I disagree on most of your opinions. Also many of your "facts" are wrong.

>Cities should not dictate laws to the countryside and vice versa.

Again with the should. I simply disagree. Laws are about people, not geography.

>This is why we are supposed to have a decentralized system of government.

Stupid irrelevant argument. You don't need an unrepresentative political system to have decentralized political power. The US system is both decentralized and unrepresentative. You can easily keep it decentralized while making it more representative.

>Your primary law making should happen at a local level. Larger issues go to the states, issues yet larger go to the nation.

I don't like the way you worded the first sentence but I largely agree. The largest, most democratically legitimate body should set laws that can be widely agreed upon then delegate other decisions to smaller, more local, governments.

>Pure democracy is just tyranny of the majority.

What does that even mean? Define pure democracy.

>People should care more about their local elections than whatever dufus from either rival gang that just wants to extort and scam you while blaming the other gang is in the white house.

Depends on the issues they care about. Local governments matter a lot, but it's federal and state governments that make the majority of decisions on major issues like criminal justice, major taxes, environment regulations, broad economic, military, and foreign policy, and basic civil rights. If the most important elections in your life are local elections, you are probably a super privileged person.

Well you're correct that I'm not in finance. Wrong on the other two.

You also have to keep in mind that this is personal finance in the context of Instagram/Facebook.

Like I actually value personal finance for myself, but I'm not getting any of my personal finance information from these sources. Much of the personal finance content on these platforms is just wealth porn, hustle culture, and get rich quick scheme type stuff.

>Do you think that personal finance provides no value to those that weren’t born rich?

Of course not. Saving for the future is very useful even for poor people, it's just not exactly groundbreaking advice and it's not enough to fix all your problems within the context of being a poor person in America.

>The electoral college works exactly as it should though.

Only if I agree with you on how it should work in the first place, but I very much disagree.

>Proportional representation doesn't work when cities can have the same population as whole states.

Define "doesn't work". I would argue giving more representation to cities with populations larger than whole state is proportional representation working.

>Statehood of DC is a stupid idea and the same with US territories. Just Dem tricks to buy even more dem voters.

So letting US citizens vote is some evil Democrat conspiracy? That's your argument?

Like I said, wanting more representative democracy skews heavily towards the Democrats.

>Ever wonder why the Ukraine border is sacred and must be defended but the southern border is to be left open so 80k Hondurans can run across every month? And guess how they'll vote.

Trying to change the subject with something completely irrelevant? Stay on topic, coward.

>Representative democracy only works with small, homogeneous societies.

Prove it.

>Parenting seems heavily R biased. I didn’t think parenting would be political

It's easy to fear monger to parents and having children, especially at young ages, has got to skew Republican. Democrats tend to be more educated, which means they often postpone having children or don't have children at all.

>Electoral Reform seems heavily D biased. I thought republicans made most noise about corrupt voting processes etc?

Republicans only oppose corrupt/undemocratic voting processes when it doesn't favour them. They are fine with the electoral college, gerrymandering, disenfranchisement of black voters, a very unrepresentative senate electoral process, DC and US territories not being allowed to vote for certain elections, and plurality voting. Most Republicans won't even admit many of these things are problems.

Basically anyone interested in electoral reform in the US would vote Democrat and the democrats are probably advertising to both raise awareness of these issues and get people who care about them out to vote.

Electoral reform isn't just about voter ID system, it's about gerrymandering, fixing/abolishing the electoral college, proportional representation, statehood for DC and US territories, disenfranchisement of black voters through the criminal justice system, etc.

Wanting more representative democracy in America skews heavily towards the Democrats.

Makes sense to me.

Finance is about systems and the overall economy. People who work in finance or are interested in finance are generally more educated. Not to be too spicy, but most people interested in finance are smart/educated enough to know the Republican economic policy is terrible for the economy.

Personal finance is about personal responsibility. Most of the advice boils down to "start rich and/or save your money, then all you problems will magically be solved, if that didn't work, you weren't trying hard enough". It's big with the small business and "temorarily disgraced capitalist" crowd. It plays pretty strongly to the Republican base.

Does mean that Spain produces the best olive oils or that Spain decides what counts as the best olive oils?

This kind of feels like any other "best" competition, where a group of producers get together and decides that shockingly their version of whatever product is the "best". Obvious examples include alcohols like wine or beer, where the concept of best is highly subjective.

It's a tax haven for the EU, so many large companies have "located" their profits in Ireland.

It also has a major housing bubble pushing up asset prices across the board.

Canada is in a similar situation, our GDP looks high but our economy is in shambles.