That’s a rug pull, though. Both the American and EU states only agreed to join their respective unions in the first place on the promise that these systems of balances would give them this level of input on union policy. Without such assurances, what small nation would ever agree to become inevitably subordinate to the whims of a larger state? It would never happen, and the western world would remain fractured into small nation-states constantly warring with each other, failing to cooperate and probably getting picked off, one by one, by nations like China or Russia which have no such qualms about forcing a union through conquest.

No, these unions were negotiated in good faith and if we’re unhappy with them now, then the answer should be secession. Brexit proved that nobody is forced to remain in the EU if they don’t like the deal.

Buy fairtrade bananas; it’s relatively easy to switch

The EU has a similar system:

• Each EU member state gets ONE seat at the EU Council, regardless of population. This is comparable to the US Senate.
• Differences in population size are accounted for by EU Parliament, where the number of MEPs (Members of European Parliament) a member state gets is determined by population. This is comparable to the US House of Representatives.
• Finally there is the EU Commission which is the executive branch, comparable to the US president and cabinet.

The point of the EU Council/US Senate is to protect isolated regions from getting steamrolled by urban regions. Farmers are comparatively few relative to city industry workers, but any nation, union or federation is built on the back of farming. However, due to the distance and lack of interaction between city dwellers and rural dwellers, it’s easy for city dwellers to grow disconnected from the reality of just how important the rural dimension is, and vote for laws that only suit the city. It is utterly necessary to create a system which balances the two. Otherwise you’d have, like, three states (New York, California, Texas) making all the decisions, with the other 47 states having to like it or lump it.

Put simply: if RCV had been in place for the US presidential race in 2024, the Gaza issue wouldn’t have split the Democratic vote.

Don’t blame me; I voted for Kodos

i’m not advocating that

You don’t have to. Forbes already publishes a real-time up-to-date list of the richest people in the world.

https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/#5b60b1453d78

It can be sorted by net worth, country of residence, industry the person made their fortune in, or age.

or sometimes no candidate

How does FPTP help in that scenario?

risks more people accidentally voting different than they wanted

Can you describe how that might happen?

It’s not just the USA that’s in dire need of it. The UK should also adopt it. First Past The Post (FPTP) voting encourages polarized extremism. Because it functions on a Ricky Bobby-esque “if you’re not first, you’re last” philosophy that punishes moderates for being moderate.

Poe’s law is an adage of Internet culture which says that, without a clear indicator of the author’s intent, any parodic or sarcastic expression of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of those views.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

Poe’s law is based on a comment written by Nathan Poe in 2005 on christianforums.com, an Internet forum on Christianity. The message was posted during a debate on creationism, where a previous poster had remarked to another user: “Good thing you included the winky. Otherwise people might think you are serious”.[4]

The reply by Nathan Poe read:[1]

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won’t mistake for the genuine article.

The original statement of Poe’s law referred specifically to creationism, but it has since been generalized to apply to any kind of fundamentalism or extremism.[3]

I have to wonder: if headlines didn’t specifically point out how this is a snub to Trump, would Trump even notice shit like this happening? Or understand its negative implications for him? Sometimes it feels like the news media is intentionally trying to get him riled up.

It’s been deleted so don’t blame lemmy

Tell me more!

Not all job creation is a net benefit to the public interest. Wars give lots of people jobs.

You may be interested in Community Land Trusts.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_land_trust

I assume that’s a reference to the intro screen to Mario 64 where you can pull and deform Mario’d face.

“Tankie” means “person who, in a confrontation between citizens and tanks, roots for the tanks”. It’s more a reference to a person’s underlying authoritarianism rather than communism per se. The main reason it’s conflated with communism/marxism is because capitalism has, conceptually, staked a claim to the protectorship of individualism, which is assumed to be desirable. And because this claim is unchallenged, anything which stands against capitalism is assumed to therefore be inherently authoritarian. There is some merit to this claim and these assumptions, but to what extent, I couldn’t say. I’m not that smart.

I think the implication is actually that there’s a marked dropoff of eligible young Russian men. To preserve a generation, Russia might soon need to use more North Koreans on the Ukrainian front, but that comes with its own problems and risks.

It’s weird that Putin’s avoiding peace negotiations, as he more than anyone needs to find a way to scale back the war effort before his hold on power begins to waver. I get that he needs to save face while doing so, but he’s not gonna get conditions more favorable than a Trump administration, so the clock is ticking.

China will help repopulate Russia. Forcibly.

I can’t understand the filing. Did Llama not pay James Earl Jones’s estate?

Page 21 of the ruling:

First, the Enforcement Guidance contravenes Title VII’s plain text by expanding the scope of “sex” beyond the biological binary: male and female. Although Title VII defines “sex” to also include “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” §2000e(k), the Enforcement Guidance concludes that “sex” under Title VII "includes ‘pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions’ and sexual orientation and gender identity." Enforcement Guidance, §I(A)(5) (emphasis added). Notably, the Guidance uses quotation marks around “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions”—but not “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” Because neither the plain text of Title VII nor Supreme Court precedent defines Title VII “sex” this broadly. Thus, the Enforcement Guidance lacks statutory or jurisprudential authority to expand Title VII’s definition of “sex” to include these new categories.

Interestingly, this also seems to provide a legal basis to discriminate against straight people and cis people. It’ll be interesting to see how Republicans attempt to close that extra loophole without also closing the loophole for discrimination against LGBTQ people.