Individual politicians and political parties routinely use count a vote as approval. In that way, if no other, voting does serve to support the existing system.

I don’t think that tracks.

The highest turnout in any US election since 1908 was 62% in 2020, and at no point has a party won an election and been like ‘look at all the people who didn’t vote, I guess we don’t have a mandate to govern’

Parties win elections and govern in power with less than 50% of voters backing them all the time, it’s literally the standard. A low turnout will not change the way any party acts once in power.

I think it means + more than zero but less than one

So like, +(between 0.01 and 0.99)

They’re using it as (+0<1), there’s no - here bc that would be + (the other candidate)

‘There’s no point voting against Hitler right now because the opposition is right leaning and may one day grow into Hitler’

In the UK, you can’t decide whether to ‘press charges’ or not, the decision is the CPS’s.

But in practice, saying you aren’t interested in pursuing a conviction often ends it, because:

1 - the prosecution must be ‘in the public good’ which is undermined if the victim isn’t interested

2 - a lot of the time the testimony and cooperation of the victim is key to the prosecution case

3 - the system is horribly underfunded so if they can justify dropping it they will

I read in the paper today that a bankruptcy court is going to take 40% of Katie Price’s OnlyFans income

When i saw this headline my brain skipped to Rudy Giuliani’s OnlyFans income

Has Rudy Giuliani considered OnlyFans?

“Yes, I lost this election, but I’m young, beautiful, and rich as f**k,” she concluded. She lost her job at Purina dog food over her extreme rhetoric and her campaign was unable to purchase ads.

She came 6th. Its funny, but I think she was never a real candidate and hasn’t learned anything

Just in the spirit of pedantry, its not really true to say that the US system predated most parliaments.

Like, maybe its technically true now due to the expansion of democratic and republic systems in the post-colonial era, but parliaments in Western Europe were plentiful and long-established in 1776.

The first American government was notable in that is was completely divorced from a hereditary Monarch, and I don’t wanna downplay that, but a system in which a representitive body of land-owners is elected by an enfranchised class to decide policy and even pass legislation existed in, for example, Iceland since the 10th Century, Catalonia since the 12th, England since the 13th. It was arguably the standard during the enlightenment in Europe.

My two cents, the US system does seem to be remarkably inflexible. I guess it’s complicated to unpack why exactly, but a combination of myth-making, bad-faith originalists, and the sheer size of the country probably all play a part in it

It’s very debatable if trump’s EO would have capped the price of Insulin or Epipens in a meaningful way - and its factually wrong that it was the same cap and legislation that Biden put into place.

Trump’s EO meant that Federally Qualified Health Centers would have to offer Insulin and Epinephrine to “Low Income Individuals” without health insurance "at the discounted price paid by the FQHC grantee or sub-grantee under the 340B Prescription Drug Program” plus a “minimal” fee.

From your own link, FQHCs already had a requirement to not charge anything to people in poverty, so “If ‘low income’ is defined as under 100% of poverty, this may not really change anything. Even if the income level is set somewhat higher, most patients likely would still have been protected by the sliding fee scale without this change”.

This link, like your others, is from 2020. I don’t know how “low income” would actually have been defined since it wasn’t scheduled to come into place until Jan 22nd - during Biden’s administration.

It’s true that Biden froze this - as others have mentioned in this thread, he put a 60 day freeze on all pending legislature when taking office, which is a fairly standard practice.

Biden’s own Insulin cap was part of the Inflation Reduction Act, and capped the price of Insulin to $35 monthly for products covered by Medicare D.

So yeah I concede that it’s an oversimplification to say that Trump did nothing and Biden did everything, but… the Insulin cap is Biden’s legislation. Trump did not cap Insulin or Epipen prices during his 4 years in office.