Why? The forces behind MAGA and Trump have been part of most democracies their entire history. They percolate up every one in a while then disappear into the background noise until next time. McCarthyism looked like the end of the world as well just to disappear just as fast as it came about. Cults of personality rarely outlast the death or disgrace of the founder.
What do mean by majority? 51% is a hell of a lot different than 80%. I think much of MAGA is more populist than ideological. Some will disappear, some will follow the next populist to come a long and that populist could have different ideas that they latch on to. Compare the “tea party” of Ron Paul to the co-opted Tea Party that came later…
True of all democracies. Canada has it’s share of fruitcakes and could suffer a similar insanity and elect one…
I think Canada, Iran and most of the rest of the world have figured out that Trump is six months away from being the lamest of ducks and two and a half years of being out of office entirely. Wait for the storm of insanity to pass and deal with the aftermath then.
The next President of the USA will definitely have to go on a serious suck butt tour to heal the damage this administration is causing…
How is it for ripping apart PDF’s and fixing them? As a prepressman I have yet to find a tool as good as Illustrator for that purpose. I assume being open source it does not have support for Pantone? I was using the Affinity suite before they went freemium and that was not terrible but not quite up to Illustrator…
But still, it’s nowhere in the constitution beyond Right to peaceably assemble and the right to petition the government. The way I look at it, you would still have the two parties as a necessity. Otherwise no candidate gets 50% of the vote, and congress decides who becomes president. That is not going to change without a constitutional amendment. All the 3rd parties would be more like influencers to the main two. When looking at a primary, one might be a progressive party member/democrat or a green/democrat and who they chose to vote for could be influenced by the 3rd party endorsements. We don’t have to have a parliamentary like party system as we do not have that organizational structure.
Challenge mutual exclusion in political parties. In the US we vote for the person, not the party. Why can’t I belong to more than one political party?
The problem I see is meaningful change to the voting system requires a constitutional amendment which is a high bar. Political parties are not in the constitution. Getting rid of mutual exclusion just requires a good legal argument…
Not the question you should be asking. You should be asking: is the total tax burden justified for what you get?
I’m in Oregon and have no sales tax, but my income and property taxes are higher and my total tax burden is a little above the mean. I think I get a decent State to live in, good roads, fairly functional social net, environment protections, mediocre schools. I think the tax burden is mostly justified…