I’m thinking the good if this keeps up is the Republicans will lose a lot of seats. Of course the bad is Dems will be in charge. So it balances out to being lit.
Because a lot of states no longer have power from the people, they’ve gerrymandered and made it hard to vote enough that you need a supermajority to get the will of the people into law.
the federal government has a lot of similar issues, but it also innately has some more checks. For instance, its districts are the states, and you cannot arbitrarily redraw state borders like how states can redraw voting districts.
Except that states have no fucking business telling someone what they can do with their body. “State’s rights” my ass! This is a “personal right”that was stolen.
Because In many state you are beholden to large swaths of Rural land and the representatives they send to the statehouse. Those reps can be swayed (bought). Lucky for Ohio they were able to use their constitution to protect themselves. Ballot initiatives can give the people a voice on pressing matters… As in Ohio, The Reps were trying to take away the voice of the majority of the state voters. They lost and I expect they will brought to heel by the will of the people of Ohio in November. State constitutions are a check against legislative power. No wonder the R’s don’t like that. They want to rule, not represent.
Because several ass-backward states then took advantage of the fact that the right to undergo an abortion was no longer protected under Constitutional law and passed legislation that stripped away reproductive rights from their citizens.
Just because the SC didn’t ban abortion itself, doesn’t mean that it wasn’t the effective result for millions of Americans.
Because the idea of states of the same federation being allowed to decide such fundamental issues on their own feels patently absurd to an outside observer. This isn’t the 1400s any more, do something remotely modern or fully separate and split into 51 countries and do your own shit.
"The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on these questions has not followed a straight line. At times, the Court has stated that the Tenth Amendment lacks substantive constitutional content and does not operate as a limitation upon the powers, express or implied, delegated to the national government. At other times, the Court has found affirmative federalism limitations in the Amendment, invalidating federal statutes not because Congress lacked legislative authority over the subject matter, but because those statutes violated the principles of federalism contained in the Tenth Amendment"
It’s not a state rights issue, it’s a human rights issue and the SCOTUS was protecting the people of the US from the States until the court overturned Roe v Wade
I've seen this argument elsewhere and it seems (pardon me) like patent horseshit.
Why is this a state's right? What makes a uterus in Delaware different than an uterus in Nebraska? I'm a woman and an American citizen. Everyone keeps telling me that I live in a first-world nation. This makes no sense. "Oh sorry. You live in a first world nation, but you picked the neighborhood of Ohio."
And let's be realistic - I can afford to travel to anywhere that local, precious state laws where I live are irrelevant.
The idea of state autonomy made sense in some way in the America that existed before telephones. Emergency decisions might need to be made and horses are slow. But let's be honest for just a moment. The whole idea of federation was a hard sell to the slave states and invested powers. These were a mixture of landowners and merchant classes who had been running things locally in their colonies. They didn't want to give up control, and who could blame them? Meanwhile, the young country needed to have everyone on board for some sort of federation if post-colonial America was going to survive. States rights were a compromise. We've been choking on it for 200+ years.
As a country we should have evolved past this many years ago. But we haven't. The biggest disruption to our American system was the Civil War. States rights again. Yeah, so we have that to look back upon but never really seem to reckon with it. The last time I heard anyone significantly whine about infringement of "states rights" was with regard to chattel slavery.
It blows my mind that Elon would still be well-regarded as a visionary entrepreneur, accurately or not, if he had just kept his stupid fucking mouth shut.
Why does it blow your mind. Steve Jobs disowned his child and tried to cure cancer with fruit juice, and then used his wealth to jump the line for organ donation. He was human garbage. And people still adore him and iphones. But Jobs never hurt progressive liberals with any of his bullshit. Just his family.
This article says a lot about american consumers. They don’t buy things like iphones or teslas because of how they actually perform. They buy things based on how they will be preceived for owning it. AKA a society of shitty narcissists.
Your generalizations about US consumers has no basis in reality. You really think people would buy these mass-market products if they weren’t good? Just look at the consumer satisfaction surveys. I’m far from a Tesla fan, but for a long time, there weren’t truly good competitors to Tesla EVs. iphones have always and continue to be some of the most highly rated phones on the market.
And what is wrong with voting with your wallet and choosing not to support the business of a terrible person? That’s about the only power you have as a consumer, so people should exercise that power if they see fit.
Both the iPhone and Tesla perform well. You made some valid points, but went off the rails at the end. Yes, the image of the product influences people’s buying decisions. That’s basic marketing knowledge. But they’re also good products.
Tesla never really had a brand besides being “Elon Musk’s electric car company”, and now as it turns out it’s way easier for car companies to add tech into their cars than for a tech company to learn to build good cars.
As disturbing as this was to read, it was nice to know there were still some honest and clear-headed people working in the government at the time this shit went down.
Another awful law 6 years in the making, all thanks to people being too lazy to go out and vote.
We are going to be feeling the repercussions of that laziness for decades to come.
In today’s world, we can still see the results of Reaganomics and the terrible Reagan administration and what it did to this country some 4 decades later. Allowing Trump to enter the White House 6 years ago has, and will, continue to have a similar profound negative effect on the trajectory of this country for a long, long time.
Riiiight, always with the excuses. Most of those fall flat when you consider HALF the registered voters can’t be bothered to go vote on election day on most elections. Even in heavily trafficked ones, turnout rarely breaks 60 or 70%. Not saying voter suppression or gerrymandering doesn’t exist, but neither of those would swing an election if we had enough people voting. The excuses have long since gotten old.
Gerrymandering is half the reason people don’t vote. If an election isn’t competitive and there’s significant roadblocks put in your way, you might not vote either. Imagine having two jobs and kids and a long ass line at a voting precinct that isn’t within walking distance.
Lazy idiots like you rather come up with excuses than actually go do what you should be doing. You’re the typical “lazy American” stereotype that fascists count on to get into power. Congrats asswipe.
Lazy idiots like you rather come up with excuses than actually go do what you should be doing. You’re the typical “lazy American” stereotype that fascists count on to get into power. Congrats asswipe.
So I guess your voter outreach is nil then.
Keep it up, I'm sure it'll work out great for you and the causes you champion.
And yes, suppression IS a big enough reason to. Who the fuck on an hourly wage has the luxury of driving/transiting to a distant poll station and wait in line for 9+ hours to vote?
But hey, if it makes you feel better to dunk on them as "Lazy", keep at it, that's sure to convince them /s
Edit: Forgot to mention that you assume all these non-voters would vote for your party. Based on research, a very sizable portion would not.
That site didn’t give much info. It says they are hard working people who are underexposed to political info and don’t feel they can decide. Besides that making them fucking morons (sorry), that still doesn’t excuse their inaction.
It says they are hard working people who are underexposed to political info and don’t feel they can decide.
That's not what it said.
Besides that making them fucking morons (sorry), that still doesn’t excuse their inaction.
There's plenty of data there that explains their inaction. Your refusal to read it doesn't make you right.
It all comes down to giving people a reason they can understand to take the time to vote.
Again, asking an hourly wage worker that can barely make ends meet already to travel/transit and then wait 9+ hours in line to vote is completely unrealistic and not something they should be blamed for.
But hey, like the other guy, keep calling them fucking morons, I'm sure it'll work out great. /s
This is a result of a SCOTUS decision. SCOTUS membership is determined by the president and control of the senate at the time of vacancies. Neither of those are influenced by gerrymandering.
At the core of it this comes down to 2016 when a larger than typical number of people on the left lied to themselves and said “eh, they’re all teh same” and tossed their vote at a third party or just didn’t vote at all. Following that, SCOTUS went from a 4-4 tie (with 1 vacancy) to 6-3 conservative advantange.
I wouldn’t blame laziness, but instead a combination of apathy and people who are more interested in ideological purity than in accepting the available-better such that they would rather complain about the unavailable-best.
RBG refusing to retire in 2012-2014 also shares blame. She could have retired then and the court would be 5-4 instead.
Since you actually seem to be asking… There is no gerrymandering at the federal level in the presidential election. You could argue that the electoral voting system is somehow a form of this, but it isn’t the same as intentionally drawing districts to mathematically skew the advantage to the party drawing the map. That said, because electoral votes are based upon congressional representation, they do weigh smaller, emptier states more heavily. US senators are entirely free from gerrymandering as they are directly elected by popular vote. Small, empty states do have more power as a result and by design, for better or worse.
And they have 0 say in the Supreme Court. They have a minor say in creating other courts, but it’s been a long time since anything has meaningfully changed there either.
It doesn’t really matter if a state is “empty”, what matters is the population not the density.
And for what it’s worth: of the ten states with the least population, half generally vote for Democrats (HI, VT, DE, RI, ME). They are often overlooked in these discussions because they are mostly small in area too.
Population density absolutely matters, because when an ignorant person looks at an electoral map, by county, it looks like a couple small blue dots in a sea of red. If the wrong person shows them that map, it can become pretty simple to convince them that Democrats are cheating them because, “just look at all that red!”
It is also about how districts in larger, more empty states, use that mostly empty area to gerrymander their blue population centers. You can’t do that in smaller, highly dense, states.
I was responding to someone who said that “empty” states have disproportionate power in the electoral college and Senate. Their emptiness does not give them undue power, regardless of what ignorant people think.
Hawaii isn’t in the ten least populous states and Maine isn’t a blue state. It’s not a straight sort, but Republicans far and away benefit from the unequal representation of the Senate and Electoral College.
Maine has voted for the Democratic candidate in every presidential election in the past 30 years. It’s true that it has a Republican Senator, but if that means it’s a battleground state then by the same logic so are Montana and West Virginia. Those incumbents are popular despite their party, but when they finally leave the Senate they will be replaced by someone in the opposite party.
But you’re right that Hawaii is not one of the ten smallest. It’s eleventh. However, I left out New Hampshire, which voted for the Democratic candidate in every presidential election in the past 30 years except one. So of the eleven smallest states, six consistently send Democrats to the electoral college.
While it’s still arguable that Republicans have unfair representation in the Senate and EC, the issue is more complicated than simply blaming the small states. Or for that matter the big states: the top ten include three red (FL, TX, OH), three blue (CA, NY, IL) and four battlegrounds (GA, NC, MI, PA).
it’s still arguable that Republicans have unfair representation in the Senate and EC
LOL, wut? There’s nothing arguable about that. Republicans very definitely have an unfair senate and electoral advantage entirely related to being more popular in less populated states (which, with the notable exceptions you’ve highlighted, tend to also be more rural).
You’re cherry picking top ten and bottom ten like the whole swath of states in between don’t also have unfair allocation and thus don’t matter, while being pretty inconsistent with your battleground state definitions to suit your sorting needs (NH is blue because it only voted R once in 30 years, while every battleground you listed has the same history, and red Florida and Ohio have been 50/50).
While your point about population vs. density is correct, everything else seems to be trying to muddy the waters about the EC rather than just point out an interesting factoid or offer a pedantic correction. There’s no serious argument that the EC isn’t unfair from an individual voter perspective and biased toward one side from a national perspective.
First, I’m using the common definition of battleground states, which is states that are currently considered winnable by both sides. That doesn’t include New Hampshire, or any of the smallest states.
Second, arguable means you can make a good argument for something, so I think you just proved that it’s arguable. It is not a slam dunk.
The only advantage of less populated states is that they get two “free” electors regardless of their population. This effect is strongest in small states, where it helps both parties equally.
Looking at all the states, the maximum advantage to a presidential candidate is the difference between the number of states they won times two. For example, if both candidates win 25 states, then the two “free” electors per state will cancel out and the electoral college will be determined solely by the number of representatives in the states that each side wins. Or to put it differently, if the Constitution were “fixed” so that electors were strictly awarded by population, then the winner would never change in a 25 to 25 split.
Of course, if one candidates wins 26 states and the other wins 24 states, then the first candidate could potentially get four “unfair” electors by winning more small states. But historically, the electoral college is won by much larger margins. The only modern candidate who might have won if the Constitution were “fixed” would have been Gore, and that was a highly unusual election. Otherwise, the small state advantage hasn’t made a significant difference in our lifetime.
You’re arguing that the EC’s unfairness is unimportant, not that it’s fair. And ignoring the senate imbalance where just a couple extra votes is a massive change.
So since it’s unimportant, let’s change it to be fair. Except I don’t think you really feel it’s unimportant and actually care very much about those two extra votes.
You seem to be implying that I don’t want Democrats to win, but I can assure you that’s not the case. I still do think that the extra votes in the EC are unimportant, and we should focus our efforts on things like voter suppression that have an actual impact.
I am especially concerned when Democrats are defeatist about elections (ie “The Constitution is hopelessly stacked against us in the EC”). Fair or not, the presidency is very winnable. So is the Senate: when was the last the time the GOP held a supermajority? They may have a rural advantage, but we have other advantages, including educated voters and women.
And I can think of two or three amendments that I would work towards (cough, Second Amendment!) before worrying about the EC.
I think they have a good point though. Sure, at a basic level, you can’t gerrymander a senate election. But you start with the state, draw the district lines. Now the state is gerrymandered, often packing dense districts with democrats. Now your state legislature (gerrymandered as hell) passes a law that says 2 voting machines per district. You bet your ass that affects national elections. Ol’ Jim-Bob has to share his two voting machines with 150 other people, whereas a city dwelling Democrat has to share theirs with a few thousand.
That 1 vacancy should have been Obama’s pick. It was fucking stolen from him, and now we’re paying the price of “decorum”.
Of course, Republican hypocrites shoved another conservative justice on the bench before RBG’s body was even cold, even after Trump lost the election (not to mention impeached).
It wasn’t just 4 years of Trump that we had to endure, it’s now three lifetime conservative appointments to the supreme court. So progressive legislation is stalled for another 30+ years. Our generation will be as old as the fucking Boomers are now before we get another chance at kicking out the conservatives, whose ideology is literally killing the planet. Gen Z and the generation that follows them will rightfully blame us for our inaction.
Or instead of giving up we could make court expansion and reform a litmus test in future Democratic primaries. And/or normalize the idea that judicial rulings need to be enforced by someone else and they too have agency.
Because allowing this to continue for much of our remaining lives is also decorum. We live in an unjust system, but it’s not just how life has to be for the next 30 years.
I don’t entirely disagree, but I’d like to see an actual roadmap for how such changes would be implemented. Voting for somebody who promises court expansion and reform, but doesn’t have the support of either the legislative or judicial branches and doesn’t have a concrete method of implementing it, seems like they are set up to fail.
I want to see more ruthless politicians on the left as well, but not if they can’t actually follow through with their promises.
Pass law changing the number of justices on the court
Support from the legislature is all that’s important. If the justices say “you can’t do it”, then ignore them because clearly they can. The constitution says very little about the supreme court and its size has been changed multiple times before. This is just doing history again.
ML? I don’t know what that stands for, but I did see the absurdity of Bernie and so-called progressive subs that were trying to convince people that a vote for Trump would further Bernie’s agenda more than a vote for Hillary. They also were trying to convince people to “stick it to the DNC” and simply sit out the vote.
So the foreign agents running those subs were trying to flip some votes and push voter apathy onto others. Doesn’t take much to change an election and the stuff I saw was clearly just a teeny, tiny part of their larger misinformation campaign. A few key votes here or there and that would easily explain Trump’s victory.
There is no way this stuff isn’t happening on Lemmy now. In fact, I guarantee it is.
I was an early tesla fanboy and always wanted one, I finally have my finances in a place where a new car isn’t an awful decision and went with the ID4 just so I didn’t have to deal with that guy in any way shape or form.
It’s great. The touchscreen software isn’t great and there’s a few annoying interface things, but it’s great otherwise. Great to drive, tight turning radius, great pickup, efficient on the highway, no real complaints. The ioniq five was my other choice also, but I leased, and they didn’t pass the tax rebate back to the customer when leasing, so I went with the id4
I think my next car may end up being a F150 lightning. It’ll be probably 7-8 years (just got a car recently), and by then I’m hoping the pricing has stabilized.
I love that it’s basically just a proven truck design that’s also electric. They’ve been refining the form of the truck for the better part of a century. No need to ignore all that experience.
We need electric vehicles that aren’t a “lifestyle choice” if we want mass adoption.
yeah, everything is specific to use case, but there’s no real change in behavior with most of the new evs - probably the biggest barrier is city/apartment living with charging infrastructure being dogshit. If you have a garage, or dedicated parking, it’s a no brainer at this point.
I am not taking a position on this, I am just asking. When you say qualifications what are they? Like they didn’t take a single math class or they didn’t take multiple biology courses?
Generally a better GPA or more prestigious college diploma. Perhaps more research experience depending on the MD school. Most of all it’s just the fact that MD schools have been around longer and developed more of a reputation so they can pick and choose their candidates, and it’s historically been the case that when some students get rejected from MD school they will turn around and apply for DO school.
Although, medical doctors are also known to be severely lacking in skepticism and understanding of the scientific method (much like engineers), so depending on the doctor you talked to, they might actually believe it.
Source: anecdotal, but I’ve spent my entire adult life in higher ed chemistry departments taking classes with and then teaching premeds, and it’s a real thing. Med school does nothing to alleviate this, being focused as it is on basically troubleshooting a single particularly complicated and poorly designed machine.
Edit: here are a few studies that corroborate my experience, although they’re far from comprehensive ( Source 1 and Source 2)
I just want to emphasize that the two studies you’ve linked to are not for US graduate DOs/MDs. One is for practicing physicians in Israel and the other is 1st year medical students in India. Not sure about the Israeli medical education, but in India a medical degree (mbbs) is an undergraduate degree. So looking at 1st year medical students is the equivalent of a fresh high school graduate. I would be interested to know what this looks like in the US because a large part of medical education is built around research, at least early in training. Everyone has varying aptitude and interest in research (like anything else), but you’d be hard pressed to find a US trained MD/DO who has become licensed in the last 20 years and has never done any research. It might surprise you to know that most of medicine is, in fact, evidence based which requires us to learn how to interpret said evidence. Both for when we need to make decisions about applying research to our own practice, as well as for answering patient questions about things they might’ve come across on Google, MD.
So, since my sources are fairly small focused studies, I assume you have sources that are more comprehensive, right? Because I found these after less than 30s of searching, and a couple more minutes yielded a multitude of articles and op-eds from medical and scientific journals that all agree that MDs are not scientists. Like this one. Or this one. Or this one, which talks about how physicians do not apply proper levels of scientific thinking to new treatments in
So, I think it’s safe to say that applying evidence-based research is not the same as understand the scientific method or having a healthy level of skepticism.
Lol, ok. Then why do the editors at numerous medical journals and other science writers agree with me? Like this one, that concludes that medical doctors are far too quick to abandon scientific skepticism in favor of new treatments. Or this one, which argues that doctors ascribe too much importance to one-off studies. Or this one, which flat out states that doctors do not think like scientists.
Outlandish and contrived, my ass. Just because you like to believe doctors can think like scientists doesn’t make it so. If you disagree, feel free to provide sources.
Your ass, indeed. You said they severely lack an understanding of the scientific method and lack skepticism. Those are wild and ridiculous claims, and the commentaries you link do not even prove them.
Just because you think every doctor is incapable of using/understanding the scientific method does not make it so.
There are doctors who do medical research, as well as engineers, that is a fact. Not to mention the scientific method othen applies in daily practice, inherently.
There’s a difference between saying that not all MD are physician scientists and need to better apply their fundamental principles, verses claiming that doctors don’t understand the scientific method.
Just because you think every doctor is incapable of using/understanding the scientific method does not make it so.
I didn’t say every doctor. I said that doctors in general and medical education as a whole are lacking in understanding of and curriculum supporting skepticism and the scientific method.
Those are wild and ridiculous claims, and the commentaries you link do not even prove them.
Correct. They do not provide conclusive proof. But when educators and editors of scholarly journals both agree with the premise that medicine is not science and physicians do not apply proper scientific rigor in the course of their work, it’s fairly suggestive, don’t you think? Especially in the absence of any sources with claims to the contrary. After all, I’ve yet to see you provide a single source…
But while you look, you could consider these commentaries that look into the lack of fundamental science education in modern and historical medical education (Source 1, Source 2, and Source 3)
As most med schools it’s the same program, maybe a few different classes. From a courtroom perspective, there is no difference and their opinions carry equal weight; residency and specialized training after med school is what counts.
My background: I’m a medical student (MD school), in a combined MD/PhD program. I’ve completed my PhD and am in the last year of the MD.
I think you might be confusing DO’s with chiropractors. Most DO’s go through the same licensing exams and residencies as MDs. Some of the other comments are true that MD schools can be more difficult to get in to, but this has to do with their performance in undergraduate education. By the end of their respective programs, MDs and DOs are usually competing for the same residency programs using the same board exams.
I think you are thinking of a chiropractor. DO’s are legitimately the same as an MD in practice. My experience working in an office with two MDs and two DOs was the DOs tend to be more personable, and the MDs feel more book smart. But they both see the same patients and do the same job in the same office.
And keep in mind my experience was just with 4 total people, so it could be just that office.
“Kentucky’s largest school system cancelled the second and third day of classes”
“…the bus for her two elementary school children was scheduled to pick them up at 6 a.m. for a 7:40 a.m. school start. The bus stop is almost a half-mile from their home and there are no sidewalks.”
Gomis called the district’s transportation department but was told nothing could be changed, she said. Kentucky law allows bus stops for elementary students to be up to a half-mile away while middle and high school students may walk up to one mile.
It probably doesn’t hurt a high schooler to walk a mile (although it would suck ass in the winter), but a half-mile for a first grader every morning no matter the weather? That should not be legal.
That’s true for kids at my daughter’s middle school too, but I’m actually glad they don’t walk it because there aren’t even any sidewalks around the school, let alone between the schools and their houses. So some kids have a 90 minute bus ride and other kids have a 2 minute bus ride. All they have to do is build sidewalks and it will fix that problem.
Our state requires “safe walking routes”. I’m not sure about the distance to a bus stop, but I know for walking to school it’s up to a mile for elementary school, if there are sidewalks. Otherwise they’re bussed.
Why should half a mile of walking be illegal for first graders? There’s a solution to rain and snow: it’s called a jacket and umbrella. Source: I walked almost exactly half a mile to school in first grade.
Unless the weather is catastrophically bad, even first graders can walk half a mile.
The issue here is the carcentric, children-killing infrastructure, not the distance.
Not only Kentucky. I live in a rural California town of around 2000 people. There are no sidewalks except for the 1/4 mile in front of the elementary school, and that wasn’t built until a kid was hit by a car 6 years ago. Last year a 4th grader was killed by a drunk driver walking home from school on the main road through town - which has no sidewalk. Most of us drive our kids to and from school now, particularly since an attempted abduction happened earlier this year. Bus service is available, but costs $185 a year per child and requires being at the stop an hour before school starts. My daughter won’t let her kids walk the 1/4 mile to the bus stop unattended. Not in these times. I think the bus may become even more unpopular since the special ed driver was arrested last week for molesting kids.
There are no sidewalks in my (very large) subdivision, but all of the roads are far wider than necessary and could absolutely have a sidewalk on each side. But since there aren’t any, you have to dodge people walking and jogging all the time. And people speed down the twisty roads too.
Will it be dubbed for other languages eventually? Cinemas only show the English version and my youngest who still play with Barbies doesn’t understand English well enough.
Movies are a great way to learn a foreign language and subtitles work wonders to increase reading speed. Especially when they don’t give you a choice to fall back to a dub.
Source: me, having to watch Cartoon Network as a small child with no translation at all, became proficient in English by the 5th grade in a country where English is not spoken at all, other than when being (poorly) taught at school.
So rather than seeking out dubs you should avoid them as much as possible.
My best friend is a teacher and I’m genuinely worry that something like this will happen to her. I feel like more and more parents are failing their kids, only because the system is failing, lets go ahead and not commit the fundamental attribution error.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.