That TLS handshake went hard
ImplyingImplications
joined 1 year ago
some mf named like cum-sock
Excuse me? My family BUILT this country!
3 cups Beef broth, 1/2 teaspoon Worcestershire sauce, 6 sprigs of fresh parsley, 1 gallon of moonshine, 3 carrots.
I tried to keep the example simple since this is ELI5. If you take the number of electors a state has a divide it by the states population, you'll get its electors per capita.
28 electors for 19 million people equals 1.47 electors per million people for New York.
30 electors for 22 million people equals 1.36 electors per million people for Florida
Idaho gets 4 electors for 2 million people equals 2 electors per million.
Since it's the number of electors sent to Washington that decide who gets to be president, sending more electors per capita means a state has more influence on the outcome.
50% of Americans live in just 9 states. The other 50% live in the remaining 41 states. If the 9 states all voted one way, and the 41 other states voted the other, the popular vote would be 50/50, but the electoral college results would be a landslide victory for whoever won in 41 states.
The main reason someone becomes president while losing the popular vote is because they won the electors from a bunch of the smaller states. Smaller states are less populated and more rural. Rural people tend to vote conservative since they benefit less from progressive policies and prefer tradition. Conservatives therefore have an edge due to the electoral college. There were 4 presidents that won without the popular vote. All of them were Republican. Given there have only been 59 elections in American history, that's a 6.8% chance the loser of the popular vote wins.
No way!
In America, the people don't elect the president. The states send electors to Washington and all the electors form the "electoral college". It is this electoral college that elects the president. To make it a bit democratic, each state holds a vote to see who the residents of the state want as president. The electors that state sends to Washington will be told who they should elect based on who the residents of the state voted for.
A simple example. Imagine the US only has two states: New York and Florida.
New York has 19 million residents and gets to send 28 electors to the electoral college. Florida has 22 million residents gets to send 30 electors to the electoral college.
All 19 million residents of New York vote for Kang. New York sends 28 electors and tell them they should elect Kang. In Florida, the vote is split. 12 million vote for Kodos and 10 million vote for Kang. Since more people voted for Kodos, Florida sends 30 electors and tells them to elect Kodos.
The popular vote is 29 million votes for Kang and 12 million votes for Kodos. The electoral college votes are 30 votes for Kodos and 28 votes for Kang. Kodos wins even though 70% of Americans voted for Kang.
You want me to find illegally trafficked wildlife? What do I look like? A giant rat??
The existence of "echo chambers" is debated by scientists. It really doesn't matter who you hang around with, you're going to disagree with people.
The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media.
Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber?
Yes, except bail bonds don't exist, bail bondsmen don't exist, and there isn't a bail bond system.
In Canada, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms says anyone accused of a crime is innocent until found guilty and therefore cannot be held in custody unless the state can convince the court that releasing them would be a danger to the public.
Which sounds great, but bail is often denied because courts are easily convinced someone is a danger to the public. There is also a surety system but that's to ensure someone follows bail conditions. If the court agrees to grant a conditional bail, the accused needs someone to act as their surety. If the accused breaks conditions, and the surety doesn't immediately report it, the surety will be required to pay the court a very large fine. Not being able to find a surety is a common reason for bail being denied.
The action would have been done as vice-president, not president. Vice-presidents are held accountable. This is why Trump got in trouble for defamation of E. Jean Carroll.
He defamed her as president and called it an official act. The case was put on indefinite hold. Then he said the same things while he wasn't president. A new case was brought against him and he was found liable. Then, Carroll's lawyer asked the original case to be resumed arguing that Trump's statements couldn't be an official act of the president since he performed the same action while he wasn't president. The courts agreed and resumed the case and he was found liable again.
No. Nuclear weapons should not exist.
Kurzgesagt recently made a video on the nuclear arms race. The end of the race was when the guy who invented the hydrogen bomb invented a bomb that could destroy the entire planet. The bomb wouldn't even need to be dropped onto your enemy. It could be built inside your own country and detonated any time at all to end humanity. He thought of it as the biggest deterrent to war. Nobody else did. Politicians and military leaders threw out the idea entirely. Why would anyone detonate a nuclear bomb inside their own country??
The size of that bomb pales in comparison to the size of all nuclear weapons in existence today. We built that bomb. It's just not one giant bomb, but split into 12,000 parts and spread over the world. Is it any different? If you cannot justify building a nuclear weapon that would destroy your own country to destroy another, how can you justify building any nuclear weapons at all?