This sounds like some kind of hyper-libertarianism where even slavery is a individual choice or a personal failure.
Obama has launched more drone strikes than any other Peace-Prize winner in history.
He's certainly not the most controversial Nobel winner, but his award was embarrassing in the sense that European intelligentsia was congratulating backward America for electing a black President.
You may not agree that this was condescending, but it's hard to argue that Obama's legacy is of the peacemaker domestically or internationally.
They're a protected class because they're singled out for violence because of their class. And it's a real world problem not a logic quiz. Misogyny and misandry are not equivalent in reality the way they are in the dictionary.
How exactly would it boost moderates except in that once the extremes are eliminated, your vote goes to the moderate that you want rather than it failing to oppose the people you don’t want.
I think you've pretty much got it. Extreme candidates tend to get eliminated because they tend to be the least popular with other parties voters. RCV punishes this unpopularity. Also candidates with similar goals can work together, this advantage is obviously is going to be unavailable for people running from the fringe.
Just imagine a New York primary where two weak moderates were running against a progressive. The two moderates are almost working together because it's likely that whoever looses will gift their votes to the other. Ranked choice candidates have often "teamed up", with ads asking their supporters to rank the other candidate 2nd.
I think lots of Democrats have been thinking about how the primary in New York could have been different and this is the answer to that question.
What's "g**r" ?
Argument and debate don't work because they're a terrible way to spread, express, and defend ideals.
The ironic thing about "Enlightenment" philosophy is that people cling to it's methods and orthodoxy despite all evidence of their own lived experience. The truth doesn't care about your logic.
Communism is old, and young. The principals of communal living are the oldest form of human organization. It's also the most common form today if you count small groups like family.
But as an organizing principal for government, it's a baby. The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848. The Bolshevik revolution was in 1917. So the whole idea of communism is < 150-200yo. Compare to capitalism at this age and it's all slavery and settler colonialism; the most massive redistribution of wealth through theft in history.
The logic that communism is a bad system because the Soviet Union should also condemn capitalism because the Dutch East India Company.
There is a fresco in the SCOTUS courtroom with a theme of "lawbringers" of history. Mohamed is featured.