I don’t think anybody is hoping to convince you True Believers who have fully incorporated this into your personality. The spoiler effect is more about other people who maybe haven’t thought about it so much and don’t realize the mistake they are making.
If true, that would be exactly why you would need more than the exact bare minimum number of Democrats for what you want to accomplish, so that one or two can’t make a name for themselves by gumming up the works.
Are you a person who doesn’t appreciate the significance of the ACA, or are you a person that doesn’t realize that the supermajority only lasted something like 11 weeks (during which they managed to barely get the ACA to happen)?
It’s bad! I just don’t know what to do about it
A solid chunk of the population always behaves like sheep, even with the opportunity to educate oneself and form one’s own opinion, as well as people warning them not to behave like sheep. I certainly don’t know how to stop this from happening on a mass scale. So, when some chunk of the population takes a cue from a famous person, if that person has intentions that seem benevolent and point people towards what I consider to be a wise choice, I can at least be glad about that.
When the 270 mark is passed, it has the effect of making every vote equal everywhere.
Right, and this is bad for the Republican Party, so they will do everything in their power to stop it.
The guy who owned the rights to her first six albums was being a bully and asshole to her, so she has been re-recording all of those albums one by one from scratch and telling her fans to buy those instead so he won’t profit off her work. She’s done like 4 already.
Bill Clinton never debated George W Bush
What kind of Dem candidate is pro fracking?
One who exists in a fucked up electoral system where the entire fate of our country rests upon a few thousand votes in western PA.
I wasn’t shocked at all (except the general shock that a person like this has ever come close to the presidency). Particularly in recent years, I’ve seen him take bait so many times which wasn’t even intended as bait, but it triggered him. And because it slightly grazed his fragile ego, priority number one for him is to go on an ego-defending tangent that only confuses and undermines any points he could have made about the actual topic.
Harris knew that as long as she peppered her responses with a trigger here and a trigger there, he would be unable to help himself every time. And that’s what we saw.
So you replied to my post without reading, still didn’t address the questions I asked after acknowledging this, and are now shamelessly saying you also never even read Taylor Swift’s post in the first place before making all your comments. And yet your thesis is that there’s no reason to place any value on what she says?
I wonder if a big part of the reason is just the whole phone call about Biden and subsequent impeachment, and how Zelenskyy wouldn’t play ball and the whole thing damaged Trump’s ego in a big way. So even if it’s politically advantageous in every way to say you want Ukraine to win, Trump is incapable of doing so.
Yes, I noticed you were asking that question, hence my reply which took your question into account. If you get a chance, you could try doing the same.
They admire more than that. But, like, there’s an implication in the fact that you are posting on Lemmy that you believe people should assign a nonzero value to your perspective; why is that? I would assume that you make your arguments and believe they have value based on their own merit, regardless of the fact we have no idea who you are. Well, Taylor Swift made a post where she stated her position and gave arguments too. Is there any reason her perspective should not have any value but yours and mine should?
Furthermore, if someone does know who she is and wants to also take into account that they admire her music and songwriting, her personality, her perspective, and/or her various life accomplishments, why shouldn’t they? We’re talking about politics here, where everyone is making it up as they go along. She’s not trying to use her celebrity status to get a paper published in a physics journal or something.
Isn’t that power assigned to Congress?
Because they admire her
I love the concept of it, but the thing about the NPVIC is that it’s 0% of the way there until it’s 100% of the way there. So while 77% seems like we’re close, and there is legislation pending that could get us to 95%, the only reason it seems to be going forward steadily is that it does nothing unless you go all the way.
The moment there is the prospect of legislation in a state that would get that last 5%, not only will that legislation be fought tooth and nail, but every state that has already entered the compact will have to fight like hell to keep it in place, not once but constantly forever. Because if you’re just over the threshold then almost any state backing out of the compact will nullify the whole thing again.
It seems too fragile to be a workable solution. But I guess I don’t see anything wrong with trying!
thoughtful people
There’s your problem right there
Totally agree. Even back in the 70s, the wonderful feminist movie/record Free To Be You and Me (with songs like “It’s All Right to Cry” sung by an NFL player) was at least as much about men not being defined a certain way as it was about women.
I think one hurdle for men right off the bat is the fact that it’s called “feminism”. That makes it clear that it has something to offer women, but doesn’t make it obvious that it has something to offer men too, so they don’t give it an open mind.
(I’m not actually saying that I think the name should change, and in fact the movement could potentially drift away from its core mission over time if the name didn’t have women as the focus. Just saying it’s a hurdle.)