Oh, and yes. Who owns the media indeed. This post goes into more of the connections between these companies:
Which states these properties are owned by the Newhouse family and were inherited from Samuel Newhouse sr:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Irving_Newhouse_Sr.
Under "Early Life" in the first sentence you'll find the answer of who owns the media :)
I think the idea was to freely give excess. This is a teaching showing how a truly good person should act, not a commandment.
Charity is libertarian, socialism is giving via force.
The issue is you don't really understand that most of the Bible was designed to coach people on morality. Besides, I'd rather give to charity through threat of hell, than have all my stuff stolen at gun point by a government.
Not a nice try, just a bad memory. Saudis have dumped a bunch of money into US media companies.
But I am wrong. Teen Vogue is owned by one of our good friends, conde nast/reddit/tencent.
Isn't Teen Vogue owned by Saudi's?
How long has she been a white supremacist?
How can you be a good person if you ignore the suffering of other's though? It teaches people to give away excess. This is why Charity is mostly unique to countries with a Christian heritage.
From one atheist to another, you need to examine the religion to understand why the west eventually became the west.
So opera is in the KKK now?
It's not wrong. Trans is a mental illness.
Spoilers: all the bears are gay.
It was a joke. C'mon.
How much is Hanks paying you?
Jeez. They're taking impressionable little commie faggots and turning them into retarded terrorists. Somebody stop the fucking communists.
Maybe, but it's hope. And what's wrong with factions? More factions in congress would slow legislation and help prevent shit ideas. We're missing that too.
I think it may be part of a solution.
I think retard is a perfectly fine word. We should use it more often. Twitter thinks you're making fun of people with down syndrome though since SJWs know no humor nor context.
That applies in all cases. We've removed a factor from the equation with NPV however. Nominees can gather votes from other states. With EC losing by 100 votes means you lose everything for that state.
And you're probably thinking in terms of the two party system still and not considering the rise of a prominent 3rd or even 4th party. As I've said a few times, the way the EC is structured influences the way people vote by favoring two parties.
And here's the real kicker, if 3 parties or more run, and no one gets a super majority, no one's vote counts. The House has full discretion to pick the winner even if they received less votes. So if more than two prominent candidates run, the House will likely decide the election.
With EC we have 3rd parties as a drag on state election, and the possibility of the choice being taken from the people and given to the House. With NPV 3rd parties would be more viable.
I've explained my points as best as I can at this point.
Generic human organisms with unspecified part should be screened for undetermined cancer.
So he'd lose? Losing isn't exactly the point here. Kayne isn't the point. The point is there's no incentive to vote 3rd party. The system is tailored specifically to work best when only two parties compete. Competition is stifled.
If you vote for someone who isn't likely to win your state, you've wasted your vote. That changes the way people think about voting entirely and forces the country into plurality. NPV would remove the part where your vote means nothing if your candidate doesn't win your state.
That's what NPV removes: the winner take all state portion. Without having to worry about wasting your vote, you may vote differently.
I hate my explanation here. Let's try it like this.
In CA voters vote as follows: Trump - 200 votes Biden -140 votes Kanye - 60 votes
EC results: Trump gets 55 EC votes Everyone else 0. Kayne voters were likely Biden voters. They gave the state to Trump by splitting the vote. Trump wins an unlikely victory (I wish Kanye would have stayed in the race).
NPV results: The number of actual votes each candidate received.
Keep in mind it would be a Constitutional amendment if it was passed and all states would have to abide.
Yes, but at the end of the election. Votes for Kayne in a state he didn't win would still be carried over to the NPV. If he didn't get enough to win in CA the votes still carry nationally. So Kanye would get the total amount of vote he earned in all states instead of 0 EC votes.
With EC, if Kanye gets any votes anywhere he's splitting the votes toward awarding the state's EC votes.
Yes and no. I'm arguing the EC is the reason we're stuck with these two parties because it specifically discourages more than two candidates from running. This is why if you vote 3rd party you're "throwing your vote away".
For instance, when there's little to no competition between products, the quality of the product diminishes. Competition is healthy and the EC stifles competition.
Let me see if I can explain it how I want to.
You understand that with the EC, only the majority vote matters in a single state and the minority vote is discarded, and the EC votes are awarded to the winner, correct? That means:
- If you don't pick one of the two major parties your vote is essentially discarded.
- If you pick the loser in your state your vote is essentially discarded.
If the election is decided by national popular vote, Kayne votes would still be counted across the country and votes for Kanye would not detract from other candidates directly.
Hopefully that line of reasoning makes sense.
There were no attacks or unrest last night. It was actually peaceful believe it or not.
The reason has nothing to do with the withdraw of the feds though. It has everything to do with Dems realizing the riots were hurting them. I called that the attacks would be over by Friday once I heard that.
I'm calling that the protests will likely end by Monday. Attention is probably going to shift to St. Louis following the 6 year late announcement that charges won't be filed in the Mike Brown case.
Yes with more factions there are more possibilities, more diversity of thought and with more parties more thought required behind legislation, and more accountability to voters.
Currently we are almost constantly picking the lesser of two evils. Who did Obama run against again? McCain and fucking Romney. How is the two party system working for us?
Well, she's not wrong...this time. You're not wrong either. https://imgur.com/a/ezm2BGn