As a person who's organized petitions for widely felt issues, the impact isn't strictly from a raw percentage of participation (though it's a significant factor when that number is large). The impact comes from the number of people involved. Of the roughly 1 million doctors in the country, 1% were so against the concept that they chose to take direct action.
If that many people were moved to action, how many are against it but not ready or willing to fight? How many felt it wouldn't matter if they signed? How many more didn't hear about it?
Not sure what you mean, Buddhists are some of the best activists out there. Buddhism believes in the Middle Way. By avoiding suffering, you are denying yourself enlightenment. However seeking/creating unnecessary suffering is also bad.
This company is a genuine menace and one we all need to know well. On the scale of United. RealPage is for "property management", i.e. landlord software. There are several lawsuits with allegations of price fixing, monopoly, etc. they're a very significant factor as to why rent is so fucking expensive and why it keeps increasing at insane rates. They'll never collect the data, but they're responsible for creating countless homeless people.
I won't give any spoilers, because I also recently finished ds9 for the first time. There's a couple moments, one with Kasidy in particular, that makes this episode even more important as social commentary in my eyes. I hope you get something similar from that moment.
The foreign money in our elections are definitely a big factor when it comes to this topic for sure, especially when discussing the GOP. However when discussing the Democratic Party, it's not nearly as big a factor as the billionaires appointing delegates and super delegates. If there's one theme I've noticed over the last 4 years in regards to party structure, it's that the GOP has barely any money but the Democrats continue to get millions from the wealthy. Since our elections cater to put money in the hands of corporations, this directs both parties to provide for their sources of funding. For the GOP, that means fascism. For the Democrats, it's clinging to the same neoliberalism that produced the mess we've been in for 50 years.
I don't know if you're being sarcastic, but I feel all of those options are reductionist in some capacity and creates an illusion that a single tactical change would have altered the outcome. An election and what it takes to sway opinion is multifaceted and requires a diversity of tactics. To me, the problem is systemic and embedded in the party, which encompasses several of the points you think I solely blame. Namely, the oligarchic control over the party via delegates and super-delegates creates a dichotomy between the party's base of support and the desires of the billionaires holding the purse strings.
Personally, I think a bulk of the fault is on the political parties that produced the last 3 elections, and where most of the attention needs to be. There is certainly some fault with the public, but some of that also goes back to the political parties failing to produce and maintain the advanced political awareness needed to be an informed citizen in the US. The Democrats will not accept responsibility for their failures, and has proven to be the less robust party despite the GOP facing bankruptcy.
As a person who's organized petitions for widely felt issues, the impact isn't strictly from a raw percentage of participation (though it's a significant factor when that number is large). The impact comes from the number of people involved. Of the roughly 1 million doctors in the country, 1% were so against the concept that they chose to take direct action.
If that many people were moved to action, how many are against it but not ready or willing to fight? How many felt it wouldn't matter if they signed? How many more didn't hear about it?