I don’t know if you realize how condescending it sounds to hear you say you “don’t want to ruin whatever enjoyment she gets out of it” by telling her… what? That you arbitrarily look down on the use of this absolutely grammatical construction?
The thing that bothers me most about stuff like this is that it is effectively some kind of “gotcha” that makes people feel foolish, like their natural, completely grammatical speech has errors, or something they should feel bad about.
The worst kind of grammar pedant: the one who is passionate about a “rule” that is actually only a style recommendation.
“How do I help my uncle Jack off a horse?”
A problem with this question is that the US is such a big and diverse place, that you could have this same question posed to Americans only, asking about their experience visiting other parts of the US.
You think an American wouldn’t also regard that interaction as weird?
Do I just live in a weird bubble? I live in the US and I am rarely at someone’s house who doesn’t remove their shoes nowadays. I certainly grew up wearing shoes at home, but that’s changed significantly over the past 20 years or so.
Yeah, I always wonder how often there’s a need to refer to inhabitants of two continents together as a single entity. Like, if you say someone is South American or North American, that is never confused with being someone specifically from the US. When would those terms be insufficient?
Don’t you mean “from AND into”?
When they announced the ads it was just the incentive I needed to quit Prime totally. I don’t miss it. I already was wary of buying from Amazon due to the sketchy sellers and fake products, so I’m glad buying my stuff elsewhere except when I can’t find something somewhere else, which has been rare.
I’m not sure what you mean. Of course it’s never happened because we’ve never done it that way.
If you’re saying that if you go back and calculate previous elections, then it never would have made a difference, that doesn’t mean it could not happen. Growing up I learned that there was only one time in history that the popular vote didn’t match the EC, but now it’s become a constant threat. If it becomes a viable path then eventually it is bound to be exploited.
What you are talking about simply isn’t functionally equivalent to just straight up popular vote, for the reason I described. Votes are not worth the same amount in different places.
This only solves it if you also make the number of delegates for each state be proportional to its population size. California has 68 times the population of Wyoming but only 18 times the number of electoral votes.
The thing is that the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is nothing until it’s all the way there. Having 95% of the necessary electoral votes has the same effect as 0. So there’s no reason for opponents to even care about it until it is within striking distance of the threshold. It seems to me that if we ever reach a point where it comes down to just a state or two, that legislation will be fought tooth and nail, not just in those last states, but there will be fights and legal challenges in states that have already entered the compact to reverse it too. And even if we manage to win the fight and it gets activated, we will still have to keep fighting in perpetuity because almost any state pulling out would undo the whole thing.
I’m not saying people shouldn’t even try, maybe some good comes of it regardless. It just doesn’t seem like a solution as much as a statement.
It makes logical sense for a person to draw this conclusion, but MTG is famously an idiot, so that’s what’s baffling. What convinced her to change her tune?
Totally agree. Even back in the 70s, the wonderful feminist movie/record Free To Be You and Me (with songs like “It’s All Right to Cry” sung by an NFL player) was at least as much about men not being defined a certain way as it was about women.
I think one hurdle for men right off the bat is the fact that it’s called “feminism”. That makes it clear that it has something to offer women, but doesn’t make it obvious that it has something to offer men too, so they don’t give it an open mind.
(I’m not actually saying that I think the name should change, and in fact the movement could potentially drift away from its core mission over time if the name didn’t have women as the focus. Just saying it’s a hurdle.)
I don’t think anybody is hoping to convince you True Believers who have fully incorporated this into your personality. The spoiler effect is more about other people who maybe haven’t thought about it so much and don’t realize the mistake they are making.
If true, that would be exactly why you would need more than the exact bare minimum number of Democrats for what you want to accomplish, so that one or two can’t make a name for themselves by gumming up the works.
Are you a person who doesn’t appreciate the significance of the ACA, or are you a person that doesn’t realize that the supermajority only lasted something like 11 weeks (during which they managed to barely get the ACA to happen)?
It’s bad! I just don’t know what to do about it
It would also probably be a constant battle to keep it in effect anyway, because every state that has entered the compact can always leave. As long as you can shut off the compact by removing one or two states from it, it will be an unstable mess.