No. Not as a deliberate tactic and not nearly to the same extent.

Both Wagner and the regular military have been conscripting criminals straight out of prison and sending them right into the meat grinder with little training and/or equipment.

If they could read they’d be super shocked by who the Russians are conscripting.

Yeah. I had to start pinching myself when I began to look at a $400 pen as a “bargain”. Still love my fountain pens, though.

Credit unions are a much better option.

It lacks a bit of the polish of Ivory, but it’s feature set is second to mine. Quote boosts and multi tag built right in are killer

Excellent watch! I went back and forth between this and the blue dial. Settled on the blue, and it has also become my most worn piece by far.

High school teacher here, and I see this a bit (although I have an iPhone)

Yeah, came here to post this. Unless it’s made legally binding these statements mean fuck all.

We bought a Tushy brand, and it pulls hot water from the plumbing directly under the sink. If you happen to have a sink right next to your toilet it might work for you. I’m not especially handy and I found Tushy’s instructions very straightforward.

That’s actually a really good question and I don’t know the answer. My best guess is that the founders didn’t intend that as a purpose of the EC, that it’s a secondary effect that modern political scientists have theorized.

You’re right that Washington pointed out the dangers of political parties, but that was in his Farewell Address which came at the end of his second term, by which time the Republican and Federalist factions were already becoming baked in and he had experience with Jefferson’s and Hamilton’s fighting within his administration. I don’t know that he or other framers were thinking of that when they designed the EC during the framing of the constitution eight-ish years prior.

For all I know, however, there might be a Federalist Paper that lays out partisan moderation as a function of the Electoral College. Maybe someone with more expertise can correct me here.

You’ve got little argument from me there.

Thank you for your kind words! I know many people struggle with politics and history, especially in school. It’s never too late to re-engage through books, movies, etc. as your time, interests, and happiness allow :)

In many ways, yes. There were also abolitionists and abolition sympathizers among the framers. It was a complicated set of individuals and the resulting constitution was complicated as well. It’s a document that simultaneously enshrines liberty and white supremacy. There’s a real Jekyll and Hyde nature to American democracy.

Yep. And the kicker is that, with Trump, it failed at its core function of keeping incompetent people out of the presidency. So given that I think Americans are rightly wondering what the purpose of the institution even is.

Haha no way! I’m connected with some history teachers that teach in FL, and the conflicts they’re going though are just mind boggling.

I do live in a purple state that is protected from that crap by a Democratic governor elected with a pretty slim majority. So it could well happen to me in the future. I’ve given a lot of thought to how I’d handle being in that situation. Scary stuff.

Source: I teach U.S. history at the high school and collegiate level.

The Electoral College was one of the original pieces of the U.S. democratic system created when our constitution was drafted and ratified in the 1780s. It’s important to remember that the drafters of the constitution were very much experimenting with a modern representative democracy based on the values of the Enlightenment. So to the extent that the Electoral College seems odd, it’s largely a result of the context of its creation - namely, we weren’t sure exactly how our system would function yet.

One of the key tensions that the framers were trying to address in the 1780s was the struggle between anarchy and tyranny. That is, finding the right balance between giving too much power to common people and too much power to the elites. The framers thought that giving too much power to common people would create a “tyranny of the majority” and result in things like demagogue politicians and threatened property rights (the foundation of a stable economic system). However, too much power to elites would result in the same sort of tyranny that we lived under when we were part of the British imperial system.

So one way that they tried to strike the right balance with federal elections was to have popular elections, but to give a group of elites veto power over whomever was elected by the masses. So if someone was elected by the masses who was grossly incompetent for President, the Electoral College, a body composed of elites, could choose someone else. This was dangerous. The Electoral College would risk a crisis in the U.S. democratic system if they rejected the will of the people. So although they could veto the results of a popular election, in theory they would only risk doing so in dire circumstances.

There is also a commonly understood function of the Electoral College that is not as commonly taught and is still controversial in some circles to point out: it was created to enhance the power of slave holding states. Electoral College votes are given to states based on their population. So the more populous your state is the more votes you get. Southern states wanted to count their enslaved persons when it came to allocating Electoral College votes, but they didn’t want to recognize them as citizens or people. They threatened to walk from the brand new union if they weren’t allowed to count their enslaved population for Electoral purposes. So this resulted in something called the Three Fifths compromise where slave-holding states could count each slave as 3/5 of a freed man for Electoral purposes, but they didn’t have to recognize them as citizens or people. I would argue that the fact that the Electoral College has consistently entrenched white supremacy in the U.S. has been one key reason behind its staying power in our governmental system.

Speaking of the modern version of the Electoral College, some political scientists claim that benefits are: -it forces politicians to campaign even in small, less populous regions of the nation rather than focusing on the large population centers. -I’m some cases (like Obama’s election in 2012) it can amplify majorities in the popular vote and make it seem like an electoral winner has a stronger popular mandate -It tends to result in two large parties that must put together broadly popular coalitions in order to win. This is in contrast to something like a parliamentary system when you often get a greater variety of more specialized parties. The claim is that, in theory, this makes parties more moderate and broadly appealing.

Some political scientists point out that some drawbacks are: -It disproportionately benefits regions of the country that are predominantly white, rural, and conservative (and, frankly, racist and patriarchal) -It allows conservatives to exercise minority rule by still winning elections even though they haven’t won the national popular vote in many years. -It dilutes the will of the people by allowing a candidate to become president without winning the popular vote. This has happened twice since 2000.

I’ve always been fascinated with SailfishOS! I’m in the States and too lazy to hack together a solution. Have you been using it for long?

Just went to my first concert with a pair of these and I highly recommend. Not having a headache and ringing ears the next day was really nice.

We just got one. We even splurged for the fancy one that hooks up to warm water. It is life changing. I feel very dirty whenever I have to do a poo somewhere else. Underrated appliance, for sure.