> First Past the Post is what has lead to the dichotomous relationship between the two parties,

No, safe districts did that. Before widespread safe districts the most conservative democrats and most liberal republicans overlapped each other. TLWR; Safe districts where only one party can win change the election from being two sides competing over as much of the whole voting population as possible to two candidates from a single side trying to out-flank each other by going further to their respective side.

If that doesn't quite make sense here's a more thorough explanation. Here's a graph of the entire voter base of any given area. There's the left, right, and the center.

{}D==========C==========R[]

A politician seeks election/reelection by getting 51% or more of potential votes. In a non-safe district either side has a reasonable possibility of getting elected, meaning the competition is between the Democrat and Republican candidate during the general election and the best path to victory is to capture the largest overall share of the population. The best way to do that is to capture as much of your side and the middle as possible. On a rough level the idea is that a Democrat (curly brackets) or Republican (square brackets) tries to get as much of the line (representing the voting public) inside their brackets as possible.

Here's an example of the Democrat candidate capturing less of the left but more of the center and even center-right votes, while the Republican captured more of the right but less of the center and no center-left:

{}D===={======C[===}======]=R[]


What happens if there's no chance in hell of the other side ever winning though? Instead of a Democrat and Republican competing by trying to combine their side with as much of the middle as possible it's now a Republican versus another Republican. Everything left of the midpoint no longer exists. So how do you increase your share of the vote? You capture more of the side you're on.

In this case two Republicans compete to see who can capture more of the Right wing voters... and the only way to do that is to go further right:

C={======[===}==========]R{}[]

Curly bracket Republican captured a lot of the center-right, but none of the left or center-left. Square bracket Republican captured less of the center-right but a lot more overall votes by going to the far right.

-----------------------

Sorry if this is a little obtuse but reddit's format doesn't really work well for this sort of thing. If anyone wants I can throw together some shitty mspaint graphics to try and illustrate a bit more clearly.

Or if you've got time I really recommend seeing if your library/uni has Sean Theriault's Party Polarization In Congress. It's a very short and extremely accessible little booklet that goes over the history and development of party polarization and its main driving factors.

Ha! That's great! Looking further the following books are free to read if you have Kindle Unlimited:

Universal, Home-made simple SHTF Shotgun
Expedient Homemade Simplified Revolver
Homemade Silencers and Suppressors
Homemade Mines - Survival Guide

Based on your comment, the first thing you should probably do is try and get some cheap textbooks on statistics and probability and work through them. The particular textbook isn't terribly important as the level of statistics you're looking for hasn't changed much over the past 50 years. A good book on formal logic will probably also help as it can help you learn to see if a conclusion is warranted on the premises (hint: it's very rare, even in academia).

If you're not willing to take that plunge with a full textbook, How To Lie With Statistics (https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728) is probably the most popular statistics book in existence and is aimed at a layperson. There's also communities who are have a peculiar dedication to logic and have blogs everywhere.

When it comes to "reading data" it's largely numbers. So if you can get used to doing some mental arithmetic or drawing some quick graphs, you'll go far in "reading" the numbers. For the most part it's just numbers though. If you're trying to really dig into a paper what you want to look for are odd numbers that the authors aren't mentioning or trends that would seem to contradict the authors hypothesis or suggest alternatives. Usually, if there's a mistake or something to be learned, it's going to be buried in the text in a way that's harder to spot.

The big thing to learn in poking holes through a paper is to just be a good scientist. Think of alternative hypothesis, actually read the tables and methodologies (most academics actually don't) and be very skeptical. Pay very close attention to definitions and anything they suggest might have been an anomaly or pre-processed. If you've done any good science work or watched people, you can also read between the lines a bit (if there's 6 subjects in a study, it's probably just people in a research group, which means it's almost certainly a non-representative sample, for example).

While true, I'm sure I can get into that safe with one of these, and I'm sure I can cut that leash with one of these.

Perfectly legal.

Just don’t start to make one without ATF approval

https://www.amazon.com/Anarchist-Cookbook-William-Powell/dp/1684111374/ref=nodl_

You got the weed torches like this for under $100 that use propane as a fuel, or the stupidly overpriced Boring company version which you shouldn't buy.


Then there is true flamethrowers like this for well over $1000 that actually use napalm for fuel.

No, it’s actually a New California Republic flag from Fallout: New Vegas.

Edit: Link for those interested: https://www.amazon.com/Tinuos-California-Republic-Flag-Banner/dp/B017B2VYAO

Ask him if I can sell this book without a background check of the buyer.
Single Shot Lever Action: A Home Built Rifle Paperback – January 28, 2016 by Glen Davis


https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1523345217/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_image?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Snapshots:

1. This Post - archive.org, removeddit.com
   
   
2. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077NY6R3... - archive.org, Outline
   
   I am a bot for archiving links. ^(github) ^/ Contact for info or issues

> In contrast to our frequency of training, [FBI suspect interviews] revealed that they practiced on average 23 times a year (or almost twice a month) with their handguns.

This is so interesting. I really want to get ahold of one of those Violent Encounters publications, because they have really granular and specific data on who the perpetrators are and how these events happen.

I highly recommend Varg Freeborn's book on criminal violence. "Criminals are all dumb shits who can't fight" is an extremely dangerous and incorrect stereotype. Career criminals are second in line after active duty combat MOS military when it comes to people who actually expect to use their guns and know their survival depends on their skill level.

There are criminals out there who train, and take their vocation seriously. It's not all of them, but they're out there.

> By promoting CEOs of companies to lead his military... This is logical if you eat paint.

What are the former jobs of pretty much every single person employed as the head of a government department under like every president?

>Uhhh the businesses became the government. Do you not have access to books?

​Once again, who is in charge of things like the FCC? Who has literally always been in charge of the FCC?

>yes, bombing everything is good for the environment.

Do you not know about the nazis pro environment policies?

https://www.amazon.com/How-Green-Were-Nazis-Environment/dp/0821416472

>And so was Reagan, your republican hero.

When did I say Reagan was my hero? I specifically called him a piece of shit in another post to you.

>Reality disagrees with you.

Jews were the 1% of the Weimar republic.

>So to surmise your argument, you watch a fuck ton of Prager-U videos and think they are remotely accurate.

You have no idea what you are talking about and think insults and swearing are an argument.

>Everything you posted was objectively wrong.

You have done nothing to dispute any of my arguments

>Hitler killed gay people and unionists and communists first. So how is he left-leaning?

BIG GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING THE ECONOMY. And also mass killing is like the most leftist thing you could ever do.

>Did your mom struggle to afford formula and substituted lead paint?

Once again, you fail to be able to actually articulate an argument and instead resort to insults. This is why no one takes you communists seriously.