School_Lunch

I think we are talking about two different things. I'm talking about individual policies, and I think you are talking about elected representatives. I do agree that percentages of representatives should match the population, but votes on individual policies should always match what the majority of the population wants.

"Also majorities are slow to change, and it's simply dishonest (and destabilizing) to have one's vote weigh less depending on which group they are part of."

It doesn't. Just because you are a part of the minority doesn't make your vote count less. It just means there are more people who disagree with you than agree.

I'd say countries that devolve into dictatorship aren't due to too much democracy but due to weak constitutional protections.

Right now in the US we are in danger of devolving into a dictatorship because of the extra weight added to minority votes.

Edit: and by minority votes I'm talking about policies with less than 50% support.

That's a bit more than just math. When considering a policy, I don't tend to take into account where the different parties stand. It's better to think for yourself and not resort to tribalism. With that in mind I do think the majority should win 100% of the time. It has been insanely annoying here in the US how some policies have had popular support for years if not decades yet go nowhere because of small interest groups who use cheap tricks like the fillibuster and the electoral college to ensure the will of the minority wins out. I do acknowledge the danger of the tyranny of the majority, but I think protections against it should be provided by the rights outlined in a strong constitution.

Still better than every other option.

Most of the Taylor Sheridan shows and movies. I don't know if he writes the dialogs, but there is a lot of cringe lines and scenes.

Yes and he only cited the Bible to show that jews lived there thousands of years ago. He wasn't citing the Bible to make any kind of religious claim, so this guy's comment is completely missing the point.

I remember a story back at the beginning of the war of a Russian helicopter pilot defecting. He had other Russian soldiers in the helicopter with him, but they couldn't do anything because he was the only one there who knew how to fly it.

What's the difference between a cartel and a mafia?

Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about but wouldn't starlink know the serial numbers or Mac addresses of the dishes they gave to Ukraine? Couldn't they easily filter that region so only those work?

Some issues really don't straight up exist. Outrage TV will always come up with something to stir people up. Other issues are pretty complicated without any promising solutions, so it may just seem like they're being ignored. Conservatives will focus on those and claim to have the answer, but then their answer is something like "to eradicate poverty we need to put poor people in jail".

Then you learn that the "something" they want to do is the exact opposite direction of what solving the problem would look like. It takes 2 seconds of critical thought to realize I'd much rather stick with the "milquetoast centrists" than ever consider voting for regressive conservatives.

People always point to the worst of the worst to justify the death penalty, but it's not about them. It's about us. I just picture people who support the death penalty the same as medieval peasants cheering on the gruesome torture and execution of a criminal like its some kind of entertainment. People need to do more introspection about what part of their personality they are feeding when they give in to the desire for vengeance. That's not even taking into account that no justice system is perfect.