No, and nothing in what I wrote implies that.
Kethal
joined 2 years ago
Someone else here already linked a wiki article that summarizes it. As far as I know, the most recent source is a retelling of events from Ben Barnes: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/18/us/politics/jimmy-carter-october-surprise-iran-hostages.html.
Just before he was elected, his campaign conspired to prevent the release of US hostages, a move they made to make Carter look bad. This is one of the reasons he won. The man worked directly against the benefit of US citizens for personal gain.
It's a shame that Carter gets the blame for failing to reach an agreement to release the hostages, instead of Regan getting pinned for the much worse behavior of deliberately delaying their release.
His campaign conspired to prevent the release of American hostages so he could get some political gain. Using American citizens as political pawns is unimaginable to me.
After a while, you learn to live, laugh, love it.
It's funny because he lies to his significant other instead of fixing his own issues.
This community is dominated by what seems like a new variant of boomer comics. There aren't really any punchlines or jokes, just self serving commentary.
A constitutional amendment isn't necessary to achieve a substantial part of what's necessary for presidential election reform. States choose how to allocate their electors, and could choose to do so proportionally. At least two states already do this. If even just a few key states allocated electors proportionally, the biggest problems with presidential elections would be addressed, specifically, candidates winning the election despite losing the popular vote.
Allocating electors proportionally is probably the easiest path to more sensible elections because states already control this, but more importantly, it's an easy sell to citizens. Convincing citizens of a state to allocate all electors based on the national popular vote despite how its citizens vote is really difficult - no one wants their electoral power to go to a candidate they don't like. The approach has been to get a group of state to agree.
In contrast, convincing citizens to allocate their state's electors proportionally is fairly easy - no one wants their electoral power to go to a candidate they don't like. Support for that doesn't need multiple states to agree. It can proceed individually, and each time it passes, there's an immediate effect. The most important places would be large swing states. It would probably only take Florida, Ohio and Michigan to prevent any realistic chances of an unpopular candidate winning. But you don't need them per se. You could target Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, and a few others. Even if just a few states agree, the impact would be very large.
This is true when you have infinite funds and your opponent has finite funds. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_ruin
This is why the house has better long-term odds, even if the odds of any individual event are even.
It's not that detailed, but you get the picture.
Is your claim simply that XX folks have twice as many X genes as XY folks? It doesn't take anything from the article or what I said to understand that. That's tautological.
The article is about the mechanism explaining why women have more autoimmune diseases than men. Nothing in the article implicates the number of genes themselves in the mechanism. Theybstayes that the gene that deactivates one of the X chromosomes has side effects. They do not describe the details of that. Maybe ultimately there is some reason the pair of X chromosomes is itself involved, but nothing in the study indicates that, and what they describe doesn't necessarily involve that as part of the mechanism.