|
Trabisnikof posted:Setting aside the factual inaccuracies of your statement (not even all citizens get to vote). You can't really argue against a values mismatch with a technicality. Sure people vote then states vote, but my vote matters less because I don't live in a rural state. That's a fundamental incongruity with our stated values of one person one vote.
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 09:14 |
|
|
Paradoxish posted:It's not "fair," but there's more merit to it than you're letting on. The US is a huge country and regional interests are going to vary from place to place. Assigning all representation purely on population would make it legitimately difficult for large parts of the country to have their interests heard. California and New York shouldn't be able to dictate policy to the rest of the country.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:As someone who lives in a more rural state with a lower population; a lot of stuff we do here matters less because of it. Again as I said earlier, states are more than simply the sum of their population. You're still dodging the point that this is about the failure of our institutions to live up to our values. Of course you want more power for your community, but giving you that power by giving you more electoral power is counter to our values.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Clearly the solution is to just divide California into five states to crowd out the midwest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
Well, Californian Democrats think Calexit is a thing so good for them I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:i mean i've tried talking to you like an adult Oh for god's sake.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:There are no significant cultural differences between North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Combined, they have less than 1/3 the population of California. They should never have been separate states when they joined the union. Your argument promoting parity of state power regardless of state population must consider what it means to be a state in the first place, and how they came to be as they are. I don't disagree with any of this, but it goes both ways. I live in CT, which is an insanely populous state given its small geographic size (something like 4th or 5th by density), but our political interests are basically aligned with the (also very dense) states around us. Should we also consolidate New England?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Let's deliberately kneecap ourselves by holding to a bunch of rules thought up by people who lived before the industrial revolution
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You're still dodging the point that this is about the failure of our institutions to live up to our values. The quote "one man, one vote" you are declaring as "our values" is in reference to congressional districts within states, reinforcing my position that "our values" are those of a representative democracy, not a total democracy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
rscott posted:Let's deliberately kneecap ourselves by holding to a bunch of rules thought up by people who lived before the industrial revolution How about we refight the Democratic primary for the next 2 years, purely through use of counterfactuals?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
It's bizarre. Let's say we all agree that the EC is poo poo then what. It's not like we have the ability to change the set up, I honestly can't believe the fact that moderates are willing to throw out every excuse - the rural poor, the EC, the racists etc. and can't face up to the fact that HRC was an incredibly lovely candidate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I don't disagree with any of this, but it goes both ways. I live in CT, which is an insanely populous state given its small geographic size (something like 4th or 5th by density), but our political interests are basically aligned with the (also very dense) states around us. Should we also consolidate New England? No, the rest of us don't loving want you
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:As pointed out, it was her turn in 2008 and Obama beat her. Unless we're going to keep saying that Hillary somehow conjured up 3.5 million votes to win the primary but couldn't rig the general to the tune of a couple hundred thousand, I don't think the content of the messsage was the problem so much as the delivery (or perhaps more likely, a lack of proper preparation as LK pointed out). This is why I've been stressing that you can replace all the people you want in the DNC, but it won't matter if you can't convince enough people. Unless it just so happens that the people who didn't vote Hilary and stayed home out of discouragement just wanted all the stuff Bernie was pushing and not any other reason for staying home like voter suppression or the never-ending scandal wars, and that all those people voting would offset anybody discouraged enough to not vote for whatever (probably bad) reason because they didn't like the platform. But that's all theoretical. Obama was a democrat in the same party while Sanders was not. This means there are established relationships within the Democratic Party which goes a long way. Clinton was paraded as the continuation of Obama's polices/legacy, many of which people are beginning to criticize as lackluster to explain the election results. Sanders came into the party as an outsider and literally could not throw stones at the democratic establishment he usually supported less it be ammunition for Republicans. He literally came into the race handicapped and then some. I don't think coming into the party earlier would help as the establishment was not fond of Sanders. His strength was that he was an outsider but it was his weakness as well. It was quite amazing he did so well but it was ultimately doomed from the start.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
NC GOV update: NC GOP is trying to challenge some votes in Durham County but so far has been denied by the election boards (which are full of McCrory appointees). Basically it's looking like now Cooper could have above the 10,000 vote lead which would make it so that there would be no recount. He's at like 9900+ votes ahead currently. The more interesting note is the state GOP saying that the supposed option for the State Legislature to claim that the results are 'contested' and thus re-elect McCrory is not on the table. That's the first time they have commented on this that I know of. http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/election/article117691708.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
CheeseSpawn posted:Obama was a democrat in the same party while Sanders was not. This means there are established relationships within the Democratic Party which goes a long way. Clinton was paraded as the continuation of Obama's polices/legacy, many of which people are beginning to criticize as lackluster to explain the election results. Sanders came into the party as an outsider and literally could not throw stones at the democratic establishment he usually supported less it be ammunition for Republicans. He literally came into the race handicapped and then some. I don't think coming into the party earlier would help as the establishment was not fond of Sanders. His strength was that he was an outsider but it was his weakness as well. It was quite amazing he did so well but it was ultimately doomed from the start. True, and even though he was a relative newcomer Obama was seen as a rising star. These are points I admittedly didn't consider, but it also speaks to the problem of Democrats needing to convey authenticity going forward, if there aren't enough new faces to help carry a more progressive message forward. While Hilary did adopt a lot of Sanders' plan, she was seen as inauthentic and it cost her.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I don't disagree with anything of this, but it goes both ways. I live in CT, which is an insanely populous state given its small geographic size (something like 4th or 5th by density), but our political interests are basically aligned with the (also very dense) states around us. Should we also consolidate New England?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
rscott posted:Let's deliberately kneecap ourselves by holding to a bunch of rules thought up by people who lived before the industrial revolution Not just people, people from one of the richest lands, who went or were sent to their resource extraction areas in a "virgin land ripe for the plucking", and had the sudden realization that they could cut out the middle man back in the UK. A realization in response to the UK saying "we just fought a war for you guys, could you cool it with the smuggling, and maybe pay some taxes?" Listen, cool it amped up some good ideas like democratic government and human rights, but these people were not gods.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
rscott posted:Like, holy poo poo it's 2016 and our constitution has pretty much remained the same since the late 18th century. The whole thing should have been torn up and done over a hundred years ago. FDR tried with his Second Bill of Rights but he got hosed over.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
CheeseSpawn posted:Obama was a democrat in the same party while Sanders was not. This means there are established relationships within the Democratic Party which goes a long way. Clinton was paraded as the continuation of Obama's polices/legacy, many of which people are beginning to criticize as lackluster to explain the election results. Sanders came into the party as an outsider and literally could not throw stones at the democratic establishment he usually supported less it be ammunition for Republicans. He literally came into the race handicapped and then some. I don't think coming into the party earlier would help as the establishment was not fond of Sanders. His strength was that he was an outsider but it was his weakness as well. It was quite amazing he did so well but it was ultimately doomed from the start. Clinton was not Obama and never will be She did the same poo poo she did 2008 primary She will always be remembered as the Democrat's hurricane Katrina
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:NC GOV update: NC GOP is trying to challenge some votes in Durham County but so far has been denied by the election boards (which are full of McCrory appointees). Basically it's looking like now Cooper could have above the 10,000 vote lead which would make it so that there would be no recount. He's at like 9900+ votes ahead currently. RIP Mayor McCheese
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
The constitution is all that's standing between you and Trumpageddon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
2008 Clinton was not that great of a candidate and she didn't get better with another 8 years of baggage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
Kind of wonder what the country would be like if FDR did get his way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:True, and even though he was a relative newcomer Obama was seen as a rising star. These are points I admittedly didn't consider, but it also speaks to the problem of Democrats needing to convey authenticity going forward, if there aren't enough new faces to help carry a more progressive message forward. While Hilary did adopt a lot of Sanders' plan, she was seen as inauthentic and it cost her. Right. Yes, relitigating the primary is pointless, but failing to realize that you had an upsurge of leftists willing to start pissing out the tent instead of in and then blaming them for daring to question that it wasn't all sunshine and roses during Obama is one of the many things that's led to us here. I remember in the primary where during a debate, Clinton tore into Sanders for having vocalized his problems with the ACA, and floating a primary run in 2008. And then touted Kissinger as a model. It's not fair to only blame Clinton, but this type of rhetoric is one of the million smoking guns that's led us here, not people failing to hail Abuela enough.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:I think the original 13 states obviously get a pass. They were distinct entities for a very long time before the U.S. was formed. It is the ones that came later that were arbitrarily assigned (or not so arbitrarily assigned, as the ruling parties were perfectly aware of the outsized power that would be given to new rural states - they purposefully made more than necessary to dilute the urban state votes). And there's no practical way you could sell this without it looking like a blatant attempt to reduce Republican representation, which obviously isn't going to fly so long as Republicans still have any power at all. Rhode Island is the 43rd smallest state by population and geographically tiny, so how do you justify leaving it with two Senate seats while consolidating a state like Nebraska, which has twice its population?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:Clinton was not Obama and never will be Yes for many reasons including the EC, Democrats need to run the best politician in a generation in order to win, while Republicans only need to run a barely literate con-artist. HRC vs Sanders is a moot point, without a literal Obama 2 then Trump was a shoo-in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I don't disagree with any of this, but it goes both ways. I live in CT, which is an insanely populous state given its small geographic size (something like 4th or 5th by density), but our political interests are basically aligned with the (also very dense) states around us. Should we also consolidate New England? No way in hell am I sharing a state with a bunch of Massholes. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Enjoy your new states ASSHOLES
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:2008 Clinton was not that great of a candidate and she didn't get better with another 8 years of baggage. Not to mention Hillary did jack poo poo for downtickets. Hilbots were complaining about how Sanders should just drop out since he was hurting them too before the truth came out. Surprise! They were hosed to begin with and probably were better off with the outsider.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:The constitution is all that's standing between you and Trumpageddon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:Yes for many reasons including the EC, Democrats need to run the best politician in a generation in order to win, while Republicans only need to run a barely literate con-artist. HRC vs Sanders is a moot point, without a literal Obama 2 then Trump was a shoo-in. You don't need to run the best people You just need the ones who rhetorically refer to themselves as political outsiders Obama did this and so did Reagan and Bush
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Here is the correct solution
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
no way in Hell is that part of the country going to consent to being called King.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:Enjoy your new states ASSHOLES I'll accept this only if we get to call our Governor Lord Baltimore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
I'm reminded of a bit I used to love back in my lovely edgy shock jock radio loving days. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8SkOm7WF2U RIP Patrice 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/cjwerleman/status/804078816414953472
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
I don't really understand all the hubbub about the electoral college. I mean, I do, but I don't think discussion about it now is very productive. We've all known how stupid it is for many years, but neither party wants to get rid of it because they both think they know the best way to use it to their advantage. The electoral college bit the Democrats in the rear end in 2000, but during Obama's 8 years the party didn't push any kind of electoral reform and, what do you know, it bit them in the rear end again in 2016. Now Republicans won't want anything to do with it because they plan on incumbent Trump winning the EC again, especially looking at the popular vote from this year. So your hopes of electoral reform lie future senators and congressmen who campaign on electoral reform, and a future president who might make it a priority (most likely a democrat). So the fight then is in the midterms, and trying to elect progressive congressman and senators who will in the future be able to vote for electoral reform if it comes around. And I would expect that if the Dems started pushing electoral reform, Republicans would fight it tooth and nail and what the SCOTUS looks like at that time will have a huge impact. I guess what I'm trying to say is that while many criticisms of the EC are valid, the Dems were perfectly content to let the EC carry Hillary to a landslide victory, as was being predicted. They wanted to keep trying to game the EC, same as Republicans and it cost them again. Whether you think the electors should vote out Trump is another story.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:No, the rest of us don't loving want you 1-800-DOCTORB posted:No way in hell am I sharing a state with a bunch of Massholes. New plan: consolidate New England and once we're all done killing each other there won't be enough people left for it to matter anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Treasure things like these, friends, for they will sustain us during the dark times
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 09:14 |
|
|
I'm really looking forward to the alt right tearing itself apart as they realize that they were used and discarded by the establishment. The leaders will mostly try and suck up with their benefactors but the internet warriors will implode.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:28
|
|