The Political Discussion Thread

[jelgate]

So basically you're angry because your views are in the minority.

[Gatefan1976]

So basically you're angry because your views are in the minority.

He's angry because he has no voice, but having no voice is ok as long as it helps his goals.
I think he has proved that.

[Gatefan1976]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...not-truth.html

[Annoyed]

At what?
Come on you coward, fight.
Or are you going to retreat behind your " I don't swear" defence again?
SAD

Right wing drivel, and guess what, drivel you self concocted.
I WANT your vote to mean something, but that threatens your position, so you will give up your voice, in order to whore it out.
I don't like your pimp.

You mean like larger places have less pull in the EC?
AWWWW, SAD.
But, you are happy for that, so I guess you are not that sad about it.
Just a partisan hack.
You have no argument, no proof, no nothing. You consider holding your own to account a weakness, yet it is one of the greatest strengths of a democracy.
You just want to stamp your feet like a child and call it fact.
Pathetic.

Yes, you have issues.

As I said yesterday, I had more pressing issues to tend to.

I know the way things work in this place better than you. Sure, you can read all you want about laws, etc. but it doesn't give you a feel for how things really work. Urban and rural areas are completely different, and have different needs and want different things from government.

Here is one example of how.

As a practical matter, urban living is generally cheaper than rural living, but the trade-off is a lower quality of living. You can see this by the high concentration of low or zero income folks living in the urban areas. In most cases, as soon as someone is capable of moving out of the urban areas, they do, preferring the suburbs or rural areas. More elbow room, better schools, less crime, and so on.

One of the main demands on government from urban areas is "gimme stuff", while the rural areas are more in the "get out of my way" vein. Totally different. Democrats have long had a lock on urban areas because they promise all sorts of freebies to the lower income folks, in effect, buying their votes with taxpayer dollars, whereas the rural residents are more likely to have the attitude of "I earned it, it's mine, get your greedy paws off of it".

There are basic differences between urban/rural in many other ways as well.

Because of the lower cost, urban areas are far more densely populated than rural areas. Therefore, in a straight numbers only game, they win every time. Take NY for example; NYC, comprises 4/5ths of the state's population. So statewide elections always go to the Democrats. This leaves the rural voters with no voice. This is why NYC is able to levy taxes statewide to finance energy supplies for NYC, and is able to force rural areas to operate landfills to take NYC's garbage, to cite two examples of misuse of this power. State govt. is run primarily for the benefit of NYC. It's a very basic, long-standing Democrat principle; it's easier to band together to steal someone else's stuff than it is to do it yourself.

There are movements afoot in many states to sever the large urban areas from the more rural area of the states to get around this problem. It's not just a NY thing, there are efforts in California, Colorado and others where the urban areas dominate state politics, effectively silencing the voice of the rural areas.

Although not the primary original intent, the EC system for presidential races tries to alleviate this problem. Is it perfect? No. The way it works out for me, my vote in the presidential race means nothing because NYC will drown it out, and NY is a winner take all state.

But it does work. As proof, all you need to do is look at who is screaming about the EC system. The left. It is a practical, effective means of countering the numerical advantage urban areas have to give the rural a voice too. The left depends upon this advantage, because they can win the urban areas with their giveaways to the FSA, so it's clear they don't want to lose that advantage.

Just another example of the wisdom of the founding fathers of this country.

[SoulReaver]

There are movements afoot in many states to sever the large urban areas from the more rural area of the states to get around this problem. It's not just a NY thing, there are efforts in California, Colorado and others where the urban areas dominate state politics, effectively silencing the voice of the rural areas.

unlike the EC which just silences the voice of the nation's (majority of the) People

But it does work. As proof, all you need to do is look at who is screaming about the EC system. The left People.

fixed

also didn't your King Don himself criticize the EC & call for its abolishment back in 2016?

[aretood2]

That says all that is needed to be said.

Oh, from one leftie site to another. You don't expect me to pay attention to their drivel, do you?

No, I reject information from sources that are clearly biased to the left.

How much attention would you pay to articles from heritage.com, breitbart.com, or some other far right site? You notice that I don't cite those sites all that often.

If you want me to pay attention, use references which are not in the tank for the Democrats. Granted, you would have to spend more effort because the vast majority of media sources is biased against Trump & the Republicans, so it's hard for you to find a site that isn't biased.

You came at me because I cretiqued a study by some conservative group regarding immigration and welfare. The thing is, I didn't deny the group's validity by saying it's drivel and right winged biased. I actually read the study, looked into its methodology and examined the results and then cretiqued it based on that information, information provided by the group itself and used that to show you, with evidence, why I felt it to be unconvincing. Then you accused me of discarding it because reasons...

Here, you did not of that. You just simply saw a claim you didn't like and disregarded it because...reasons. I swear, I have never met a bigger hypocrite than you and I've run into some pretty big hypocrites.

Ummm.. it's actually pretty easy to spot biased sources. Like, when the owner of a media empire such as CNN issues a directive to his employees fo focus on impeaching Trump to get him out of office, it's pretty obvious. Or like the site you referenced, hillreporter.com has a in th navigation bar at the top that says "social issues", it's a good bet it's a leftie site, easily confirmed by their mission statement on the "About" link on the bar:


And yes, my vote in the presidential races doesn't count. The Electoral College isn't perfect, but it does perform a valuable function in ensuring that smaller states/areas have an equal voice. If NY State had such a system, may be my vote would count.

You're making crap up again. The directive was to focus on the impeachment. It's no different than Fox News focusing on anything but the impeachment.

ALL the people. Not just those in the large, heavily populated urban areas.

Without the EC, people in smaller, less populated states wouldn't have a voice. Just as in many states, where large urban areas dominate elections, giving the smaller areas, who often have different needs without a voice.

Something tells me you'd be signing another tune if the midwestern states were all blue.

As I said yesterday, I had more pressing issues to tend to.

I know the way things work in this place better than you. Sure, you can read all you want about laws, etc. but it doesn't give you a feel for how things really work. Urban and rural areas are completely different, and have different needs and want different things from government.

Here is one example of how.

As a practical matter, urban living is generally cheaper than rural living, but the trade-off is a lower quality of living. You can see this by the high concentration of low or zero income folks living in the urban areas. In most cases, as soon as someone is capable of moving out of the urban areas, they do, preferring the suburbs or rural areas. More elbow room, better schools, less crime, and so on.

I don't see what this has to do with giving people unequal voting weights. There's only one reason for that, and it has to do with partisanship. The EC has nothing to do with Rural vs Urban, it never did. The fact is that states operate on the direct popular vote and they never adopted an indirect vote for a good reason.

This is the case all over the world and this is the only place

This is the only place what? That seems incomplete. But yes, it is a situation that describes human settlement patterns rather well. However, you seem to forget the abject poverty and lack of infrastructure in rural America. It's more complex than you care to admit.

One of the main demands on government from urban areas is "gimme stuff", while the rural areas are more in the "get out of my way" vein. Totally different. Democrats have long had a lock on urban areas because they promise all sorts of freebies to the lower income folks, in effect, buying their votes with taxpayer dollars, whereas the rural residents are more likely to have the attitude of "I earned it, it's mine, get your greedy paws off of it".

Strawman arguments don't really mean much when you consider that this only applies at the federal level.

There are basic differences between urban/rural in many other ways as well.

Because of the lower cost, urban areas are far more densely populated than rural areas. Therefore, in a straight numbers only game, they win every time. Take NY for example; NYC, comprises 4/5ths of the state's population. So statewide elections always go to the Democrats. This leaves the rural voters with no voice. This is why NYC is able to levy taxes statewide to finance energy supplies for NYC, and is able to force rural areas to operate landfills to take NYC's garbage, to cite two examples of misuse of this power. State govt. is run primarily for the benefit of NYC. It's a very basic, long-standing Democrat principle; it's easier to band together to steal someone else's stuff than it is to do it yourself.

A major flaw here is assuming that rural americans or urban americans vote unilaterally one way. I do have to mention one thing though. Are you admitting that your view is the minority view and that the majority of America disagrees with you? Because that's the logical conclusion of your argument. An Argument I'd doubt you'd have if the situation was reversed.

There are movements afoot in many states to sever the large urban areas from the more rural area of the states to get around this problem. It's not just a NY thing, there are efforts in California, Colorado and others where the urban areas dominate state politics, effectively silencing the voice of the rural areas.

There's also a separatists Texan movement.

Although not the primary original intent, the EC system for presidential races tries to alleviate this problem. Is it perfect? No. The way it works out for me, my vote in the presidential race means nothing because NYC will drown it out, and NY is a winner take all state.

No, it doesn't try to alleviate this "problem" at all. Gerrymandering is what gives the rural areas any real pull. Without Gerrymandering, Democrats would probably get majorities in congress a lot more often. But that's what this is about. Pair that off with voter suppression that the GOP practices regularly...well...

But it does work. As proof, all you need to do is look at who is screaming about the EC system. The left. It is a practical, effective means of countering the numerical advantage urban areas have to give the rural a voice too. The left depends upon this advantage, because they can win the urban areas with their giveaways to the FSA, so it's clear they don't want to lose that advantage.

And that's the truth of the matter. It has nothing to do with democracy or having a voice and everything to do with keeping the democrats out of office. This one paragraph here outdoes all your other arguments.

Just another example of the wisdom of the founding fathers of this country.

Why didn't they demand the states to do the same? If it was about rural/urban then there should be the same thing in the state level. The reason why, is because rural vs urban has nothing to do with the EC's existence. It is an unintended consequence that they did not forsee.

[Annoyed]

also didn't your King Don himself criticize the EC & call for its abolishment back in 2016?

Despite what you think, I do not agree with everything Trump says or wants.

[Gatefan1976]

Despite what you think, I do not agree with everything Trump says or wants.

Yes, you do.

[aretood2]

Despite what you think, I do not agree with everything Trump says or wants.

And on that same vein, I actually agree with Trump in the whole terrorist label for drug cartels. There is a sentiment in Mexico along those lines too. The only concern is the issue of interventionism. No one south of the border wants US troops there. Newt Ginrich wrote a very savvy and well articulated article on Fox News on the issue too which sums up pretty clearly the points that people in Mexico argue (minus one small detail).

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/newt...y-surprise-you

If Trump really wants to deal a blow against the cartels, all he has to do is read this article and put things into action.

The plus side of both countries calling these narco terrorists what they are is that membership in a cartel affiliated gang would automatically be a crime in and of itself. There's no need to prove wrongdoing here, being a member is a crime (and treason) which can be prosecuted and proved a lot easier. Though I wonder if he does realize that escaping violence from a terrorist organization is a very lagit asylum claim.

[Gatefan1976]

I disagree with some of his points, but overall, he's not wrong in where the problem lies.

[Annoyed]

Actually, I don't agree with Trump's labeling it as "terrorist" activity, just as I don't agree with other expanded definitions we see lately. We see this all the time; Someone has a cause they want to champion, so in order to drum up public support for what they want to do, they tag the problem with the name or a well-known, more serious issue. This devalues the term as used to define the original issue.

As far as Gingrich's piece, he's right on the money as far as the root cause, but what the heck does he want to DO about it?

Reforming our criminal justice system, which I strongly support, does not mean we have to accept the legalization of heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and other deadly drugs. It means we must find economic sanctions – and effective treatment – for drug users while retaining much tougher punishment for those making money while enriching the drug cartels.

He doesn't want to legalize the crap and he obviously doesn't want to throw the addicts in jail.

What good are "economic sanctions" ? The vast majority of addicts don't have any financial assets to attach. They're broke because they are addicts. What does he want to take from them?

[Gatefan1976]

put them in the prison system, where you the taxpayer has to house and feed them.

[Gatefan1976]

Again, I'm not a layer, but this guy is.

[Annoyed]

put them in the prison system, where you the taxpayer has to house and feed them.

I got an idea. Remember the movie "Escape From New York" circa 1980 or so?

Wall NY City off.... And, it kills two birds with 1 stone. The second, of course is getting rid of an entirely useless hemorrhoid on the rest of the state.

[Gatefan1976]

I got an idea. Remember the movie "Escape From New York" circa 1980 or so?

Wall NY City off.... And, it kills two birds with 1 stone. The second, of course is getting rid of an entirely useless hemorrhoid on the rest of the state.

And you would do that with California as well, wouldn't you?
Yeah, wall off your two most successful states, the ones who provide money for your military, and your (pathetic) social works.
Go back to school, because you understand nothing about economics.
Of course, that might expose you to contrary idea's, and you can't have that, can you?