Search Results: differences between people

In the U. S. it tends to be the opposite. But in Europe, I once complained online about how rude the Danes in Copenhagen were and someone commented, "The Danes that are friendly are usually Liberals."

I noticed this in Italy too. Rome is Conservative and the people were assholes, but Venice and Pisa are Liberal and the people were much friendlier.

And on the Cayman Islands there was this British guy running a museum, he was a Labour party supporter and anti-Brexit and he gave us a free ride to our next destination.

The Eastern European nationalities on the other hand are very Conservative and have a reputation for being assholish. Most of the Russians, Ukrainians and Romanians I've met were assholes. Slovak and Balkan customer service was also very unpleasant.

I think the difference between Europe and the US is that a lot of the Conservatives in Europe are nationalists and hate foreigners, while the Liberal Europeans are more open to foreigners.

Though there are exceptions of course. But from my experiences, as long as you don't question or disagree with their politics, Liberal Europeans do tend to be friendlier towards foreigners.

Am I wrong?

Some facts about lotto in the USA:

The taxation difference between a lump sum and annuity lottery payout primarily lies in the timing and amount of taxes paid. A lump sum payout is taxed immediately on the entire amount, often pushing the winner into the highest federal tax bracket of 37%. This results in a significant portion of the winnings being taxed upfront. In contrast, annuity payments are taxed annually as they are received, potentially at lower rates if future tax brackets are reduced or if the annual payout doesn't push the winner into the highest bracket.

Estimates suggest around 30% of lottery winners face bankruptcy within three to five years.

Lottery players in America tend to come from specific demographic groups:

Socioeconomic Status:
People in lower-income brackets spend a larger portion of their income on lottery tickets. The poorest households spend nearly 5% of their income on lotteries, while wealthier households spend much less.

Race and Ethnicity:
Blacks and Native Americans have higher average days of lottery play compared to other groups.

Gender:
Males play the lottery more frequently than females.

Age:
Lottery play peaks in the twenties and thirties, then declines with age.

The odds: gambling is often referred to as "a tax for people that are bad at math". Here's your proof:

Here are some events more likely than winning the lottery:

Struck by Lightning: 1 in 186,978 chance annually.

Attacked by a Shark: 1 in 11.5 million.

Dying in a Car Accident: 1 in 67,003.

Winning an Olympic Gold Medal: 1 in 662,0005.

The odds of winning the Powerball jackpot are about 1 in 292.2 million.

Approximately 1% to 2.6% of the U. S. population has a gambling addiction, which translates to about 2 to 10 million people.

Bet with your head, not over it!

I don't think there is. Both fields revolve around questions who answers we can never really really be sure of, despite what some people think. Here are some examples:

Is there one god? No god? Lots of gods? (Religious question)

Do we have free will or are our actions determined by outside forces? (philosophical question)

What happens when we die? (religious question)

What is the nature of reality? (philosophical question)

Are all people created equal, or are some people naturally superior to others? (philosophical question)

Should we all submit to Allah? (Religious question)

The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans in this election is stark.
Democracy depends on at least two healthy political parties that can compete for voters on a level playing field. The founders hated the idea of political parties, but quickly figured out that parties tie voters to the mechanics of Congress and the presidency.
And they do far more than that. Parties allowed for the idea of loyal and legitimate opposition, which in turn allowed for the peaceful transition of power. That peaceful exchange enabled the people to choose their leaders and leaders to relinquish power safely. Parties also create a system for criticizing people in power, which helps to weed out corrupt or unfit leaders.
But those benefits of a party system depend on a level political playing field for everyone, so that a party must constantly compete for voters by testing which policies are most popular and getting rid of the corrupt or unstable leaders voters would reject.
In the 80s, radical Republican leaders set out to dismantle the government that regulated business, provided a basic social safety net, promoted infrastructure, and protected civil rights. But that system was popular, and to overcome the majority who favored it, they began to tip the political playing field in their direction. They began to suppress voting by Democrats by insisting that Democrats were engaging in “voter fraud.” They worked to delegitimize their opponents by calling them “socialists” or “communists”. By the 1990s, extremists in the party were taking power by purging traditional Republicans from it.
When a political party has so thoroughly walled itself off from the majority, there are two options. One is to become full-on authoritarian and suppress the majority, often with violence. Such a plan is in Project 2025, which calls for a strong executive to take control of the military and the judicial system and to use that power to impose his will. The other is for us to reject it.