Considering how land has more political power than people in the US, the voting system is still a major issue.

If we had the National Popular Vote for US elections, then more people living in deep blue states would have more reason to show up to vote when their candidate already is going to win by well over double digit points in their state.

When low population states are overrepresented in Senate and Presidential elections, then we can end up in a ruled by the minority situation.

I feel like the split between leftists and liberals really isn’t that big at all, assuming the people being talked about aren’t diehards behind people like Schumer or are scorched-earthers. There’s a vein of liberalism that builds towards the same exact goals that are leftist in nature.

I see progressive liberalism for instance being focused on working within what currently is built out to get to those goals of helping people reach self-actualization and living stable lives without having to be concerned about if you’ll be able to retire, have healthcare, have childcare, housing, food, disease, or other common concerns.

At what point is something considered an entirely different belief system though?

Part of why there are so many different sects of Christianity is because belief systems can differ quite a lot on what the focus is for followers of the faith.

Even Mormons are considered Christian, but many Christians would put them in their own category since they have an entirely different holy book that they follow.

Maybe it comes back to the word for ‘Christian’ being this less meaningful, all encompassing, definition. In which case, I feel there’s an argument to be made that having at least some other way to show distinction matters, whether that’s a new word or phrase entirely.

For the sake of conversation though, I feel there is some utility in using the word we are already familiar with, in this case ‘Christian’, and making a compelling definition, in the context of the conversation, based on the values echoed in the text. I feel that we can still hold the general understanding that this is a narrow definition, but it’s one made based on those values that we may want to see encouraged.

TL;DR: It’s difficult to have a conversation about any group of people that is made up of a wide assortment of people from different walks of life.

No judgment since I think many anime shows are not worth the time, but anime is just another medium, like books, more than anything. If there’s a genre of something you like on another medium, then there probably are some decent shows for that genre in anime.

Lots of anime is written with a specific audience in mind, such as the most well known anime shows being written for teens and young adults. Even more, most anime has a specific gendered audience as its target audience.

I personally didn’t care too much for anime until I watched some very high quality shows that pulled me more into the medium.

Notably all red states as well. There’s other voting systems I’d suggest but I believe it’s worth waiting till they can’t ban them first.

STAR can also be in a ranked format as well, with Ranked STAR being mathematically equivalent to regular STAR, but I agree that regular STAR leans more towards a rating structure.

Wow that changes a lot about the title.

Taking it at face value you’d walk away thinking this is the dominant attitude in most of the western world, when that’s not the takeaway at all. A title like that just makes most men and women think their country is more conservative than previously thought. Talk about not helping young people that have more balanced views.

If there’s a form of Ranked Choice Voting in the primaries, such as STAR Voting or Ranked Robin, then the DNC will have a much more difficult time pulling shenanigans.

First Past the Post voting in the primaries favors moderates and extremists, but an issue with moderates is that they don’t excite voters with big life changing policies. So no one, except people already bought into preventing the worst option, show up to vote in the general elections. Which makes it harder for everyone.

More states need to get forms of Ranked Choice Voting implemented, specifically STAR or Ranked Robin voting if we want to see more progressive wins.

I agree completely, they’re much better for all of the reasons you stated. I’m saying they’re Ranked Choice in a dumbed down sense, because it’s a bit too complicated for many people to really grasp the specifics. You are still functionally giving your choices a rank, and that’s the easy to explain part for most people to get about STAR and Ranked Robin. So I’m making an appeal to something most people are familiar with already to really sell the two other systems.

STAR and Ranked Robin both are a form of RCV. Most people are familiar with RCV so I feel it’s easier to sell the whole concept under the RCV label and then just directing people to the Equal Vote Coalition, like you did, which does a great job of explaining the nuances.

Seriously though, STAR or Ranked Robin are the best choices if we want more progressive wins overall.

Regular RCV is weighted more towards center with a higher chance of the least liked candidate winning compared to STAR or Ranked Robin although less than our current system.

Even RCV is still leagues better than what we currently have and it still shows the actual support numbers for progressive politicians and policies. However, if we’re making a final choice, I’d be happy with STAR = Ranked Robin > Score Voting > Ranked Choice Voting >>>>>>>> First Past the Post (The current system in most of the US).

I agree that a hybrid approach like that makes the most sense, since you need some capacity for trade and probably some level of exchange going on to be in good standings with the rest of the state/region.

For sure some communes pull off some level of this, but I’d be curious to see how one of these types of societies functions if it did scale to a town or city level. I believe enough tools are out there for people to make it happen, but it not something I see talked about more as an immediate alternative to the existing system.

I could see it being difficult, but selling people on the concept I feel almost requires a real world example of it working.

With the internet, I feel like people trying to organize it would have an easier time finding matching applicants/participants based on the type of labor/lifestyle that these people would be okay with doing. Organizers could curate who joins at least while something like that is still fledgling. I imagine food security would be a big part of limiting who else can join at certain points of time.

Biden was a pro-business Blue. I’d put him a couple steps left of center for his green energy initiatives though.

I think politics is a bit of a spectrum in reality, so not everything politicians do fit nicely on a left/red bar chart when we’re trying to talk about where they stand.

When you tax these big companies, they may try to move to another state, but if it’s coming at a federal level it’s not something a company can get away from without exiting the market as a whole. Which, would be a foolish choice for any company to make if they want to retain the money they made in that economy. They can’t exactly cash out if they are in the stock market for instance. Furthermore, any company that would like to leave would leave behind a hole in the market for a competitor to fill.

If companies flee to Canada for instance but are not already in the Canadian market, then they are having to compete against existing companies in that market. They may falsely assume that the consumers there will have the same buying preferences that they have in the US. This was the case for Starbucks for instance when they were trying to enter the Italian coffee market a while back and failed as a result of them not trying to understand local demands.

There’s a bit of a misunderstanding of how money works in macro economics. A competent government doesn’t run out of money, effectively, since they have power over the money supply. Now, you can’t really just print more money in the long run and expect everything to work out, but if your money is backed by assets then ‘you’, the government, can spend it to fuel the economy.

Money spent = The economy keeps spinning

Money not spent = Great Depression

Money being spent is such a good thing for the economy, that it is the entire reason most country’s economies want a little bit of inflation ~1-2%. When the economy is put in a state where it is propped up by big corporations, those corporations not spending money actually slows down the economy and in some ways actually lowers their potential to earn more money down the line.

Money not getting spent means there is less money to go around to upskill the workforce, there’s less projects getting started, and less jobs means less money getting created by work.

It’s feasible by taxing corporations more, that’s the important part.

You don’t necessarily need to compete with China if your panels are made with more ethical and sustainable business practices. In theory you make a deal with your allies to buy yours because you went the extra mile to do it right. You’d want other goods in such a deal though if you want to take the pressure off of China because they are able to produce theirs via less sustainable practices.

On the grand scale, we’re pretty late in terms of manufacturing to compete with China unless we did something more drastic like convincing a lot of people to live and work in the US. We could be a bit protectionist about our fledgling industries if we want to scale manufacturing more, but that will bring some trading trade-offs with any countries that we don’t have a trade deal with.

Our economy is mostly service oriented because we did all this offshore manufacturing decades ago, but now workers have less access to manufacturing jobs although there is still room in the market for our manufacturing sector to grow.

Nuclear power, solar/wind/hydro/thermal? power, public transit projects, forest management and other ecological projects that can all create jobs.

Which battery project in particular are you saying is a failure? Can you provide a source for what makes it a failure?

I’ve heard recently that solar panels have been having breakthroughs that extend their useable-life.

I’m sure ramping up and subsidizing local production of solar panels could make it more eco-friendly. However, I’m personally interested in nuclear power, specifically getting thorium reactor projects going.

I think defederation only really makes sense if there is a concern of botting. Individual bad actors should be banned on a case by case basis, blanket banning seems shortsighted. However, I do believe there are bots on some instances now, compared to say a year ago where I believe they were more far and few between.

Part of my issue is also with bad actors “flooding the zone”. If enough noise is getting pushed constantly by bad actors/bots, it can sway public opinion just by virtue of people seeing those opinions more often. This was one of the things that killed Reddit for me, personally. Well that and a slew of other issues.

Greenists would open up newer green industries and create new infrastructure projects. With all the help being thrown around the might not even be people going hungry or ending up on the streets.

I feel that communicating your concerns with other parents and their school can help. I feel it can make sense to have some forms of socialization when they are in middle school or high school, but even then you’d want a pretty locked down system, imo.

I feel that not every parent is going to let their kids use technologically to talk to their friends, especially not all the time. That’s not how I grew up and I was fine developmentally speaking. As a parent you can seek out other parents that live by similar philosophy locally for your kids to have as friends as well.

Agreed, unless the system itself is changed, at the state level, within each state, to use a different voting system. Which is worth pursuing btw, and something Alaska and Maine have both pulled off.

I’m so tired of seeing people getting mad about the two party system, but not even bringing up the fact we can totally change the system to use a form of Ranked Choice Voting, just by getting signatures to put it on the ballot! Well at least for over half the states this method works.

People’s energy would be much better spent advocating for groups like the Equal Vote Coalition or Fair Vote. Both of those groups desperately need volunteers and could actually use the social media advocacy given they are getting single digit support on Fediverse sites currently.