your proposal, because it’s incomplete to say get rid of FPTP… Otherwise top vote getter, who gets maybe 30% of the vote leads the country which is also an abomination as 70% didn’t vote for that person.

Abolishing FPTP requires doing something else on top of it, ranked choice or run off would be better than the highest count.

Okay so you go with what system?

Let’s say the breakdown of votes looks the same as the Swedish breakdown. There will be more people that voted for a different candidate than the red one (Social Democrat).

This then requires a run off system like france, or a ranked choice, which is also fine to propose, but you can’t hold up a visual of a parliament and say the system is so much better, when we talk about one singular office.

The post compared two things that have different end goals

This fixes congress. How does this fix the presidency, which is one single office?

All they need is 5 SCOTUS justices to agree the text means whatever.

Then you need a different SCOTUS session to disagree or all of that to fix the text