BaldProphet

This kind of “checking that I’m still orthodox” post makes my skin crawl. Who is “we”?

I haven’t used Google Search in years (DuckDuckGo ftw). I do use Copilot from time to time, and it’s alright.

This is so obvious. I don’t understand why I don’t see it being reported on more often.

Id point out that the crazy right-wingers likely have more guns and ammo but less actual training than ordinary conservatives.

Perhaps there is a tonal message in your words that you didn’t intend (your native language seems to be German?). This paragraph comes across as dismissing my comment while making a sweeping, inaccurate, and baseless judgment that I “distrust any media that contradicts my beliefs:”

But by you talking about “the media” I guess you are trying to find reasons to further your already present distrust in any media that contradicts your beliefs?

Hard to see how that couldn’t be meant as, at best, a passive-aggressive dig, implying some level of instability or paranoia.

“The media” is a common term in American English that refers to mainstream news outlets. I said I felt gaslit because the early headlines and articles on this topic suggested that names were made visible, not that they were merely added to accounts.

Regardless, there is no call for personal attacks. I’m sure you can find the maturity to respond to comments you disagree with in ways that don’t involve attacking the users who post them.

Lol not sure why the somewhat gratuitous character attack there, but whatever.

I went to my Glassdoor account and the only place I could see my name was in the community part, where people ask questions of other professionals. Some users still seemed to have their names hidden, so it must be possible to do so. My company reviews are still anonymous.

I honestly can’t find any evidence that what the media are saying is happening is actually happening. I feel gaslit tbh lol

Latter-day Saints were some of the earliest white settlers of Las Vegas, if you can believe it.

Caltrops are better because they require less precision to deploy effectively.

Guy was roleplaying as a 4chan user.

I concede to your point, but remonstrate by arguing that <15% of countries by number is not necessarily a useful statistic. I’d argue that the proportion by population, land area and political/cultural influence is a better metric (and I don’t have a source for that but expect by population it’d be closer to 50:50). Fair?

No, I don’t think that’s fair, because 1) I was specifically referring to the relative scarcity of federal governments out of all the governments in the world, and 2) you’re moving the goalpost in order to win the argument. You stated:

Your wording has a distinct bias of American exceptionalism, since your first sentence is patently incorrect - federal and unitary governments are roughly evenly represented across the world’s 200-odd governments.

In reality, your statement was patently incorrect. Federal and unitary governments are not roughly evenly represented across the world’s governments. In fact, the percentage of the world’s population that resides in a country with a federal system of government is only 38.05%, and that drops to 20.28% if you don’t count India, a significant outlier. The total physical area of the world claimed by countries with federal systems is closer to your 50% guess, at 42.53%, but that drops to 29.89% if you don’t count the Russian Federation, another significant outlier.

Your claim of roughly even representation between federal and unitary governments isn’t accurate by any of the metrics you used: Number of governments, population, and land area. I’m not sure how political/cultural influence can be quantified, but I dispute its relevance.

Sources: I sourced my populations from World Meter, Wikipedia, and Census.gov, and I used Wikipedia as a source for land areas.

Oh, that makes sense. You’re not talking specifically about countries with federal systems of government, you’re talking about countries that have any form of local government in addition to a national government. That’s technically not federalism, but I see what you’re talking about.

Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about this:

In a federation, the division of power between federal and regional governments is usually outlined in the constitution. Almost every country allows some degree of regional self-government, but in federations the right to self-government of the component states is constitutionally entrenched. Component states often also possess their own constitutions which they may amend as they see fit, although in the event of conflict the federal constitution usually takes precedence.

According to the textbook my American Government class uses (We the People, 14th Essentials Edition by Ginsberg, Lowi, Tolbert, and Campbell), less than 15% of the world’s countries use federal systems.

Thanks for explaining this. Your wording has a distinct bias of American exceptionalism, since your first sentence is patently incorrect - federal and unitary governments are roughly evenly represented across the world’s 200-odd governments. Not an attack, just a reasoned criticism, which may help explain the downvotes.

Thanks for your response. I am currently taking an American government course in my university and in the class it was explained that relatively few countries have federal systems. The Wikipedia page on the topic only lists 20 countries that currently have federal systems.

I’m always looking for more knowledge and information, so I’m curious what your source is that around 100 countries have federal systems of government. It seems like a large discrepancy from the information that I am aware of.

Good luck with it all - your insights will help me keep a keener eye on Australian developments to slow Australia’s slide towards the corruption of the fine American model. As seen in the (alarmist and fearful) question posed by the OP, the decay of democracy happens slowly until it becomes utterly obvious to most that the rot has spread throughout.

Yeah, it’s definitely alarming. The fact that the US government has basically given itself power that it’s not supposed to have freaks me out a bit whenever I think about it. Something for citizens of any country to watch out for.

The vast majority of governments around the world are not federal. However, it is a popular system in countries that have diverse territory and demographics.

From Wikipedia:

Dual federalism, also known as layer-cake federalism or divided sovereignty, is a political arrangement in which power is divided between the federal and state governments in clearly defined terms, with state governments exercising those powers accorded to them without interference from the federal government. Dual federalism is defined in contrast to cooperative federalism (“marble-cake federalism”), in which federal and state governments collaborate on policy.

If you grew up in the United States, it stands to reason that dual federalism would be the default form of federalism to you. Also, since the 1930s, the 10th Amendment has been largely (and illegally) ignored, so today we mostly experience “marble cake federalism”. The way the Constitution is written, however, does not legitimize any form other than dual federalism with distinct and separate powers granted to the federal government and the states.

Context: The United States government has a federal structure, unlike most governments. This means that the federal/national government and the state governments have distinct divisions in power and responsibility. For example, the highest level of law enforcement that can legally exist is at the state level. Rogue Supreme Courts have made illegitimate and tyrannical rulings to grant the federal government some police power, even though the Constitution and Bill of Rights clearly reserve police power to the states.

That only the states have police power was implicitly understood prior to the ratification of the Tenth Amendment, the final amendment in the Bill of Rights. The Tenth Amendment states that whatever powers and rights are not expressly granted to the federal government in the Constitution shall be reserved to the states or to the people. Since police powers are not expressly granted to the federal government, only the states may enforce laws. Again, illegitimate rulings by rogue Supreme Courts have granted this power to the federal government with no legal basis.

Dual federalism is this divide between the power of the federal government and the state governments. Over time, especially since the administration of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, dual federalism has been eroded without meaningful constitutional amendments. Most people are generally satisfied with this, but when a state has significant differences with the federal government on the enforcement of the law or on matters of authority, the easy solution without having a civil war is to return to the state that which rightfully belongs to it: The powers implicitly reserved to it by the Constitution.

Other than those illegitimate Supreme Court rulings, only Texas has the authority to enforce border laws in Texas. The federal government, technically speaking, has no authority to enforce border laws anywhere, unless a constitutional amendment is ratified granting it such power.

All of the recent news surrounding Texas tells me we need to return to a more literal reading of the 10th Amendment. Bring back dual federalism.

Another thing the world ought to know is that the folks who are identified by “red” and “right” in America are in the minority.

Significantly so.

This isn’t accurate. In 2020, 29% of voters identified as Republican, 33% as Democrat, and 34% as independent. There certainly were more Democrats, but only by a 5% margin.

Playing up exaggerated differences between the number of Democrats and Republicans and emphasizing the “we outnumber you” rhetoric is extremist and should be avoided. It makes you a part of the problem.

This is oversimplifying the problem. Democrats from urban areas have failed for decades to adequately address the needs and concerns of rural voters. When one party ignores you (and often speaks of you with open contempt), it’s a no-brainer that you would be inclined to vote for the party that caters to your concerns. The Democrats handed rural voters to Trump on a golden platter.

Your view of the political spectrum is heavily skewed to the left if you think Obama was center-right.