Jump to content
Navv

General US Politics

Poll  

293 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      93
    • No
      121
    • Maybe
      79
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      51
    • No
      122
    • Indifferent
      49


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, De Geso said:

Lol what in the world are you talking about with all this nonsense? The middle red states grow corn, potatoes, and other crops which Americans eat and feed their livestock with. The service industry in New York only matters in New York. There are huge service and agriculture industries in Ohio as well, which is one of those swing states that EC abolitionists say "should not matter as much as they do."

The taxes from the blue states go back into feeding the welfare-infested cities that make up much of those blue states' populations. I wonder, which party might people on welfare vote for?

 

Nonsense? Check which states contribute the most to the federal budget. It is the Blue states subsidizing the Red states. Red states as a whole take more from the federal budget than Blue states, so do not act all high and mighty about Red states being self sufficient. My tax dollars goes towards the welfare of Blue states AND Red states. What the fuck has Red state farmers done for me? Corn and potatoes? Yeah, California surprisingly got those too AND more. I live in Sacramento and right outside the city are miles and miles of farmland with corn and potatoes AND fruits AND vegetables. We Californians are self sufficient. Red states are NOT.

I like the welfare and infrastructure in my California and I am proud to be a contributing citizen of this country. And what are Red state voters whining about? High taxes, high taxes, and high taxes! Red states are complaining about fucking high taxes when I and the Blue states are the ones working our butts off putting food on our Blue table AND subsidizing the food on their Red table. Red states are already paying super low taxes so why the fuck are they still complaining about taxes when I am the one paying for them? Roads, education, healthcare, etc. throughout the country all need someone to pay for them and I am footing part of their bill. I am still waiting on Trump making our infrastructure great again, but I do not think that dumb ass is going to do that, so the least I can do is to vote and pay for it at the state level so at least California is not going to end up like one of those shit hole Red states with shit roads, shit education, shit infrastructure, and shit holes everywhere. From our perspective, shit hole states are not very far from being the shit hole countries they despise so much.

Do I mind subsidizing Red states? No. But I DO mind when Red states are biting the hand that feeds them.

For fuck's sake Red states should show some respect to the breadwinners of this family and educate themselves and maybe work a little harder before opening their mouths. Every time they talk right now, they are just acting like lazy entitled brats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, De Geso said:

You didn't answer my question - I asked why the number of bodies should be the sole factor in the vote. Why shouldn't the group of people who contributes more to the welfare of the nation have more say? 

Because the right to vote in a social democracy derives from the idea that government should be representative of the will of the people; not from the utility of individual voters. 

The idea that a discreet-and-insular minority can claim superior voting rights to the general populace + govern against its will by virtue of holding what has been deemed a more important position in the social order of things is an undemocratic one.

...Thats Oligarchy...

[One Person = One Vote] is the gold standard for free and fair elections, and governments operating thereupon.

When you move away from that is when government reverts to advancing the interests of the privileged few over the needs of the general population. 

Which is the very problem of government malfeasance that voting rights and free elections are supposed to guard against in the first place. 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2019 at 9:49 AM, Shoblongoo said:

Also apply everything you just said to the Senate, because the electoral college is only half the problem. And if anything, focusing just on the electoral college understates it. 

Republicans got fewer votes then Democrats in 2016 and won the White House.
Republicans got fewer votes than Democrats in 2018 and held the Senate.

Democrats control one-half of 1 of the 3 branches of government despite being the people's choice now in two consecutive national elections.  

(I'm actually inclined to say the Senate is the more severe side of the problem here) 

Also DC/Puerto Rico/Virgin Islands/etc statehood, which would grant Senate seats to parts of the US that currently have no representation. It's absurd that the entire Legislative branch is stymied by a fucking turtle thanks to voters in Kentucky, of all places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument again goes both ways.

One side will want to argue "Why shouldn't the group of people who contributes more to the welfare of the nation have more say? " while referencing whatever they like to try to make their argument look good (these states provide agriculture, food, etc).

The other will ask "what the fuck are you talking about?" given how the states you're trying to benefit here are the states being subsidized the on Blue states Republicans keep hating on.

At the end of the day, Shoblongoo's right: you get an Oligarchy if you're looking to concentrate power among some because of some arbitrary criteria. Those who suggest going for the popular vote aren't looking to turn an oligarchy in their favor, the goal is fair election.

If the goal of the Blue states was to gain control over the Red States like some Republicans love to suggest, they would do so by getting rid of the subsidies they provide to the Red States and watch them sink under the failing Republican tax policies that were once again proven to be bad thanks to the Kansas tax experiment.

Kentucky is the 3rd most Federally dependent state and it is the state mostly at fault for breaking our politics due to their continuous voting for Mitch McConnell in the Senate.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

The argument again goes both ways.

One side will want to argue "Why shouldn't the group of people who contributes more to the welfare of the nation have more say? " while referencing whatever they like to try to make their argument look good (these states provide agriculture, food, etc).

The other will ask "what the fuck are you talking about?" given how the states you're trying to benefit here are the states being subsidized the on Blue states Republicans keep hating on.

At the end of the day, Shoblongoo's right: you get an Oligarchy if you're looking to concentrate power among some because of some arbitrary criteria. Those who suggest going for the popular vote aren't looking to turn an oligarchy in their favor, the goal is fair election.

If the goal of the Blue states was to gain control over the Red States like some Republicans love to suggest, they would do so by getting rid of the subsidies they provide to the Red States and watch them sink under the failing Republican tax policies that were once again proven to be bad thanks to the Kansas tax experiment.

Kentucky is the 3rd most Federally dependent state and it is the state mostly at fault for breaking our politics due to their continuous voting for Mitch McConnell in the Senate.

Emphasis on "arbitrary criteria"

The argument that the criteria for who is and is not a 'contributor',  as set forth by De Geso, is arbitrary and capricious is secondary to the primary argument that representation in government is not a thing to be earned by contributing enough to buy your way in. It is a fundamental equal right. 

...but as long as we're bringing up the criteria...

Image result for manufacturing by state"



I could say every industry needs planes, ships, and automobiles to move its goods and manpower; the states that are top produces of these things should have more voting power than the states that don't, because they contribute more to other states. 

I could say every industry needs telecommunications, data systems, and consumer electronics; the states that are top produces of these things should have more voting power than the states that don't, because they contribute more to other states. 

I could say everyone needs medicine and medical devices; the states that are top produces of these things should have more voting power than the states that don't, because they contribute more to other states. (it would be in my purely selfish best interest as a citizen of the state of NJ to say this)

_________

Singling out the agricultural sector and only the agricultural sector as productive contribution + so justifying the current system of disproportionate voting power is nothing more than mere pretense for ongoing disenfranchisement of the center-left majority vote. And skewing of public policy in favor of a backwater conservative minority, whose policy preferences are not wanted and would not be chosen by popular vote of the actual populace to-be-governed. 

 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The election fuckery of 2000, where it came down to 500 vote difference and a Supreme Court decision, should be more than enough reason for anyone to say fuck the EC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, XRay said:

Nonsense? Check which states contribute the most to the federal budget. It is the Blue states subsidizing the Red states. Red states as a whole take more from the federal budget than Blue states, so do not act all high and mighty about Red states being self sufficient. My tax dollars goes towards the welfare of Blue states AND Red states. What the fuck has Red state farmers done for me? Corn and potatoes? Yeah, California surprisingly got those too AND more. I live in Sacramento and right outside the city are miles and miles of farmland with corn and potatoes AND fruits AND vegetables. We Californians are self sufficient. Red states are NOT.

I like the welfare and infrastructure in my California and I am proud to be a contributing citizen of this country. And what are Red state voters whining about? High taxes, high taxes, and high taxes! Red states are complaining about fucking high taxes when I and the Blue states are the ones working our butts off putting food on our Blue table AND subsidizing the food on their Red table. Red states are already paying super low taxes so why the fuck are they still complaining about taxes when I am the one paying for them? Roads, education, healthcare, etc. throughout the country all need someone to pay for them and I am footing part of their bill. I am still waiting on Trump making our infrastructure great again, but I do not think that dumb ass is going to do that, so the least I can do is to vote and pay for it at the state level so at least California is not going to end up like one of those shit hole Red states with shit roads, shit education, shit infrastructure, and shit holes everywhere. From our perspective, shit hole states are not very far from being the shit hole countries they despise so much.

Do I mind subsidizing Red states? No. But I DO mind when Red states are biting the hand that feeds them.

For fuck's sake Red states should show some respect to the breadwinners of this family and educate themselves and maybe work a little harder before opening their mouths. Every time they talk right now, they are just acting like lazy entitled brats.

"Red states should show respect to the breadwinners," he says...outside of California, half of the country's food is produced in red states. Without the red states the rest of the blue states would have next to nothing (California's contribution is not sufficient to support the rest of the country on its own). Meanwhile, California has the highest number of SNAP recipients in the country (about 10 percent of the state's population).

Believe it or not, the case is not so simple: Yes, Americans in red states pay lower taxes per person, but their income is also much lower than that of the average Californian so the impact is greater. I suppose this would be obvious if you thought about it for more than a second, but given that you're a Californian I suppose "thinking ahead" is a challenging prospect.

California infrastructure is decidedly average or below average: https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/california/

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

Because the right to vote in a social democracy derives from the idea that government should be representative of the will of the people; not from the utility of individual voters. 

The idea that a discreet-and-insular minority can claim superior voting rights to the general populace + govern against its will by virtue of holding what has been deemed a more important position in the social order of things is an undemocratic one.

...Thats Oligarchy...

[One Person = One Vote] is the gold standard for free and fair elections, and governments operating thereupon.

When you move away from that is when government reverts to advancing the interests of the privileged few over the needs of the general population. 

Which is the very problem of government malfeasance that voting rights and free elections are supposed to guard against in the first place. 

But we don't live in a social democracy. We live in a representative republic.

One person to one vote leads to Ochlocracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, De Geso said:

 We live in a representative republic.

I'm aware. 18th century form of government in a 21st century community of nations.

Thats why we have so many problems in this country that the other First World Countries don't have 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tryhard said:

even putting aside the plutocratic nature of this (reminds me of the type of arguments that wanted to kept wealthy, white male land owners being the sole voters), this would imply that simply being a resident of a less populated area or state somehow means you contribute more, even if you are dirt poor and can't pay taxes, or are unemployed. (unless you are going to advocate that unemployed people shouldn't be allowed to vote, which by all means, go right ahead.)

this logic is all kinds of fucked. If I move from a city to a rural area in a different state, then suddenly my voting power should increase? Even if I got a similar job and similar living standards? Why?

you simply are trying to defend an undemocratic position. something that isn't very popular, hence why you may get the sense you are being dogpiled. because that's not a position I would want to defend even if I was wanting to play devil's advocate. i have a feeling you don't want a good faith argument though.

Not popular here, in an insulated leftist environment, does not mean unpopular the country over.

1 minute ago, Shoblongoo said:

I'm aware--18th century form of government in a 21st century community of nations.

Thats why we have so many problems in this country that the other First World Countries don't have 

My point is that you are arguing for a popular vote using the pretense that we live in a social democracy when we do not.

Once again, you ignored half my post (the more significant half). I suppose I shouldn't waste my time on you in the future, given your inability to properly understand what someone is saying to you.

Edited by De Geso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, De Geso said:

Not popular here, in an insulated leftist environment, does not mean unpopular the country over.

Support for the electoral college is like 44% or less while the popular vote is closer to 50% or more (Pew Research). And it's not really surprising that it's more of a partisan split because of events. It used to be above 60%.

https://www.people-press.org/2018/04/26/5-the-electoral-college-congress-and-representation/

But of course if we are going by the system in which the electoral college is a better idea than a popular vote that doesn't matter, ha ha ha.

38 minutes ago, De Geso said:

Once again, you ignored half my post (the more significant half). I suppose I shouldn't waste my time on you in the future, given your inability to properly understand what someone is saying to you.

Buddy, you've done this several times already. But keep responding, you are at least entertaining.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

17 minutes ago, De Geso said:

you are arguing for a popular vote using the pretense that we live in a social democracy when we do not

I am arguing for good government. You are acting like making law and public policy based on the minority opinions of small farming communities out in the hinterlands while neglecting the needs and preferences of the majority of people is a good way to run a country.

I am telling you it isn't.

And I am telling you that if we had an actual government representative of the country that it governed instead of a conservative oligarchy enabled by voter disenfranchisement of the major population centers:

...We'd have public funding of healthcare and higher education...
...We'd have less gun violence...
...We'd have fewer wars...
...We wouldn't have the worlds largest prison population...
...And we wouldn't have a criminal with 55% disapproval ratings in the White House protected by a Senate that will never remove him for any abuse-of-office or high crime... 


We would be an objectively better country if we updated our form-of-government to the 21st century. And stopped subjecting ourselves in perpetuity to backwater minority rule, on a theory that we can never do it any other way because thats just how our Gen 1 politicians back in the 1780s thought government should function. 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were in favor of oligarchy, I'd want to ditch democracy too. Why should the voices of other folks matter? Especially if they don't own land, or are owned by a true American agrarian business. Perhaps those plantation states ought to have more voting power because of all their hardworking property

15 minutes ago, De Geso said:

"Red states should show respect to the breadwinners," he says...outside of California, half of the country's food is produced in red states. Without the red states the rest of the blue states would have next to nothing (California's contribution is not sufficient to support the rest of the country on its own). 

Only half in red states? Uh oh.  that's um...where was that figure...

Quote

57 counties had a majority vote for Clinton in 2016. Out of 3,141

99% of the country, right? How do they feed all of those people? Maybe the "other half" of all the country's food in the blue states can help that deficit. What are they hoarding for anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, De Geso said:

"Red states should show respect to the breadwinners," he says...outside of California, half of the country's food is produced in red states. Without the red states the rest of the blue states would have next to nothing (California's contribution is not sufficient to support the rest of the country on its own). Meanwhile, California has the highest number of SNAP recipients in the country (about 10 percent of the state's population).

You do know that most of the food we create is either exported or used in things that aren't going to feed people, right? The red state farmers aren't responsible for feeding the entire country, they're in agriculture just cuz it's profitable. Like maybe 10% of the corn we create is eaten as corn-- most of corn's food production is high-fructose corn syrup, which is not something you can survive on. Every state has some form of food production, coastal states have large fishing & aquaculture industries, for instance. Also farming in general is becoming less and less profitable/sustainable under Republican policies, like the tariffs with China. Red states constantly vote against their own interests while requiring federal funding to bail their industries out.

14 minutes ago, De Geso said:

My point is that you are arguing for a popular vote using the pretense that we live in a social democracy when we do not.

That's one way to admit you don't understand why he said that. Power should not be delegated to states based on something as fluid as economic status. It should also not be as blatantly unbalanced as to give a person in one state 20 times the voting power of a person in another. There are major issues with voter disenfranchisement and gerrymandering in these red and swing states, which amplifies the imbalance of voting power. Using an antiquated system for elections allows these issues to persist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, De Geso said:

"Red states should show respect to the breadwinners," he says...outside of California, half of the country's food is produced in red states. Without the red states the rest of the blue states would have next to nothing (California's contribution is not sufficient to support the rest of the country on its own). Meanwhile, California has the highest number of SNAP recipients in the country (about 10 percent of the state's population).

 

Bro.... if California were its own country it would be the sixth largest economy in the world. California is a leader in produce and poultry, home to the busiest international ports which is over in LAX/Long Beach. Shit, even New York state is a leader in flour and bread-products. Granted, the red states have access to most of the oil through Texas and North Dakota but that's about it as far as the red's contributions to the country goes.

Manufacturing right now is in its biggest recession since the economic crisis of 2009. Most of the manufacturing sector went red in the election and now they're paying for it. I know this because I've been a freight broker for four years and run my own show in the industry - I have to read into these kinds of things every day to stay relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just putting some hard numbers to the issue here to illustrate the severity of what we're actually talking about, because its easy to lose sight of the forest through the trees when you aren't talking hard numbers.

There are 578,000 people in the state of Wyoming. They have 2 Senators.

737,000 people in Alaska. 2 Senators.

760,000 in North Dakota. 2 Senators.

882,000 in South Dakota. 2 Senators.

1 million in Montana. 2 Senators.

Thats four million people in five states. They send 10 Senators to Congress and have 10% of the say in lawmaking, court appointments, and impeachment.
__________


...There are 10 million people in the city of Los Angeles...

The City of Los Angeles alone would send 25 Senators to Congress, if its population was (over)represented at the same levels as small red states 

 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, De Geso said:

"Red states should show respect to the breadwinners," he says...outside of California, half of the country's food is produced in red states. Without the red states the rest of the blue states would have next to nothing (California's contribution is not sufficient to support the rest of the country on its own). Meanwhile, California has the highest number of SNAP recipients in the country (about 10 percent of the state's population).

The most heavily populated states having the highest number on paper is a typical thing because you know, they have the highest numbers overall. But when you look at it by percentage of the population, you yourself admit that California's case is 10% and if we want to see which states are most dependent on SNAP based on the percentage of the population requiring SNAP, well there you go.

All this talk of which states are most dependent on X, which states contribute more of X is just more evidence that anything but the popular vote will just lead to endless debate as to which contribution deserves the most power. Having the vote equal for each individual puts a stop to all that.

Also, according to the orange turd, the popular vote is "easier to win than the electoral votes". If so, why aren't the Republicans for the popular vote?

LOL they really know how fucked they should be

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

all that shit which conveniently avoids my inquiry and argument yet again

Lol

56 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:

If I were in favor of oligarchy, I'd want to ditch democracy too. Why should the voices of other folks matter? Especially if they don't own land, or are owned by a true American agrarian business. Perhaps those plantation states ought to have more voting power because of all their hardworking property

Only half in red states? Uh oh.  that's um...where was that figure...

99% of the country, right? How do they feed all of those people? Maybe the "other half" of all the country's food in the blue states can help that deficit. What are they hoarding for anyway?

I misspoke, and it's fair to point that out. My point was that the top 50% of food producing states are red per 2016 outside of California - ten states. The blue states produce comparatively meager amounts (mainly New York, despite its over-representation given its size and contributions to the nation)

55 minutes ago, Johann said:

That's one way to admit you don't understand why he said that. Power should not be delegated to states based on something as fluid as economic status. It should also not be as blatantly unbalanced as to give a person in one state 20 times the voting power of a person in another. There are major issues with voter disenfranchisement and gerrymandering in these red and swing states, which amplifies the imbalance of voting power. Using an antiquated system for elections allows these issues to persist.

I fully understood why he said that, but he is an idiot who said it to avoid rebutting my argument (which he has shown that he is apt to do). He mentioned the right to vote in a social democracy which has no bearing on the argument at hand because we do not live in a socially democratic country.

Here is the chain for those who are unable to comprehend (a common trend here!)

I asked Ursaring why the number of people is the most important factor.

He said it is because a social democracy is a government whose decisions are made on the will of all people, not the utility of its voters.

I told him, "We don't live in a social democracy, that wasn't the point of the discussion, and furthermore social democracy leads to Ochlocracy."

He then failed to address this and blabbered on about "our problems." I called him out for this, and he continues to fail to address my actual points because he is incapable of doing so.

Also - no, of course economic status should not be the sole factor...and it isn't!

17 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

The most heavily populated states having the highest number on paper is a typical thing because you know, they have the highest numbers overall. But when you look at it by percentage of the population, you yourself admit that California's case is 10% and if we want to see which states are most dependent on SNAP based on the percentage of the population requiring SNAP, well there you go.

Here I was expecting a red wave to challenge women's bathrooms in liberal arts colleges one week out of the month! And yet, we see...a healthy mix of blue, red, and swing states (plus DC).

That all being said - I never intended this to turn into a dick-measuring contest between red and blue states. My point was that we cannot ignore those who live in "backwater farmer states" simply because there are fewer of them.

Edited by De Geso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, De Geso said:

I fully understood why he said that, but he is an idiot who said it to avoid rebutting my argument (which he has shown that he is apt to do). He mentioned the right to vote in a social democracy which has no bearing on the argument at hand because we do not live in a socially democratic country.

Here is the chain for those who are unable to comprehend (a common trend here!)

I asked Ursaring why the number of people is the most important factor.

He said it is because a social democracy is a government whose decisions are made on the will of all people, not the utility of its voters.

I told him, "We don't live in a social democracy, that wasn't the point of the discussion, and furthermore social democracy leads to Ochlocracy."

He then failed to address this and blabbered on about "our problems." I called him out for this, and he continues to fail to address my actual points because he is incapable of doing so.

Yeah, you still missed the point: The method of selecting our leaders can be changed. The problems he pointed out are directly tied to how our governing bodies are selected. 

Comparing social democracy to mob rule is pretty absurd. One favors creating universal equality (which is vital for healthy democracy), and the other favors their own exclusive interests.

24 minutes ago, De Geso said:

That all being said - I never intended this to turn into a dick-measuring contest between red and blue states. My point was that we cannot ignore those who live in "backwater farmer states" simply because there are fewer of them.

I know this was your main intent, but you went pretty far off the rails. The trouble is that "backwater farmer states" vote against their own interests and everyone else has to suffer for it. Giving them an absurdly disproportionate amount of power in elections does nothing to help them, and instead sets them back further. The irony here is that their dilemma is much closer to your idea of ochlocracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, De Geso said:

"Red states should show respect to the breadwinners," he says...outside of California, half of the country's food is produced in red states. Without the red states the rest of the blue states would have next to nothing (California's contribution is not sufficient to support the rest of the country on its own). Meanwhile, California has the highest number of SNAP recipients in the country (about 10 percent of the state's population).

Almost every Blue state has enough food production to feed itself. We do not need Red state agricultural production to survive. We can afford to depend on trade with allies and import food from friends instead of shamelessly begging and kissing the filthy feet of Communist swine. If Trump had any sense of balls and masculinity, he would have an embargo against China right now, but no, that pussy is bowing his head and spreading his legs so he can have a fucking partial trade deal that benefits those assholes more than it benefits us. We can let all the Red states form their own disgusting Confederacy and we would still dominate the traitors in terms of GDP and GDP per capita. Without the Red states, we would still remain the largest economy in the world; even if the Red states joined the Communist pigs, we would still dominate Red Dawn in GDP and GDP per capita. That is how massive America's economy is and Blue states are the ones trying to keep it that way. 

We have the highest number of SNAP recipients in the country because we have the largest population in the country and Californians make up about 10% of the entire freaking country. If you look at the states with the highest percentage of population on SNAP, it is dominated by Red states. Unlike Red states whose only interest in "ME! ME! ME!" we actually care about our fellow countrymen and support welfare to help the poor and needy. These downtrodden people already have enough shit and shame to deal with and I do not mind giving them a hand to help them pull out of poverty.

1 hour ago, De Geso said:

Believe it or not, the case is not so simple: Yes, Americans in red states pay lower taxes per person, but their income is also much lower than that of the average Californian so the impact is greater. I suppose this would be obvious if you thought about it for more than a second, but given that you're a Californian I suppose "thinking ahead" is a challenging prospect.

Gee, I wonder why their income is so low? Take a hint, get a better education and job and, I do not know, maybe join a freaking union and strengthen them. Cannot afford an education? Try making it low cost or free. Do not have a job? Then what the fuck are Republicans doing with MY money that is supposed to be subsidizing YOUR job and dinner table? Have shit unions? Try voting for a better politician, which also help tackle the previous two problems.

 
1 hour ago, De Geso said:

California infrastructure is decidedly average or below average: https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/california/

 

Yeah, I agree that California does not have the best infrastructure, and that is why we are raising taxes to fix our own shit like a man. I have voted for hiking taxes on gas to repair our roads.

However, I do not see Red states doing their share and spending money on my state despite using our roads and ports to export their soybeans to pigs across the ocean.

10 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

All this talk of which states are most dependent on X, which states contribute more of X is just more evidence that anything but the popular vote will just lead to endless debate as to which contribution deserves the most power. Having the vote equal for each individual puts a stop to all that.

You know what I think? Fuck the popular vote. With the way we are spoken to and treated with disrespect, I would argue our votes should matter more because we are feeding the people on both sides of the aisle. Across the aisle, they have done nothing for at this point besides shoving Vodka bottles up their ass and sleeping with Communist pigs.

Sarcasm aside, I still lean towards the popular vote, for now, even if I do not think the other side deserves it.

7 minutes ago, De Geso said:

Here I was expecting a red wave to challenge women's bathrooms in liberal arts colleges one week out of the month! And yet, we see...a healthy mix of blue, red, and swing states (plus DC).

I was not expecting having to do math and educate either. I thought my tax dollars would be sufficient, but I guess if you want something done you have to do it yourself.

1. New Mexico
2. Louisiana
3. West Virginia
4. District of Columbia
5. Oregon
6. Mississippi
7. Alabama
8. Georgia
9. Tennessee
10. Delware
11. Oklahoma
12. Florida You wanted Florida, so it is your problem now.
13. Nevada
14. Kentucky
15. Illinois

6 out of 15 states are Blue while 9 are Red, and one of the Blue "states" is a literal city with little no more land beyond that to grow food and not a real state. In the top 14, 9 states (64%) are Red. If you look at the top ten real states, 7 out of 10 are Red.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, XRay said:

Communist swine

10 minutes ago, XRay said:

the Communist pigs

11 minutes ago, XRay said:

pigs across the ocean

12 minutes ago, XRay said:

sleeping with Communist pigs

zeSqSmsyJt9wfy_aJWB0KZH9hc0=.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, De Geso said:

That all being said - I never intended this to turn into a dick-measuring contest between red and blue states. My point was that we cannot ignore those who live in "backwater farmer states" simply because there are fewer of them.

Like I said before, Republican talking points have a tendency of making someone unwittingly argue things that don't add up the way you think they do.

A popular vote doesn't automatically result in the smaller states being ignored. Smaller states and the minority in general have a lot of power as is. Let's take for example the biggest issue of all: Corporate money in politics.

As far back as 2012, 81% of the people surveyed on the matter thought that the campaign spending rules are "bad for democracy" and that sentiment hasn't changed very much today as you can ask anyone and most will agree that our politicians are bought by companies. A solution to this is a constitutional amendment to rule out corporate PACs and donations and for that you need 2/3 majority support in congress or a convention called by 2/3 of the state legislature and with the current Senate rules and majority in place, the numbers don't even matter because Mitch McConnell himself can just block any debate.

Let that sink in, the minority of the country has the power to stop legislation that over 2/3 of the country want. You talk to about a potential disenfranchisement of the smaller states while there's disenfranchisement when it comes to voting for every state that isn't a Swing state. That's not even going into detail how the orange turd and the current administration is basically saying "Fuck you" to states that didn't vote for Trump, specially California even though such states are actually contributing more money to the government... money that the orange turd is funneling to his pockets with all those golf trips. Money that was used to pay the fine of $100,000 when Betsy Devos was held in contempt (which she could've payed herself obviously but it still came out of the Taxpayer's dime).

48.18% of those who voted saw Trump for the racist con man he actually is, many simply choosing the lesser of 2 evils. 46.09% said nuts to that and voted for him for various reasons, most of them not being very good. At the end of the day, both sides pay for his fuck ups even though the majority chose to reject him.

Lastly, I want to re-iterate a presidential candidate can win both the Popular AND Electoral vote but still not get the Presidency because the Electors gave the vote to Candidate X even though their state voted for Candidate Y. It's a really bad Pandora's box just waiting to happen and defenders of the Electoral College don't even consider removing this issue out of the equation.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Johann said:

Yeah, you still missed the point: The method of selecting our leaders can be changed.

Thank you.

40 minutes ago, De Geso said:

I told him, "We don't live in a social democracy, that wasn't the point of the discussion, and furthermore social democracy leads to Ochlocracy."

Okay--stop. Don't go any further.

A responsive argument has been made that although we were founded as a 'republic,' this is now an antiquated form of 18th century government that other first world countries do not use; favoring instead social democracy as a freer and fairer form of representative government.

We can also choose to do this.

And we could actually make real advancement on issues where we've been politically stagnant for decades if we modernized our electoral system to one-person-one-vote, instead of sticking with a state-based model of representation that lets ~30-40% national opposition indefinitely block reforms supported by ~60-70% of the country.  

A responsive answer from you would now be to argue why you believe we shouldn't do this. And why you believe we are better governed when ~30-40% national opposition can indefinitely block reforms supported by ~60-70% of the country. On issue after issue after issue where you can look at the polls and see ~60-70% of the country is opposed to what our government is doing. Because the way we've structured lawmaking power in the Senate is such that ~30-40% national opposition is a legislative majority.  

I invite you to give a responsive answer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Johann said:

zeSqSmsyJt9wfy_aJWB0KZH9hc0=.gif

They took my Blizzard and ruined the company forever, so I am taking their name and plowing it through the pigsty as much as I can. They steal our ideas, they steal our manufacturing, and they spit our food back at our farmers. It is absolutely personal.

But I will apologize to pigs everywhere for comparing such a vile government to such a tasty animal. Bacon is still one of my favorite meats.

Free Hong Kong Forever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Lastly, I want to re-iterate a presidential candidate can win both the Popular AND Electoral vote but still not get the Presidency because the Electors gave the vote to Candidate X even though their state voted for Candidate Y. It's a really bad Pandora's box just waiting to happen and defenders of the Electoral College don't even consider removing this issue out of the equation.

You know what bites about us having electors rather than distributing electoral votes dispassionately as they have been earned? The punishment for being a faithless elector doesn't sound very strict. They face fines, but never jail time. A couple thou for attempting to obstruct a national election. And most electors are kind of wealthy, or at least appointed by wealthy sponsors. 

10 minutes ago, XRay said:

They took my Blizzard and ruined the company forever, so I am taking their name and plowing it through the pigsty as much as I can. They steal our ideas, they steal our manufacturing, and they spit our food back at our farmers. It is absolutely personal.

But I will apologize to pigs everywhere for comparing such a vile government to such a tasty animal. Bacon is still one of my favorite meats.

Free Hong Kong Forever

I wish even half of the folks upset about Blizzard could channel their "heated gamer moments" into political action, but then again the narrative is so easy to warp here on the internet. Some of the memes and screengrabs of channers I've seen deny any similarity between Hong Kong and anti fascist movements in the US because antifa  "actually supports communist rule". Like it's some kind of company. With a mission statement. And a donation link. Or a twitter account. Those poor kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tryhard said:

even putting aside the plutocratic nature of this (reminds me of the type of arguments that wanted to kept wealthy, white male land owners being the sole voters), this would imply that simply being a resident of a less populated area or state somehow means you contribute more, even if you are dirt poor and can't pay taxes, or are unemployed. (unless you are going to advocate that unemployed people shouldn't be allowed to vote, which by all means, go right ahead.)

this logic is all kinds of fucked. If I move from a city to a rural area in a different state, then suddenly my voting power should increase? Even if I got a similar job and similar living standards? Why?

you simply are trying to defend an undemocratic position. something that isn't very popular, hence why you may get the sense you are being dogpiled. because that's not a position I would want to defend even if I was wanting to play devil's advocate. i have a feeling you don't want a good faith argument though.

I mean, we can argue about the value of not totally suppressing minority groups in a political system, but saying the electoral college as undemocratic is just dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...