Well no, and I’ve never seen a live train wreck either. In general I’m fascinated by disasters. The people around me can all be freaking out and I’m like ‘wow this is amazing’. However train wrecks, airplane crashes, and high speed auto wrecks are all obviously dangerous enough so that I in fact have no desire for a first hand experience.
The skew in the house would be reduced, it might even go away, but with 2 exceptions the states do not allocate electoral college electors proportionally , it’s winner takes all, and doesn’t even require a majority. The small population rural states would continue to have inordinate representation in the presidential vote.
This is what can happen when we vote the fascists out of power. The 'both sides the same' bullshit is idiocy and is propagated by the disinformation machine in order to suppress voters.
Indeed. Here's your $50,000 car that casts $1000 a month to operate on top of fuel and maintenance. So really it is a $100,000 car that you put 50k down on and pay off on the installment plan. We are in the enshittification stage of this version of capitalism. We cling to the myth that the system makes our lives better, it did for a long time if you lived in the developed world, but that dynamic has played out. Now we are in the phase where 'growth' is mainly found by enshittification.
Netflix making sure their customers keep their promises
Netflix sold me a 4 screens shareable account. They then broke their promise and removed the shareable part. WTF are you talking about, or was that simply sarcasm?
The rules aren't intended to limit negative effects, for the most part. Instead, as you know, the rules are focused on transactions and contracts and making sure property rights are prioritized over all other rights. My objection was to your characterization of the system as 'capitalism without rules', and that somehow 'Capitalism is meant to have rules to make it fair and prevent anarchy'. Meant by whom? Certainly not by the neoliberal ideologists. Certainly not by the oligarchs ruining the planet. The era of 'fair capitalism', what has been labeled the 'fordist era', the New Deal era in the USA and the social democratic era of the european democracies, that is now long past.
However, even under social democratic reform, capitalism requires perpetual growth, it is a system of accumulation that rewards growth and growth alone. A system that is sustainable, that is not dependent on growth, that allows human civilization to exist in harmony with its environment, such a system would not be capitalism.
I agree the house needs expansion, however I also think that would only moderately address the electoral college skew toward rural states. Also it is in my opinion irrelevant as it does not address the core problem: the president should be elected by a direct national vote, each person getting one vote of equal weight to every other vote.
It's bad per se and also ludicrous. It gives way too much power to states with small populations, which tend to be rural and very right wing. But it is also ludicrous, we should all vote for the person selected to rule the nation, and every vote should have equal weight. Those same states - the right has a hugely unbalanced say in the senate for the same reason, small rural states have massively disproportionate representation. Reforming presidential elections can be done by amendment or by efforts like the popular vote compact, by agreement between enough states. The stupid constitution forbids amending the way the senate is apportioned, so there might have to be a court fight over changing that rule.
No.