I don't understand why US weapons manufactures are not lobbying harder. They are losing the European market just as the largest rearmament since ww2 happens.
Maybe they are and its just a lost cause with the US administration.
Maybe they are and its just a lost cause with the US administration.
It doesn’t really matter if your product is better or cheaper, if the customer thinks that service and spare parts might possibly be withdrawn in the future for political (or whatever) reasons they won’t buy your product.
There is a reason why imperialism ultimately always fails.
If you mean they need to lobby the other governments, I don't think that'll work, the decreasing trust is associated with the US government's actions, not as related to the arms dealers' actions.
They are just as complicit in failing to exercise their power.
He’s a simple creature. Just pay the man and/or his kids off. Remember the funny video comparing Oracle and Larry Ellison to a lawn mower? He is the same.
This is creating secondary fallout as the orders from various countries get re-prioritized. It is not strictly first-come, first-served order fulfillment; you can find your order pushed back in the queue for reasons.
No lobbying can change the risk assessment where America is the risk factor.
Sorry everybody but we just have to wait this stupidity out.
It was explicitly created as a way to balance sovereignty of the states against populism, such as that enacted by MAGA or leftists.
If you are a small state like Vermont, you don’t want to just have California, New York, and Texas dictating all rules and laws for the country by sheer weight of their population sizes. That is expressed in the House, but the Senate serves to balance that and ensure that populists don’t run roughshod over the country.
Without such a structure states with less population would either band together and create their own super states - and you can see where this leads, or they wouldn’t have agreed to join the US in the first place.
Yet that is exactly what has been happening twice now.
---
(I'm not even going to bother to ask how a movement for police accountability is a 'destructive and authoritarian ideology'. I guess making cops not murder people for no good reason, and then lying about is called 'authoritarian' by FOX, but how can any rational person repeat that?)
If you throw the Senate out you'd just further embolden those in power today.
There does not seem to be any red line for them when it comes to support of the unterfuhrer.
Besides, this is temporary, and even now Republican senators have publicly pushed back on various things. A recent example is the $1.8 bn slush fund.
I would be incredibly against any action to remove the Constitution and civil liberties we have today especially as populism is rising and needs to be squashed. It's very similar to calls from the far-right to destroy the FDA, DOE, or other federal institutions - we shouldn't get rid of them without clearly better alternatives.
So, yes, 50 million people should have more say over the country's direction than 1 million. We should stop pretending we have 55 mini countries, because the Supreme Court has stopped pretending we have a 10th Amendment.
A Republic is a form of democracy. Having a Senate in the structure that we do is entirely consistent with democratic principles. To suggest otherwise is incorrect and counter to established definitions in the realm of political philosophy.
> So, yes, 50 million people should have more say over the country's direction than 1 million. We should stop pretending we have 55 mini countries, because the Supreme Court has stopped pretending we have a 10th Amendment.
Right, like how Donald Trump and his 75 million voters get to have more sway of Kamala Harris' voters (I don't recall the exact losing number)?
Nevermind that the state of Vermont is a sovereign entity in our constitutional republic. To modify this existing arrangement you give opportunity for certain states to leave (pro-Russian viewpoints try break up the US - don't fall for them!) since they are deciding as sovereign entities whether or not to participate in the Republic. If you are upset about the 10th Amendment or whatever then you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and inviting a Civil War or something similar. I say nah to that. We'll keep the existing system because it's pretty damn good.
> Right, like how Donald Trump and his 75 million voters get to have more sway of Kamala Harris' voters
They do in the Presidential race (and only because of FPTP and because we don't have i.e. approval voting), but they shouldn't control the House as well (because trump voters don't always vote R for reps).
States aren't sovereign entities -- they can't make agreements with foreign countries that isn't granted by Congress.
This is incorrect. They can't make "agreements" with foreign countries but that's because of the Constitution they all agreed to, not because they aren't sovereign.
> supreme power especially over a body politic
> freedom from external control
States aren't sovereign. The state legislatures don't even control their Senators anymore. The fiction of "collection of independent states" is just that: fiction. If nothing else, the American Civil War put an end to that. The Senate is just an unjust system which causes California to have to remit 33% of taxes to other states, while those are state's Senators vote to strip the rights Californians wish to have.
that only works if the smaller states are not representative of the larger majority of the population.
instead, nowadays the smaller states are actually over-representative of the populist mass - e.g Wyoming is 80% white.
A lot of the anti-American, anti-Senate, &c. stuff is Russian propaganda precisely because to continue to sow division and encourage populism is to invite destruction and disunity upon the United States.
you seem to not understand my point so ill give it one more try:
senate was indeed formed as a bulwark against populism, but the founders didnt anticipate a 68 to 1 population difference between the largest and smallest states (california vs. wyoming), nor the vast differences in composition of their populations. when a tiny fraction of the population holds that much disproportionate veto power, the senate no longer checks populism, it actively empowers a specific, rural populist minority to override the majority.
You have two things at play here:
1. Population size 2. State sovereignty
You're ignoring the 2nd, but they are inseparable when it comes to understanding the function and purpose of the Senate.
And the rest of the world has to suffer the consequences. It has been incredible watching americans shrugging off any responsibility.
Insufferable hypocrites.
Trump has support from SV and Wall Street leaders, and the whole Republican Party.
> gerrymandered
Trump won the popular vote, and iirc the GOP got more total votes for the House of Representatives. What about for the Senate? Sure NY and CA are big, but so are FL and TX.