It's a political slogan, usually presented with specific design features... like "MAGA".That's their official flag.
Isn't Make America Great again pretty app for the group that wants to turn 2024 America into 1950s America? I am pretty sure it is.It's a political slogan, usually presented with specific design features... like "MAGA".
"Flag" can carry a lot of implications for what we might understand, that may be very dubious in this case. I would therefore be inclined to avoid the term.
Nope, it's pretty relevant to point out there's a huge well of evidence that the Israeli defence forces are committing war crimes.Then your comment is wholly unrelated to mine.
That is not relevant to what I said.Nope, it's pretty relevant to point out there's a huge well of evidence that the Israeli defence forces are committing war crimes.
Which handily makes yours not worthy of a response.Then your comment is wholly unrelated to mine.
The Star Wars fandom is locked in heated debate over Rey’s “New Jedi Order” movie, based on an eight-year-old quote that’s being ripped out of context. Excitement is building for the next Star Wars movie, expected to feature Daisy Ridley’s return as Rey Skywalker. Announced at Star Wars Celebration 2023, this will be directed by two-time Academy Award-winning director Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy - and recent comments have suggested news is imminent.
Unfortunately, Rey’s New Jedi Order movie is already becoming intensely controversial. Obaid-Chinoy’s recent remarks about the project ignited a firestorm of debate online, one that has now been intensified based on an old quote in which she joked about enjoying making men feel uncomfortable. But is this quote really valid, or has it been pulled out of context?
Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy is a celebrated Pakistani-American journalist, filmmaker, and activist best known for two award-winning documentaries confronting inequality in Pakistan; one discussed acid attacks on women, and another focused on honor killings. Her works have been hugely influential, resulting in actual changes of the law pertaining to honor killings in Pakistan. In 2012, the Government of Pakistan awarded Obaid-Chinoy one of its highest civilian honors, and Time Magazine recognized her as one of its top 100 most influential people in the world.
This is the context in which, eight years ago, Obaid-Chinoy joked she likes to make men feel uncomfortable. The full quote can be watched on YouTube, and it’s clearly about her work as an activist, campaigning against acid attacks on young girls and honor killings. These documentaries are understandably uncomfortable viewing for men, but that kind of discomfort is the only way to drive change. The quotes are nothing to do with Star Wars, which makes their current use in the fandom rather disappointing.
Yes - there is a powerful idea amongst some conservatives and reactionaries (think MAGA, or Brexiters, or Al-Qaida) that if only a country can be reverted to the habits, morals and traditions of a past golden age, then a new golden age will follow. It is, of course, utter nonsense.Isn't Make America Great again pretty app for the group that wants to turn 2024 America into 1950s America? I am pretty sure it is.
Does that mean you approve or disapprove of the changes to the electoral systems I suggested?Having had a cursory glance at Wikipedia articles for both, I'd be willing to do the investigation needed to make sure I made good choices, but I think that the average American isn't down for that.
You're lying to people about what you believe.Which handily makes yours not worthy of a response.
If I can take a tangent to this - will it really matter?Does that mean you approve or disapprove of the changes to the electoral systems I suggested?
Assuming that to be true, there's still leeway in social issues. Or even basic competence.If I can take a tangent to this - will it really matter?
There was perhaps one thing that ill-fated British PM Liz Truss managed to demonstrate: you might be the leader of the world's fifth largest economy, but you don't have a lot of power when it comes to some of the big stuff. She offended against the markets, and she was crushed in short order. Thus even the argument between FPTP or some form of proportional representation borders on the trivial, because no matter which one gets elected, it'll still be operating in the same relatively narrow range of potential policies, those policies determined by the overarching circumstances and power structures (mostly perhaps economic).
This is why I currently choose to stay away from the Star Wars fandom. I know they are good people but you got so many of these asshats dictating what the franchise should be (only for them). Hey disney, can you make this franchise public domain too? Not much would change except everybody could profit off of it now. It would make much difference to me, but it would be hilarious.
All leaders are limited. For all the ills in the world, there are parts that we would like to remain, so leaders will not be able to change those without getting the electorate against them. This is true in all countries.If I can take a tangent to this - will it really matter?
There was perhaps one thing that ill-fated British PM Liz Truss managed to demonstrate: you might be the leader of the world's fifth largest economy, but you don't have a lot of power when it comes to some of the big stuff. She offended against the markets, and she was crushed in short order. Thus even the argument between FPTP or some form of proportional representation borders on the trivial, because no matter which one gets elected, it'll still be operating in the same relatively narrow range of potential policies, those policies determined by the overarching circumstances and power structures (mostly perhaps economic).
What I wonder is whether there is enough.Assuming that to be true, there's still leeway in social issues. Or even basic competence.
Broadly, I agree that PR allows for a wider representation of views, and on balance I would favour them.snip
While that is true, laws put in place to secure the rights of, say, LGBT, don't hurt the economy. That can be done.What I wonder is whether there is enough.
It seems to me that Western civilisation is gradually slipping to the far right. The mainstream right is mostly either collapsing in the face of the far right, or being taken over by it. And the left is mostly nowhere. The mainstream left is struggling just as hard against the new further right as it did against the mainstream right, and the further left pretty much doesn't exist. Much of this is that, perhaps, the left has broadly failed, in the sense that it has simply not been able to deliver people's expectations. And perhaps it cannot deliver because institutional forces in wider society prevent it doing so. The end result is that millions who could be sympathetic to the left have given up on it, and seek alternatives - and they're tending to back the further right.
So, let's imagine the left wants a more radical programme. First up, the usual suspect capitalist bosses are liable to move a lot of money to persuade people away from that. The left wants to borrow money to fund social services and infrastructure? The finance industry can just not lend any - perhaps not necessarily because its bad business, but because the people who run the finance industry do not tend believe in social services and infrastructure, and so is biased to view it as waste. Perhaps things like tax havens and other shenanigans simply cannot be prevented: the very rich cannot realistically be taxed. And maybe think about the source of money that is the middle classes - but the left needs their votes. And it's hard to persuade them to pay up, especially when the rich aren't, or they're being bombarded with fears about their house and pension assets. It's all sorts of things like that which constantly drive the left towards the centre. That then leaves the losers of it all, the needs and desires of sectors of the population consistently not being met, who often end up backing the further right. One might hope they could be won over by the left in some form, except I don't think a lot of the left are very good at appealing to people who don't share certain ethical convictions.
And if we imagine that the votes wentBroadly, I agree that PR allows for a wider representation of views, and on balance I would favour them.
However, democratic politics inherently tends to be about compromise. PR tends to mean coalitions which in practice often don't really meet the objectives of many voters anyway. If we imagine a typical sort of coalition - green / left / centre - the end policies are probably not much different from a single "broad tent" centre-left party. What broad tent two-party systems tend to do is arrange their policies to build ideological coalitions to go into an election where PR tends to form coalitions from the ideological parties after the election.
Well, i live in a parliamentary democracy and it is not that simple.which will lead to different policies and different compromises during the next administrative cycle. I am not sure what you mean with "don't really meet the objectives of many voters anyway"; that is true of all sorts of representations.
So do I.Well, i live in a parliamentary democracy
Politics is difficult, no objections there.and it is not that simple.
I more or less said the same thing. 5 % green and 10 % left lead to different policies than 10 % green and 5 % left; of course there will be compromises. If the parties thought exactly the same they wouldn't be separate parties.You generally still get a coalition to form a gouvernment. And as long as the gouvernment exists, they vote mostly aligned. However to actually form such a gouvernment, the parties must bargain which points of each program to pusrue und which to give up. The gouvernment program will always be a compromise program and never fit a party bill completely.
Politicians failing to deliver on their campaign promises is hardly exclusive to non-FPTP democracies.And it can happen to you as a voter of a "winning party" that this party gives up your most important topics in this bargaining to form a gouvernment.
Going back to the example again, assuming the greens would need to compromise away too much to their liking to form a coalition in both those scenarios they have a greater bargaining power to try to form a different coalition if they had 10 % than if they have 5 % of the votes. So percentages matter, representation matters, being able to have your opinion represented matters.And while the percentages might have some influence on bargaining power, they are not that important. As long as a party can get the coalition over 50%, it is enough. More important is which other possible coalitions could form and if there are competing parties that have a better offer.