以来我一直在思考这些问题”的家伙在白宫宣誓就职。这就是我想到上面的三个构成。1。相反爱国者和民族主义者可能会说,投票的权利和特权。坚持这是一种责任,需要有至少一个候选人,其位置(s) /值得支持。是价值投两害取其轻,当候选人的观点对所有(或大多数)的一个珍视……那些葡萄是酸的,无论如何。2。我们的民主运行在资本主义,反过来,钱上运行。我不知道具体的比例,但它通常认为那些去年货币抽奖结束,完成最后的投票箱。(可能)有一些例外,但是,这些,我认为,相对很少,最近历史上,更少。 3. How do we justify the two-party system? Well, one answer to that might be 'It is just the way we do government', with corollary thinking being something like: 'If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got.' Somewhere over time, corollary thinking failed, because the original intent of the system became corrupted by partisanship-at-any-cost. Members of both camps continue to deny this, while vociferously blaming their opponents, 'across the aisle'. That they can't have it both ways without being hypocrites does not cross their minds. Their reputations don't matter---(but that is another upcoming blog post, isn't it?)
评论(2)
哈罗德·g·纽曼
星期五,2018年10月26日12:06点
我一直在思考以来我一直在思考这些问题”的家伙在白宫宣誓就职。这就是我想到上面的三个构成。1。相反爱国者和民族主义者可能会说,投票的权利和特权。坚持这是一种责任,需要有至少一个候选人,其位置(s) /值得支持。是价值投两害取其轻,当候选人的观点对所有(或大多数)的一个珍视……那些葡萄是酸的,无论如何。2。我们的民主运行在资本主义,反过来,钱上运行。我不知道具体的比例,但它通常认为那些去年货币抽奖结束,完成最后的投票箱。(可能)有一些例外,但是,这些,我认为,相对很少,最近历史上,更少。 3. How do we justify the two-party system? Well, one answer to that might be 'It is just the way we do government', with corollary thinking being something like: 'If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got.' Somewhere over time, corollary thinking failed, because the original intent of the system became corrupted by partisanship-at-any-cost. Members of both camps continue to deny this, while vociferously blaming their opponents, 'across the aisle'. That they can't have it both ways without being hypocrites does not cross their minds. Their reputations don't matter---(but that is another upcoming blog post, isn't it?)
有很多愤怒,在马纬度。超过我所见过的整个生命周期(不包括1950年代)的一部分。
oncole
周二,2018年10月30日——47点
而不是试图解释而不是试图解释为什么它对每个人来说都是一个社会好的投票,不应该我们从普遍参与的位置是常态还是默认?如果有问题就来了有什么好处,道德或否则,不投票?责任应该是那些没有投票;任何索赔的好处似乎只有自私和浅浅地合理。