… Could we maybe focus on all the other things that are ludicrously high? Like hey… rent and/or housing prices? I could see some people being pissed if they thought their home value would go down, but fuck the damn rental companies charging sky-high “market rates” for shitty apartments that haven’t been improved in over a decade.
Eh, no single winner system will change much, and I think Approval Voting does a better job of getting results all the other advanced voting methods agree with while being simpler than RCV and providing more data about losing candidates. Anyway, we’ll have to switch to some kind of proportional method like Sequential Proportional Approval Voting if we want the legislature to have the political diversity of the people. Such a legislature would naturally nominate less extreme judges.
Ranked choice voting alters the value and costs of voting for third party candidates. That enables third parties to run without taking votes from the nearest of the two dominant parties.
Sorta. It depends on how the second choices are distributed. It also depends on the relative popularity between the three candidates. Spoilers can and do happen under RCV, it’s just they’re confusing. Often times when you explain that a particular race had a spoiler—a losing candidate that changes the winner by running, all else being equal—people will argue that it wasn’t a spoiler for reasons that are either tautological or outside the definition of a spoiler.
Practically anything is better than “choose one,” but we’re still going to have a two party system unless we allow for more than one winner in any given election.
tax it all and force the government to actually support people in need.
Charitable donations include more than food banks. Do you think the government would fund the Electronic Frontier Foundation? Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Border? Do you think Planned Parenthood has a snowballs chance in hell get funding support from the government?
Which actual candidate was either running in the Democratic Primary or has any statistical chance of winning the presidency without being either the Democratic or Republican nominee?
Who is this “actual candidate” you keep blustering about? You’re all “fuck genocide joe and the neolibs” but never once have any of you offered a viable alternative. Special, urgent emphasis on viable, by the way. Otherwise, I am going to assume you do want Trump to win as some sort of accelerationist gambit so the proletariat revolution can finally begin… well, guess what, in the power vacuum you want so bad, you’ll be surprised to see who actually ends up against that wall.
If you read the article, it says the Republicans are proposing raising the age to collect full Social Security benefits to 69 (it is now currently 67). That’s not quite the same as ‘cutting’ social security.
BTW, the surplus SS currently has in its account will run dry in about 10 years. Once that happens, Social Security will become a pay as you go program if nothing changes, which means benefits will be reduced by about 25% (i.e. the amount of money coming in from SS taxes will only cover about 75% of projected outlays).
I did read the article. The current age to collect full benefits is 67. They are proposing it be raised to 69. Please illuminate for me what I am missing.
So when you paid into it, you were told you would get money out at 67.
You will no longer be getting paid for those 2 years, thus are getting less money back from the gov (and forcing 67-69 y/os potentially back into the work place).
Now who has no idea what Social Security is? If this proposal passes, I can still retire at 62 (with reduced monthly benefits). The proposal is to increase the age at which you receive ***full ***benefits.
“You will no longer be getting paid for those 2 years” - That is absolutely not true. I would not receive full benefits for those two years if this proposal passes.
One additional fun fact I gleemed from the article that no one here has mentioned: according to this article, if this proposal passes, it would amount to a 14% cut. But if nothing changes, the Social Security trust fund will become insolvent in 2033 (just 9 years away!!) which will result in a 23% cut.
110 was a massive failure that needs to be un-done, any issues with less problematic drugs can be handled on a one by one basis like we did with marijuana.
I understand your frustration, but I don’t think making drugs more illegal again is going to decrease the problem, though. The whole country is getting problems from increased drug use. The Fentanyl and Xylezene epidemic is all over the country now.
I think a better solution would be to actually force drug users into treatment when caught, don’t give them the option. Giving them criminal charges isn’t a push to getting an addict clean, though. It just makes it harder for them to find a job, which will lead to more despair and drug use.
I can’t agree with you more there. The way that Oregon decided to go about it was too lax. I was just adding that the way the rest of the country handles it isn’t the way to really help the problem either. That method is too harsh.
We need to decriminalize and regulate the drugs for harm reduction, and force users of hard drugs into treatment. I am totally okay with jail if they refuse the help. Just don’t ruin drug users lives even more with a criminal record, for the crime of ruining their own lives.
The measure was a good idea. The implementation was a failure. The plan included opening rehabs and encouraging/requiring addicts to get treatment if caught, but that part of the plan was never implemented.
So they never really committed to measure 110. They only tried half of it. So strange that a good idea would fail when only half of it was implemented.
KGW news reports that the treatment facilities were never built and that the citations for this program were never created. They also report that special citations to issue and instructions to contact any number were never given to police. So, there were no “new” citations issued, no new instructions given to the recipients of the standard (pre 110 style) citations and so there is no reason to expect anyone to call anything.
This was an implementation issue from the very beginning. They never even tried to issue the new citations. They used their same old citations without giving any instructions to call anyone. And they never built the specific facilities to support any of the potential new citation recipients. The only part of measure 110 that seems to have been implemented was not jailing people for drug possession.
Needle exchanges, methadone, nalaxone. All the things that let them keep using instead of getting clean.
2/3 of these are just things that let them not die as a result of use, and methadone is generally used to facilitate getting clean and minimizing withdrawal symptoms, so what exactly are you going on about here? People will use heroin regardless, but if you would prefer more entirely avoidable deaths, sure, get rid of needle exchanges and nalaxone, and enjoy community transmission of HIV and Hepatitis going up along with overdose deaths. That’ll really teach 'em, I’m sure.
These aren’t programs that facilitate ongoing use amongst addicted populations, they’re just stop-gap measures that mitigate the worst outcomes within these groups, which impact everyone. If you think people are just going to stop shooting up because they can’t get a clean needle or might OD on something that’s been cut, I don’t know where you’ve been for the last 40 years.
more people would have called if we had given them “special” tickets. There’s absolutely no evidence for that.
This statement is disingenuous. The citations aren’t “special” just because they are specific. The change in citation involves educating the recipient on the program and what will happen if they do not engage in the program. The “special” citations are clear, written instructions designed specifically to encourage addicted and often unhoused people to participate.
What was done instead was a small number of non-informative business cards (which were often not provided anyway) and regular (uninformative) tickets issued by officers who received zero training on encouraging participation in the program. There were no general orders created for police requiring them to provide instructions to ticket recipients and no training of any kind on implementing the new measure.
Police need to be trained and instructed on how to implement something like this. They can’t be expected to guess what’s needed or to make it up as they go. They cannot be expected to make an effective verbal sales pitch to an addict, or to even try without training. That is not an appropriate way to implement such a measure.
The few police who did their best to verbally explain it and handed out business cards did so on their own, without training or standard process. This program was simply never fully implemented.
The fight to fund Gavi, the international vaccine fund, explained.
Sounds like Big Pharma got top fat off those limitless COVID payouts and is wanting more. Don’t know about anyone else, but taxpayer-funded bonuses for multibillionaires isn’t a “crucial” concern for me next year.
Well, as someone who’s half white, it’s getting fucking old being told I’m too blame for everything, and that I can’t have any pride in my own heritage. And that I MUST support BLM, I MUST support the liberal movement, I MUST support the Trans movement… etc…
Supporting All of those things is in your best interest.
Why do you seem so fucking dumb that you’d vote against people and policies that will make your life better JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE SHOWED YOU HOW ITD BE BETTER?!?!
How dare someone tell you that your life matters?!?!
Theres no fucking way you’re real or you’re literally retarded.
More that he spectacularly failed to even land the words, and gave Trump the high road position. Millions of people saw Trump tell Biden that they should be adults.
vox.com
Top