Search Results: how to win

the reason I'm going with potatoes is the nutrition density.

the idea: grains are produced in the hundreds by the plant so all that nutrition is divided up among tons of seeds, so they end up being richer in calories than in micronutrients. potatoes are the primary nutrition store for the entire potato plant. it stores every nutrient it needs for energy metabolism, including vitamin B, needed by humans too.

the facts: across every data base I've found potatoes win. honey is DEAD last. I don't know why people think it's so much healthier than corn syrup tbh. wow it is natural... the most valuable bees in a hive don't live on honey, by the way. they feed that primarily to the worker bees. high ranking bees live on pollen and plant sterols (fats) mixed with a little honey - called "Bee bread". the straight nectar (sugar water) is dehydrated into "honey" and stored in reserves for the foragers to dip into, Incase they need to fly far far away to get the valuable stuff - the pollen and plant sterols. it's the excess nutritionally devoid junk the queen and her nurses and her eggs will never use.

Have one election, no primaries, and the top vote-getters go to Washington as the state’s representatives. It would result in wildly more diverse delegations, more moderates representing a wider range of ages, races and political beliefs than we have in Congress.

Rural voters wouldn’t lose “their” representatives under this system any more than urban voters would. In fact, all voters would be more represented, not less. For example, each Pennsylvanian would go from having three representatives to having 19. And each member could cultivate a statewide constituency based on political orientation, social beliefs and moral reasoning rather than geography.

Electing all the representatives at large would make all the districts in each state the same size. More important, it would end the redistricting wars that bedevil us only after the census but now seem destined to become a permanent & ugly fixture of American politics.

If each state chose its representatives in a single statewide election, the result would be a House of Representatives truly representative of the people. Smaller parties would finally stand a chance of winning a seat at the table. The two major parties would be forced to enter coalitions, which would require compromise and moderation — qualities sorely lacking.

Critics will insist that the House is no place for the 17th-place finisher. Perhaps. But could the resulting Congress be any more dysfunctional than the current one?

A single-vote, winners-take-all system would remove party politics and geography from the process. Representatives would represent people with shared ideologies, not some artificially constructed “district” where half the voters feel their representative is not representative of their beliefs.

For example, there aren’t enough socialists or libertarians in any one congressional district in PA to win a seat. But maybe there are enough socialists or libertarians statewide to enable a candidate to finish in the top 17.

President Trump has recently got the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan together and got them to make a peace agreement. He has several other peace deals he can point to. Now he is working hard to bring peace between Ukraine and Russia. Even though the US is no longer funding this war and in fact American companies are selling the majority of the weapons NATO in buying for this war he wants to stop the deaths of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians.

Democrats and their cheerleaders in the fake news want to see President Trump fail. They prefer that an additional tens of thousand people die in this war than to see President Trump get yet another win. Is this sick or what?