Tell me about it, my friends argue with me about how the senate is unfair because states with less than 1mil people have the same votes as states with 20 mil. Have they ever heard of the house of reps?
The Senate exists to protect the interests of State governments, of which each state has exactly the same number: 1.
They are not supposed to represent the people or the population, they are to represent their state's governor and legislature. Popular election of Senators was a massive mistake.
Hell, most amendments after the first 10 are nothing but attempts to destroy the Republic.
The left loves to point out how most of the gains from increased productivity over the past 30 years have gone to the top 5% wealthiest in America, but they don't take into account all of the shit that we used to have to pay for that's now essentially free. Remember buying cookbooks to get recipes? Paying for adult magazines? Long distance phone calls? Stamps to mail in every bill with a check? Collectively all of the things that have been replaced with a single $50/month internet bill probably added up to 20% of middle/working class people's expenses in the 80s. That means that in effective terms, we've all gotten a 20% raise from not having to pay for that stuff alone.
Not to mention that the same $500 that used to buy a 28" 420p vacuum tube television now buys you a 60" 1080p LCD TV. The poor and middle class spend a greater fraction of their income on things that get better over time. Meanwhile stuff rich people spend their money on, like real estate and vacations, have gotten worse and more expensive. So really we've all seen vast improvements to our quality of life, at about the same rate.
It's not just capitalism lifting people out of poverty, it's also the CO2 we've put into the atmosphere which is helping plants grow all over the world.
People attack and critique Stephen Pinker's research in Enlightenment Now because it suggests that the underlying systems and status-quo are in-fact working towards progress.
If your entire identity hinges on the idea that the system is rotten and must be razed in order to achieve a more desirable outcome then SP's assertion must be rejected as invalid.
You don't burn everything to the ground and start over when things are going well, just not as well as you would like them to be going. So, they rebut his arguments on ideological but not factual grounds, and they try to sow discontent in order to bring about the change they desire.
Bad times create good people Good people create good times Good times create bad people Bad people create bad times
Tell me about it, my friends argue with me about how the senate is unfair because states with less than 1mil people have the same votes as states with 20 mil. Have they ever heard of the house of reps?
17th amendment destroyed the Senate.
The Senate exists to protect the interests of State governments, of which each state has exactly the same number: 1.
They are not supposed to represent the people or the population, they are to represent their state's governor and legislature. Popular election of Senators was a massive mistake.
Hell, most amendments after the first 10 are nothing but attempts to destroy the Republic.
Terrible amendment. Almost as bad as the 16th amendment. Taxation is theft.
Would love for a documentary to be created on the topic of how the 16th, 17th and 18th Amendments got passed.
Answer will be Communist Infiltration of the USA, if it's an accurate work.
The DS goes a lot farther back than people realize.
no, By far the worst amendment was the 13th. Lawyers were then allowed into office, since then its been a shitshow for the average man.
Dude 13th freed the slaves. I’m good with that.
I never said the 13th as a whole, I said the bastardization of it where they rewrote it and conveniently omitted the "No Lawyers" bit.
Yeah, its ridiculous. But you can't debate with the left. Most of the argument is teaching them because they don't know anything.
The left loves to point out how most of the gains from increased productivity over the past 30 years have gone to the top 5% wealthiest in America, but they don't take into account all of the shit that we used to have to pay for that's now essentially free. Remember buying cookbooks to get recipes? Paying for adult magazines? Long distance phone calls? Stamps to mail in every bill with a check? Collectively all of the things that have been replaced with a single $50/month internet bill probably added up to 20% of middle/working class people's expenses in the 80s. That means that in effective terms, we've all gotten a 20% raise from not having to pay for that stuff alone.
Not to mention that the same $500 that used to buy a 28" 420p vacuum tube television now buys you a 60" 1080p LCD TV. The poor and middle class spend a greater fraction of their income on things that get better over time. Meanwhile stuff rich people spend their money on, like real estate and vacations, have gotten worse and more expensive. So really we've all seen vast improvements to our quality of life, at about the same rate.
Excuse me, communism is much better. When successfully applied, 99% of poverty is
worked to death in concentration campseliminated.My hero is Josef Stálin. Absolute record-setter in commie killing.
Damn good meme... all true... https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty
And with a waaaay larger population now. Impressive stuff.
It's not just capitalism lifting people out of poverty, it's also the CO2 we've put into the atmosphere which is helping plants grow all over the world.
People attack and critique Stephen Pinker's research in Enlightenment Now because it suggests that the underlying systems and status-quo are in-fact working towards progress.
If your entire identity hinges on the idea that the system is rotten and must be razed in order to achieve a more desirable outcome then SP's assertion must be rejected as invalid.
You don't burn everything to the ground and start over when things are going well, just not as well as you would like them to be going. So, they rebut his arguments on ideological but not factual grounds, and they try to sow discontent in order to bring about the change they desire.
If those numbers are true....and thats world wide...the US is far less.
There's not a single person living in the US that lives in extreme poverty except by choice. Not one.
Even homeless people eat better out of a trash can behind McDonalds than people in real poverty in sub-Saharan shitholes do.
"But I am not getting free stuff!"
you forgot "sent from iphone"
You forgot the face tattoos.