The people that don’t care will continue to not care until it affects them directly. Even with the tariffs it won’t matter until what they’re actually buying gets hit by the price hikes. Even then they may not even be paying enough attention to their finances to notice.
Okay, then let me rephrase it: When “nearly half” disapprove it can (and probably does) mean that there is still no majority (or plurality) approving, which is what OP falsely concluded.
This is exactly what happens with democratic societies. Majority somehow can decide for the rest of sane people how to live, behave and be quiet when you think differently. People have been trained to stick with a herd.
Anarchy has a lot of advantages to it.
Individual decisions matter as long as
you apply Non Aggression Principles. Anarchy doesn’t mean no rules, but no rulers.
People don’t create wars, governments do. Government robs you by the way of taxation for everything and then create crazy national debts and tax you even more (tarrifs).
The previous ruler (Biden) brought all these migrants over and current Mango Mussolini created a solution enforcing real IDs, biometric scanning, total surveillance of your personal wallet. Soon enough CBDC will be introduced.
There is no deep state, there is only the state and two party illusion.
This is exactly what happens with democratic societies
No. This is what happens when you have two sides, both too large to really represent anyone, battling for a sliver of majority using increasingly diverging views and then exercising as much power as they can before the roles flip again.
In an actual democracy representatives of the people, with many differing views, sit down together and decide case by case on a solution that most can be happy with.
Someone will always disagree with any decision when we live in a large society, but a functioning democracy is the closest thing we have ever come to making sure that as many as possible are happy (and more importantly get a say).
Unfortunately exactly this outcome is the inevitable result of a FPTP voting system combined with political parties. The most stable arrangement of such a system is a two party system, and once it reaches that point the winning party becomes the one willing to take the most extreme position from the other party.
The only way to fix this is to do away with FPTP and replace it with a proportional voting system that will allow for multiple political parties to be viable and encourage the major parties to seek moderate positions rather than extremes.
Absolutely agree! First past the post will always drift toward larger and less representative parties. Even proportional representation can have this tendency, but it is much more resilient.
Indeed! And they do under representational democracies. In a community there will always be some sort of law or code, whether written or not, that some members of that community disagree with.
If “nearly half” disprove that means more than half approve.
That’s fucking disgusting.
There’s always a good percentage that are indifferent or “don’t know”. But they’re no help.
So basically the same outcome as the election. People haven’t changed.
The people that don’t care will continue to not care until it affects them directly. Even with the tariffs it won’t matter until what they’re actually buying gets hit by the price hikes. Even then they may not even be paying enough attention to their finances to notice.
Which is the exact same as approving it.
Per the article:
That leaves 19% and 17% that are undecided. The question for those would be are they uninterested or uninformed?
Both probably. Or just flat out too stupid to have an opinion
Who gives a shit? They’ve proven themselves fucking useless like the shit heels they are.
To be fair here and without looking up numbers, such polls tend to often show the same pattern. Something like 45% A, 30% undecided, 25% B.
So when “nearly half” disapprove it can still mean “a majority” does.
Not a majority. A plurality.
Okay, then let me rephrase it: When “nearly half” disapprove it can (and probably does) mean that there is still no majority (or plurality) approving, which is what OP falsely concluded.
This is exactly what happens with democratic societies. Majority somehow can decide for the rest of sane people how to live, behave and be quiet when you think differently. People have been trained to stick with a herd. Anarchy has a lot of advantages to it. Individual decisions matter as long as you apply Non Aggression Principles. Anarchy doesn’t mean no rules, but no rulers. People don’t create wars, governments do. Government robs you by the way of taxation for everything and then create crazy national debts and tax you even more (tarrifs). The previous ruler (Biden) brought all these migrants over and current Mango Mussolini created a solution enforcing real IDs, biometric scanning, total surveillance of your personal wallet. Soon enough CBDC will be introduced. There is no deep state, there is only the state and two party illusion.
No. This is what happens when you have two sides, both too large to really represent anyone, battling for a sliver of majority using increasingly diverging views and then exercising as much power as they can before the roles flip again.
In an actual democracy representatives of the people, with many differing views, sit down together and decide case by case on a solution that most can be happy with.
Someone will always disagree with any decision when we live in a large society, but a functioning democracy is the closest thing we have ever come to making sure that as many as possible are happy (and more importantly get a say).
Unfortunately exactly this outcome is the inevitable result of a FPTP voting system combined with political parties. The most stable arrangement of such a system is a two party system, and once it reaches that point the winning party becomes the one willing to take the most extreme position from the other party.
The only way to fix this is to do away with FPTP and replace it with a proportional voting system that will allow for multiple political parties to be viable and encourage the major parties to seek moderate positions rather than extremes.
Absolutely agree! First past the post will always drift toward larger and less representative parties. Even proportional representation can have this tendency, but it is much more resilient.
People can disagree and coexist.
Indeed! And they do under representational democracies. In a community there will always be some sort of law or code, whether written or not, that some members of that community disagree with.
I didn’t vote in “selection”. Cause I can’t let someone else to decide how I should live. Involuntarily taxation is theft. No victim - No crime!