Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "The Hill"
channel.
-
15
-
11
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
5
-
5
-
The center didn't get destroyed in the UK, it just underperformed compared to early expectations. You could just as well say that Hillary got destroyed in 2016, eventhough a few thousand votes might have completely changed the outcome.
The center in the UK had already been destroyed in 2015 after their coalition with the conservatives and for their entire existence the FPTP system has been hugely unfavorable to them. Just imagine Bernie running as a third candidate in the general election, he won't win, eventhough he might easily win as the democratic candidate. Yes, they lost a seat, but they gained in votes. Labour lost almost a fourth of their seats and a fourth of their vote share (11% of the total votes), they have been destroyed in this election, period.
However drawing a comparison with Bernie is indeed stupid, because there are many factors, most of which are different for Bernie (Corbyn's popularity, brexit, too unclear/difficult policies, just the circumstance of the people overall, ...). Labour's results in an election say NOTHING in regards to Bernie's/the left, not in 2017 and not now in 2019.
5
-
@waysidetimes9226 1. A family doesn't need to have their own solar panels, nor are solar panels the only source you'd want for electricity. There are other renewable sources that are much cheaper. Besides, overall the cost of electricity (purely on production) doesn't even need to go up with renewable energy.
2. electric cars are now still expensive mainly because they are low in production and still under large scale improvement. Early ICE cars were crazy expensive in the beginning too. It is predicted that within a few years electric cars will be cheaper or as expensive as ICE cars.
3. Again, a family doesn't really need batteries, it can be usefull, but not necessary. It all depends on how we manage the system. Besides an average family would have enough with less than 10k batteries, the price of which will eventually decrease and as electric car batteries need to be changed/aren't good enough anymore for car use, they still can be used for stationary applications (for example at home). Also (again depending on the system) batteries at home could save a lot in electricity cost, overtime probably even paying back the initial investment.
You are making the mistakes so many people make. If I used numbers from a hundred or maybe even just 50-60 years ago, the current lifestyle would be impossible for most families. And the speed of development has only increased since then. Basic computers cost thousand upon thousands of dollars 30 years ago, while still having only a fracture of the power.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Brigstad
New York and california combined would have 16% of the voters. Even if we add all the largest states together, you would still need at least 9 states to achieve a majority, but most of these 9 states are split between rep and dem, so obviously you'd need a lot more states to get a majority. With one person one vote, there is no specific state that matters, because the candidates need to get as many votes as possible in ALL states.
Furthermore, at this moment elections are basically decided by swing states (also maybe 9 states, sometimes more, sometimes less), how is this different from a popular vote system, other than that fewer people are in these important states now? Now you also have certain states that hold way more power in election and usually these states are targetted by candidates, while "save" states are practically ignored.
The "large states will have all power" argument isn't any better than arguments against the electoral college, because both sides can use this "states x will have more power" argument, just with different states.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@LD-tn6ff I don't you understand where the original poster got his 100% from, so let me explain.
1) the WFP said they couldn't release how the board vs members voted, because they can't/won't show how individuals voted.
2) If neither the leadership nor the membership voted for 1 candidate completely, then releasing how the board vs members voted wouldn't show how individuals voted. Because if even 1 member and 1 boardmember voted differently, we can't know which individual voted for which candidate, we can make assumptions, but this we already can do either way.
3) Thus either
a. there wasn't a 100% vote for a candidate with the members and board, in which case the reason given by the WFP for why they won't release how board vs members voted makes no sense and thus it must be an excuse to hide the fact that the board and members voted completely differently.
or
b. there was a 100% vote for one candidate among either the board or members. Because then there is an explanation for not releasing how members vs board voted makes sense. Afterall if 100% of the board voted for 1 candidate, you know how every individual on the board voted and therefor releasing the breakdown of the weighted vote would show how individuals vote.
So either WFP lies as to why they don't want to release the breakdown of the vote, or the board must have voted 100% for one candidate. Which is perfectly possible, afterall the 50+ people might have debated about which candidate they want or maybe there was some pressure form donors or what not forcing them to vote a certain way. In either case the result is that Bernie and the members most likely got stiffed by the board vote.
And again, if this isn't the case, there is no reason for the WFP to not release how the board vs members voted.
3
-
3
-
@Brigstad
Also, it’s not 1 person 1 vote bc the US isn’t a direct democracy
Most nations who have 1 person 1 vote for the presidency are representative democracies, that's what parliament (or in the US congress) is for. Ofcourse people often simplify too much, you can have one person one vote for presidency, while not having one person one vote for parliament (like with the US senate). So most nations use a mixture of election systems.
bc democracies always crash and burn
So the US is going to crash and burn, seeing you said it yourself, you are a "*democratic* republic"?
Napoleon, who invented it
What did Napoleon invent? Democracy? direct democracy? Napoleon was an enlightened despot/dictator (although he was one of the good ones in my opinion). And you do know Napoleon was more refering to parliamentary system, basically the US congress and the fact that decisions are made slowly or not at all there, while a one man dictatorship/ruler can make these decisions quickly and act?
We are a democratic republic
So are almost countries with one person one vote and a presidential system.
funny how liberals all seemingly failed civics
Funny how you said that, while completely fumbling up the actual terms and ideas behind it. But I guess it must be an American thing, since they have made these kind of mistakes so often in arguments I had with them.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It is much easier to price for access to a databank or price large amount of data than individual data. Therefor it will be increasingly hard to determine how much the data of an individual is worth. And further than this, how much someone data is worth can depend from person to person AND there might be a difference how much specific data of one individual is worth (for example browser history, hobby's, family situation, job, ...).
So putting a price on individual data will be increasingly hard. Too low and your data will be more easily distributed, too high and no one can get to it (and in that case platforms like facebook wouldn't let you use them anyway).
And then there is also the problem a platform like facebook will have, now they get a lot of profit from this data, however if they need to pay for it, they'll need to get money elsewhere, say bye bye free facebook, hello subscription facebook.
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@elijahculper5522
I think the fact that the media ignores him is evidence that he’s failing at redefining American socialism.
Except the media isn't ignoring hime because he dscribes himself a democratic socialist, but because he himself is a threat to the status which is so good for these large media companies. They don't give a damn on how Bernie paints himself.
Democrats win when they pick someone who can work the media
But during both Obama's first run and Clintons, the media was practically the only ways for many people to find out about the contestants, these days that is not the case by far. Therefor you can't just make this assumption at this time anymore, what might have worked in the past, doesn't necessarily needs to be the case now.
and it matters more and more how they are seen.
I agree, and that is why Bernie is so smart to use different outreaches, like a fox news town hall, interview with Joe Rogan, ... Bernie would never be shown favorably by the media or the establishment as long as he isn't already the democratic nominee. The only way for him to change this is be different from who he is and change his policies, which in return will take away his appeal with progressives. The problem at this moment is more that there are still too many contestants and that Biden is just coasting on his "Obama's VP" heritage. If people (especially black people) would actually look past that, a lot of people would drop him quickly and after that it would be between Bernie and Warren. Now Warren seems to be loved by the media despite having similar policies as Bernie. But this fact actually worries a lot of progressives, because there is no reason for them to love Warren, except that she might be a sell out like Obama.
2
-
2
-
2