I agree with your assessment of the US. The point I’m really trying to make is that I haven’t seen a successful implementation of this approach in any free country, even though most countries buy into the premise of going after drug dealers. Whether it fails because the implementation is all wrong or human failings, the fact that nobody has been able to get it right makes me wonder if it’s time to conclude that we aren’t going to solve it this way.
On the one hand, you’re right. However, I would say most societies have already drawn that conclusion and have attempted to do what you say we should do. Can you think of any place that has been successful? Certainly not the US.
I could be mistaken but I thought he was threatening to quit when some Republicans were floating the idea of him doing more without elevating his role with a vote. Like just start doing speaker stuff anyway.
Polling showed Clinton as being most likely to win. The fact that she didn’t win doesn’t mean the polling is necessarily meaningless. Even if someone has a 90% chance of winning, it means they can not only lose, but 1 in 10 times you expect them to lose.
Everything he did just became the new norm for the GOP to defend. If he had done even worse, it wouldn’t have made him cross a line with the GOP, it just would have normalized even worse actions.
That’s not how we’d get more parties with our voting system. If the GOP fractured because of this then there might be chaos for brief period of time, but sooner than later everything would get settled back to two parties. Our system is set up so that it just plain suboptimal to do otherwise.
Sure, maybe it’s a legit question, but it’s equally likely to be a troll who wants to have an argument about computer OSes. If the person who said “why mac?” is truly asking a good-faith question like you are positing, they could have put more than two words of effort into the question so that whoever responds doesn’t have to make a huge guess as to their intentions.
A linguist looks at an example like “literally” and says, isn’t language amazing? Words change and evolve, are created and die off, and yet everything works, people don’t stop being able to express ideas because the language got screwed up, everything takes care of itself. People were making the same complaints about words being used the wrong way 200 years ago, and a thousand years ago, thinking now we’ve lost a critical piece of the language, but it’s always fine. We have languages like French with an academy that regulates it, and we also have languages that have never been written nor taught in school. And they are all capable of expressing whatever they need to express.
I was thinking you could test whether a faith-based approach accomplishes what it is supposed to accomplish, but you’re right, my characterization of it as hypothesis-based, even though I meant it facetiously, ignores your important point
Using the period with titles is standard in the US and leaving out the period is standard in the UK.