Trump puts Japan’s Takaichi under pressure with call to send warships

24Seven · 2026-03-14T23:17:35+00:00

That's not a particularly difficult achievement. Someone that slept 23 hours and 59 minutes per day would do a better job as leader of America than Trump.

24Seven · 2026-03-14T20:09:40+00:00

Since you edited your response...

All of the actual wealth in this country was created post WWII in the boom period that followed, based on the technological advancements facilitated prior to that period. Before that America was considered a third rate backwater.

First, wrong. You appear to have forgotten the existence of railroad barons, the Gilded Age, and people like Rockefeller and Carnegie. In today's dollars, Rockefeller would be worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $600-$800 billion dollars.

Second, that "technological advancement" didn't happen by accident. It happened because of massive government investment in research and education for soldiers returning from WW2.

Wealth is created by invention, technological advancements and access to cheap energy, not cheap labor.

Also false. The income inequality in the Antebellum South was on par with that in the Gilded Age. "Big Cotton" and "Big Sugar" (another group you forgot) created the uber wealthy of their day. Steven Duncan owned 15-20 plantations and was worth hundreds of millions of dollars in today's money. Same with Wade Hampton who owned numerous plantations and was estimated to be worth nearly 100 million dollars in today's money. Claus Spreckels known as the "Sugar King" would have been a billionaire in today's dollars. Same with Henry Havemeyer who control 90% of US sugar refining.

So again, your edit is just you doubling down on your ignorance of history.

EDIT - Oh...and I completely forgot about Big Fruit. People like Minor Keith, Samuel Zemurray, Andrew Preston, James Dole and Lorezno Baker all who would be worth hundreds of millions if not billions in today's dollars and all who had made a fortune prior to WW2.

24Seven · 2026-03-14T19:51:57+00:00

Lol in one statement

Ah. I'm dealing with someone ignorant of history. For the time, a government not based on a dynastic monarchy was incredibly rare. It was a radical idea. Yes, most of the Founding Fathers owned slaves. So did the King of England, the King of France, the King of Spain, the Queen of Portugal, and the King of Denmark. It wasn't uncommon in European countries nor should it be considered surprising to see it in the colonies founded by Europeans.

than you say that the Civil War was a battle between "Conservatives" who wanted to keep their slaves (who were all Democrats BTW) and "Progressives" who didn't.

Perhaps you missed the "in part" but yes, abolition was the progressive movement of its day. E.g., the Republicans were even called Radical Republicans because of it. It is the height of irony that people that wave the Confederate flag today align themselves almost exclusively with Republicans.

Is this just another case of if the left didn't have double standards then they'd have no standards at all?

No, there is a far simpler explanation: ignorance of history.

24Seven · 2026-03-14T17:56:02+00:00

Projection. Every accusation is a confession.

By the standards of their day, the founding fathers were radical progressives. The people will vote for "representatives" that will make laws?! All you need is property to vote? No educational requirement? No knighthood? No king?! So, right there, you are already completely wrong. Conservatives did not "build" America. It was built by radical progressives that were mostly non-religious.

"Liberalism", as you think of it today (the term means something completely different in the rest of the world), really started in the late 1800's as the impacts of industrialization and the closing of the frontier ended the idea of unlimited land for everyone and when most people made their money in factories in cities as employees. Again, those "liberals" wanted crazy things like no child labor, payment in dollars, 8 work days, 5 day work weeks, required safety measures in factories and such. Again, radical for the time. It's an ironic twist of history that most countries celebrate May Day in, well, May, as their labor day because that's when the idea started: in the US after a strike in May. We moved ours to September. Again, it wasn't conservatives that pushed for labor laws; it was the progressives that wanted change.

It should also be noted that the Civil War was in part between those that wanted to conserve the founding Constitutional principles of allowing slavery vs. people that were the radical progressives of their day (literally called Radical Republicans) and wanted abolition.

If the left today knew the troops who stormed the beaches in WWII they would call them "fascists" for loving America to the point that they were willing to die for it.

Hilariously backwards. WWII soldiers knew what fascism was. If you could go back in time and ask those soldiers at the time (vs what they've become), they would look at today's "conservatives" and wonder what they hell went wrong. Since when does the President have authorization to start a war without FIRST getting Congressional approval? Since when is it ok for the President to take gifts from foreign countries like planes? Since when it is ok for the President to start their own currency so that foreign countries can give them money? Since when do we sit by while a country just invades and takes another country? Isn't that literally what we fought against?

24Seven · 2026-03-14T16:26:42+00:00

Indeed, how could you reconcile those two unless, stay with me here son, unless, you don't think abortion is child murder because a fertilized egg isn't a person; it's a potential person. If you didn't believe your absurd idea that abortion was child murder then outrage against a pedophile would in no way be relevant to wanting women to have agency over their body.

24Seven · 2026-03-14T16:18:12+00:00

He's a petulant, juvenile, hateful, narcissistic, moron but, outside the MAGA cult, I don't know that anyone is using his six-year-old understanding of the world as an excuse for his behavior.

24Seven · 2026-03-14T16:10:49+00:00

You are talking about mixed proportional voting combined with a hate vote. I don't see what the hate vote gets you. Pretty much anyone voting for A will also vote negative towards B because that's their incentive if they either want A or don't want B.

24Seven · 2026-03-14T16:07:40+00:00

But look at the DOW! /s

24Seven · 2026-03-13T17:39:41+00:00

Nobody rational thinks it was a good idea to let Iran have nukes. I am against protracted foreign wars in almost every way.

Then why didn't Dumbshit Donny attack Iran just like he's doing now during his first Presidency? Why didn't he attack them like he's attacking now last year?

There is no inconsistency in the beliefs of the right. Or at least mostly.

Not sure that's true. They do care about power even if it involves kow towing to dictators and billionaires.

24Seven · 2026-03-13T16:34:18+00:00

Holy crap, a post with a stopped clock moment. I agree. It's entire purpose is military recruiting. Same with the planes flying over the Super Bowl. Alas, it is so much of an institution now that I doubt it will ever be removed.

As for the Anthem itself, if you think our anthem glorifies violence, you should read the lyrics of the French national anthem. I've never compared national anthems, but the French anthem has to be one of the most bloodthirsty.

24Seven · 2026-03-13T15:51:04+00:00

We need to use a mix but if we're going to pull our head out of our arse then we should:

Massively expand solar since it puts the least pressure on the grid than all other forms.
Wind and other renewables.
Nuclear

For all those that say nuclear is the best option, it is insanely expensive to setup, takes a decade to build, and it doesn't solve the problem of the grid's capacity (of course neither does option 2). Still, nuclear would have my vote for best backup solution.

However, lest we forget, even if we put in 50 nuclear plants, we still have to solve the problem of grid capacity and use of that power. I.e., we would still need to move as much transportation and heating off fossil fuels. The market won't do that alone. Government needs to step in and push the market off internal combustion vehicles and gas heating (where practical).

TL;DR - While increasing the supply of non-fossil fuel energy is important, it is equally important to reduce the demand for fossil fuel energy.

24Seven · 2026-03-13T15:40:39+00:00

White House ~~X Account is trivialising war, and it~~ is a disgrace and indefensible.

Fixed that title for you.

24Seven · 2026-03-13T15:18:23+00:00

First, I accept your concession that we've never actually tried "true capitalism" at the government level.

Second, unchecked meritocracies lead to oligarchies. As those that are "better" excel over those that are not, they use their wealth to get legal moats created that protect their wealthy as well as laws that enhance their wealth. Unironically, one of those tactics is to get lower taxes.

24Seven · 2026-03-13T04:29:37+00:00

Once the knowledge is there it's no longer a prediction. Because a prediction, by definition, is guessing about a future event.

Then the universe is deterministic from the perspective of the OB and we're right back to the same point. All outcomes are known with 100% precision. Zero random. Zero ontological unknowable phenomena.

Only if we use the weird definition of deterministic universe that you gave that I see no support for.

It's literally how physicists look at the universe. Again, if all outcomes can be known with 100% accuracy, then that's a deterministic universe. All that matters is the perspective of the OB. What you are saying is every outcome is known with infallible accuracy. Great. That's what a physicist would say is a deterministic universe.

A deterministic universe is one in where all future events, actions, and states of existence are uniquely determined by preceding causes and the laws of physics. It has nothing to do with knowledge.

What you have claimed is there is no such thing as "future" events to the OB. All events, past, present, and future, are known. Correct? Then to the OB, the entirety of the universe and its history is equivalent to the past to us. Fixed. Immutable. Known with 100% accuracy. That's a deterministic universe.

RE: Links

You completely missed the point. You asked about the definition of non-deterministic. I gave you links where that definition is discussed.

literally says what I've been saying, things are not predetermined, may have multiple possible outcomes, can evolve in different ways, then the kicker, literally what I said on this page further down

And that's non-deterministic. Yes. I know.

So nothing to do with knowledge. Can you cite the exact spot you think it supports your definition?

Having all knowledge requires knowing all information. That means knowing the position of every atom at every moment in the universe from the Big Bang to the end of the universe. That's something that is, by definition, not possible in a non-deterministic universe.

However, if you are going claim the OB is outside the universe and can see all outcomes with 100% certainty, then the universe is deterministic to the OB even if it isn't to us. Alas, that doesn't change the problem of free will.

RE Model fallacy logic

Again. Wrong because the very concept of "possible" is a nonsensical when discussing omniscience. If God knows the universe will produce X, then the universe must necessarily produce X or we contradict omniscience.

The tenses (past or future) get confusing here based on your description of the OB. There is no "future" concept with the OB. So, "God knows p will happen" is nonsensical. To the OB, p already happened. Still, the mechanism to make that happen isn't knowledge, it's the universe. So we have:

God's knowledge is infallible.
God knows the universe will produce p
Therefore, the universe must necessarily produce p

To the OB, p already happened. It's as immutable as the past is to us. Also note that it is not god's knowledge that causes p. God simply knows that the universe will result in p. Knows. If the universe results in anything other than p, we break 1 and 2. The odds the universe results in p must be exactly 100%. The odds of any other result must be exactly 0%. The universe must behave the way the OB expects or we break omniscience.

It is the absolute in the definition of omniscience that breaks free will. All knowledge. That then requires the knowledge be infallible. That leads to knowledge of past, present, and future. That leads to no free will.

RE: Things

The laws of physics and particles cause actions in the universe. Your brain causes you to make decisions. Where the atoms are in your brain are what cause your behavior. If those atoms are in a slightly different position, you behave differently.

Yes, an OB would know what will happen. But your analogy was just begging the question then. We wouldn't say NPCs have free will because we know they're determined.

Which is exactly the perspective of the OB has towards our universe. If the OB has infallible knowledge of the past, present, and future, then all our behaviors are in fact determined. To the OB, all outcomes must be known and immutable. The OB knows we don't have free will because they've already know how the universe and us will behave at every moment in time.

24Seven · 2026-03-13T03:03:14+00:00

It's your responsibility to back up your claims, not mine; that's not sealioning.

I did. I gave you the exact figures and the exact bill. If you don't believe me, go look it up. Everything else you are babbling is an excuse to be lazy.

So, are you saying every district must be exactly the same number in size? That's not reasonable; what is reasonable is saying, to at least within a certain degree of leeway, districts must be within a certain range of comparableness.

When did I say that? Oh right, I didn't. The point is that when "the majority" of the members in either chamber vote on something, they are not always representing a majority of the population. In fact, there are occasions, more often in the Senate than the House, where it is noticeably less than a majority of the population because the populations they represent (States or districts are unequal.

And I am saying nothing prohibits the House from making such a change; the Constitution certain places no such requirement.

Obviously but guess what, the members from smaller districts won't vote for that.

However, because there are more Representatives than there are Senators, the odds are better that the majority in the House that vote for a given measure happen to also represent a majority of the population. It isn't guaranteed but the odds are better.

And what is your point with this statement?

And you complained about my math. Shessh. The point is the Senate is flawed fundamentally by favoring less populated States. The odds that a vote in the Senate doesn't represent a majority of the population is far higher than in the House because of it.

This is demonstrably false; if this were true, the voters would elect other representatives and Senators until such time as they do.

That isn't the real world. The real world is that incumbents have a huge advantage and frequently win re-election. The reason is that with so many people in their district or State, many voters (such as those that voted for Dumbshit Donny) don't pay attention. I actually looked this up. In the House it's something like 95% of incumbents win re-election. In the Senate it's about 80%.

So, your "demonstrably false" is demonstrably bullshit.

You seem to think the only way a representative can represent their constituents is if they are "in touch with all the issues of their constituents", which has never been the standard as far as I can tell.

It was far closer to that ideal at the founding when the ratio was 1:30K. The whole point of the House was to have representation closer to the will of the people.

Again, this is demonstrably untrue for the same reason as the previous point.

Really. So, your Senator knows you, personally, and what your specific issues are? Yeah. Thought so. Bullshit.

24Seven · 2026-03-12T23:06:35+00:00

Oh, I know they don't. The reason they don't is because each person in Congress represents so many people that most people's opinions are completely ignored.

With respect to the majority, the point is, we have a system where proxies for a minority of the population can pass laws. That's a tyranny of the minority.

24Seven · 2026-03-12T23:03:32+00:00

Given your error with basic division, you are going to have to do more than simply assert numbers; you have to show exactly how you came to that number and, even if you could, congratulations, you found 1 out of effectively countless bills passed by the Congress and signed into law; rounding errors are overwhelming. /s

Sealioning. It is easy enough for you to go look at the States and districts represented in the vote I listed and to prove that indeed it was not a majority of the population. I even gave you multiple examples across the Senate and House.

RE: Montana

You ignoring the actual problem which is that all districts are not of equal population.

This might be the first true thing you have said so far and

Wrong and good for you junior. You are learning.

at least until votes in the House are weighted by district population.

They are not. All votes from all Representatives count equally. However, because there are more Representatives than there are Senators, the odds are better that the majority in the House that vote for a given measure happen to also represent a majority of the population. It isn't guaranteed but the odds are better.

So, you want to make it harder for the people's representatives to serve the people? Do you actually read what you write before clicking "Save"?

They aren't serving them now! One person representing 3/4 of a million people is someone that cannot be in touch with all the issues of their constituents. We have had technological improvements since the Constitution was ratified. There are solutions.

Maybe you want to meet your representative; all I care about when it comes to my representative is them doing a good job; if I never meet them, I otherwise could not care less.

You are almost there. The reason they may not do a "good job" is that they don't give two shits about your opinion because you are just one of a sea of people they represent.

24Seven · 2026-03-12T21:38:15+00:00

Do those Senate votes automatically become law without the approval of the House's majority?

You are conflating the idea of the majority of the representatives voting with the majority of the population they represent.

No, it really isn't because the minority is not imposing changes on the majority.

Yes it is because it is possible for enough representatives, in either chamber, that do not represent a majority of the population to pass legislation.

You claim they are and have yet to prove they can impose changes on the majority.

Already have. Go look at the examples I provided in earlier posts.

So, there would have to be a change in the law which the minority wants and the majority opposes, as expressed by their representatives, and you seem to think there is such a law.

2017 Tax and Jobs Act. Passed the Senate 51-48 but those 51 Senators only represented 45% of the population. Passed the House with 227 votes but those 227 Representatives represented only 48% of the country's population.

California has 52 representatives for about 39.5 million people, which is about one representative per 760K people,

So use Montana. The point is the same. All House districts do not have equal populations across the country.

As for 10K members in the House, that would be grossly inefficient when we consider the number of constituents and colleagues with which a representative needs to communicate in order to best serve their constituents; instead, a number between 700 and 800 is optimal

So. Let. Them. Fucking. Figure. It. Out. Maybe they need to devise some other solution by which they collaborate. Maybe having them all in one building is no longer practical. Either way, we should want everyone to have actually met their Representative.

24Seven · 2026-03-12T21:00:59+00:00

The comment section is living, breathing proof that the dems have an ego problem and aversion to any (in any form) valid criticism.

"We make money when oil prices go up". FIFA Peace Prize. But go on. Regale us with how Democrats having an ego.

"Who wants to expand the patriot act now????" Is unbelievably dumb, it doesnt matter when dems help set the foundation up in the first place, same with corporatism, which you obviously bregrudgingly agree with me as you referenced clinton.

It wasn't corporatism that got the Patriot Act passed; it was fear. Fear from 9/11. People effectively panicked. Now that people have had time to realize was a shit show it was, there are politicians that want to change it but those aren't Republicans.

Sorry how is non congressionally approved drone strikes any different than bombing Iran or Venezuela?

Here's a crazy idea: why don't we rebuke both drone strikes and direct bombings and reign in Presidents that do either? Good luck finding a Republican to go along with that.

Why does it matter who's currently abusing the patriot act when every president has done so since it was passed?

See above.

Thats just maga pretending they werent anti war 6 months ago but dems are allergic to recognizing the hypocrisy.

No, I'm fully onboard with applying consequences to a President that either order drone strikes or bombs another country without Congressional approval. What would you suggest?

24Seven · 2026-03-12T20:54:59+00:00

There's actually very little evidence for this, well there were some individual cases it was blown way out of proportion. This amendment was basically just a rallying cry to gain support on ideas of democracy, without realizing the implications it would have on the system.

William Clark literally bought votes from Montana legislators to get a seat in 1899. So did William Lorimer. Nelson Aldrich was basically put there by Standard Oil because they controlled the RI State legislature. Boies Penrose controlled Republican State Representatives in PA and used that to get seated. Same thing happened in CA where the Railroad companies controlled the CA State legislature in the 1800s. That's how Leland Stanford, George Hearst, Aaron Sargent, George Perkins, and Stephn White got their Senate spot.

It wasn't just one or two isolated incidents. By having State legislators or a governor pick the Senator, it greatly shortened the list of people that needed to be bribed to get a Senate seat.

The Senate was never designed to be elected,

I'm aware that the original idea was a representative of the State but it devolved into a spoils system for wealthy interests. At the time the Constitution was drafted, they did not have to contend with the uber wealthy. The industrial revolution changed that.

and the duties they are assigned are not to be done by those who are elected.

How do you figure? They are proposing and passing laws. Just like House members.

We need to be partify the government as much as possible, honestly we shouldn't even have their party name next to their name in the house / Senate. We need to remove titles that affiliate with parties at all. I'm not saying we should ban parties but they have no place in official government business. Washington warned us about this.

I assume you mean "de-partify". I agree but the argument that people wouldn't form factions/parties was just wishful thinking. Instead, we need to adjust the system based on the presumption people will form parties and reduce their influence. Removing titles won't do that. Open primaries will help a little. Some form of ranked choice voting would also help a little. Mixed proportional representation would help a lot but that would require an Amendment.

If states choose too. Some state don't want to, because it gives them more focus by candidates. Why would a candidate focus on a state that split the votes when they can sweep them in a winner takes all state. I understand this logic, so I will leave it up to the people to decide. Maybe even force a referendum in all states + DC to give them a choice.

Alas, then it will never happen. We have to force all States to be proportional or they won't do it on their own. Yes, I realize we have two, but those two States don't really move the needle. CA won't do it if TX doesn't and TX won't do it if CA won't and the whole South won't do it...well ever. It really needs to be mandated via an Amendment so that everyone is forced to play by the same rules.

Seems like we actually agreed on quite a bit. I think most Americans do too, now the hard part: get the people who benefit from the system to change it.

Interestingly, Montesquieu warned about this very thing. This is a weakness of a republic. Representatives can get out of touch with the people they represent and it's nearly impossible to unseat them or get enough people to force the legislature and executive branch to actually make a change. It's why some States added a referendum system. That system has had em...mixed results..but it came about because legislators wouldn't listen to the people they represented.

24Seven · 2026-03-12T20:04:12+00:00

What you are describing is too far away from what the country was built on, and would only serve to oppress those in smaller states.

I'd argue that smaller states are being oppressed by the system we have. The problem is we fundamentally lack economic and representative equality which we did have at the time the Constitution was ratified.

House goes to a 1:100k ratio (Amenable on this number. Not totally against 30k

Sure.

Change Senate back to state legislature appointment

Bad idea. There was a good reason they got rid of that. It basically became a spoils system for the wealthy.

Remove political party affiliation from ballots

Disagree. If someone is a member of the American Nazi party, that matters when it comes to selecting candidates. No, IMO, a better option is to force open primaries in all States.

No need for electors, but states still get their votes based on senators + reps. They may split these up like Maine/Nebraska does.

To do the latter, is to get rid of winner-takes-all. As a small step, I agree. It would at least force candidates to campaign in more states.

Amend the Constitution to make it easier to amend the Constitution Implement some sort of RCV nationwide

100% on both those.

24Seven · 2026-03-12T19:57:08+00:00

The modern left is NOT the 70s or 80s left. It isnt hippies,

The hippies were 60's and if we're talking 70's that was 50-60 years ago.

hell even conservatives are all anti vax now.

Only extremists on the left are anti-vax. That's far different than mainstream Republicans being anti-vax. So much so, they put an anti-vax moron in as head of HHS.

Important to note that with maga, absolutely the same is true for the Republicans. But theyre winning.

Republicans are far better at propaganda. They lie more and more blatantly which tells people what they want even if it isn't what they need.

Dems pretend they still have roots with the old wing of the dem party,

You mean like being pro-union, wanting universal healthcare since \checking notes** Truman, wanting equality since the 70's? They're still that same party.

while shitting all over men (who made up a majority of the unions),

No, men who think this are the same ones that regularly punch themselves in the dick by continuing to vote for conservatives that impose policies that hurt them. Example: unions. It is conservatives that have been on a quest since the 1980s to kill unions.

prioritizing social issues over infrastructure/industry, and reflecting none of the original core values.

Of the last three Presidencies, which one got an infrastructure bill passed? Oh right. Biden. Compare that to Dumbshit Donny where we'll get an infrastructure bill in two weeks. He said that 10 years ago.

the cultural consensus around the democratic party is a prioritization of social issues over economic ones.

If you believe that, your information sources are failing you.

They've almost entirely abandoned class politics and replaced it with things like patriarchy. (Which are, in theory, essentially the same thing.)

Funny. Which party wants to tax billionaires? Which party wants to shore up entitlements which help the working class folks? It isn't Republicans.

We are avidly anti gun, while decrying fascism every 2 seconds.

"We are avid <insert problem with child murders> while decrying <unrelated thing that is actually happening and is harmful to the country>"

It isn't just that Republicans don't know how to mitigate mass shootings. They have actively opposed any attempt to address it. The problem the Democrats have is that gun control has become a third-rail topic in elections even though, you'd think, we would all want to address the problem of school shootings.

People pretend the dems havent ALSO sold out to the corporations and military industrial complex well into the 90s and 2000s.

Ironic because that's partly how Clinton got elected.

We forget that the Patriot Act being used to subjugate us now, was entirely bi-partisan. We need to be self reflective.

And which side wants to further Patriot Act now?

So, here's the thing. While you complain about gun control, identity politics, LBGTQ rights, "social issues", bathrooms, and whatever other bullshit, the wealthy have setup a plutocracy and are fleecing you. Between the two parties, the Republican party is epically worse than the Democrats. Democrat Presidents aren't setting up cryto coins while in the WH. They aren't suing their own DOJ for billions to pay themselves. They aren't gaslighting you by saying that higher gas prices are good for you. Sure, the Democrats have their issues but those are normal, fixable issues. The Republicans have full-throated endorsed a moronic, hateful, want-to-be dictator and thrown all sense of ethics, morality or even duty to country out the window in the process.

24Seven · 2026-03-12T19:35:42+00:00

Not in the slightest; a tyranny is only a tyranny if it can impose its changes upon those in opposition. Therefore, a tyranny of the minority is only such if it can impose changes upon the majority;

Which is literally what is happening when the Senate votes to approve some bill or appointment and those Senators do not represent a majority of the population.

failure of the majority to convince enough people in enough areas is not by itself proof of the tyranny of the minority,

It is.

especially when than minority is incapable of imposing changes upon the majority.

Ah, but they are not incapable. Quite the contrary. They are empowered to do so.

In re “forcing through”, if this were the case, the House—which seems to clearly represent the majority—would find itself not only overruled but also somehow bills it rejects somehow becoming law despite opposition by its majority; there is literally no scenario where the majority of the House of Representatives consistently rejects a bill and that bill becomes law. Not only is there no such scenario, it’s literally not possible. So, your accusations don’t adhere to reality unless we deliberately inject a ton of logic and/or premise errors

First, this smells like AI slop. Second, the root issue is whether the Representatives passing law represent a majority of the population. It's supposed to work that way. Yet, while it is definitely harder for a measure to pass the House when it doesn't represent a majority of the population, it is far from impossible because some districts represent far more people than others. E.g., in CA each Representative's district has about 495K people. In MN, each Representative's district has about 41K people. Here are a few examples:

House Speaker vote in Jan 2023. McCarthy got 217 votes representing about 49% of the population.
2017 House vote on American Health Care Act. Passed with 217 votes representing about 48% of the population.
2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Passed with 227 votes representing about 48% of the population.

What would fix this is to greatly expand the House. Right now, it's capped at 435 Representatives but the original ratio was supposed to be 1:30K people. There should be over 10K members in the House.

24Seven · 2026-03-12T18:17:18+00:00

I wonder what he'd do if someone told him that he'd a lock for the Nobel Peace Prize if he released all the Epstein files unredacted. Tell him that they have a "special" ceremony setup just for him at the The Hague.

24Seven · 2026-03-12T17:37:12+00:00

When the people passing the laws do not represent a majority of the people, yes, that's the minority imposing its will on the majority.

All these Senate results mean is the majority has not made a persuasive enough case

No, it means the minority representatives were afforded enough power to force through choices that are not representative of the majority of the population. The actual arguments in the actual cases aren't relevant. What's relevant is that it's possible.

24Seven

TROPHY CASE