|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 30 2017 00:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2017 00:53 Logo wrote:On March 30 2017 00:46 KwarK wrote:On March 30 2017 00:41 LightSpectra wrote:On March 30 2017 00:35 Nevuk wrote:
The issue is that system would reduce the power of the individual state in question relative to the ones who hasn't changed their system. It would be illogical for any state to do it. The ones who already have some form of it only have 3-4 electoral votes, convincing California to go from a guaranteed 54 for the winner to like 40-14 would only result in really pissing off Democrat votes for example. This conversation is mired in confusion right now, so let me clarify. Firstly, the EC delegates have to pick the POTUS by simple-majority according to the Constitution, so that can't be changed. There are several proposals on the table: 1. States pledge their EC delegates to whichever POTUS wins the popular vote across the whole country. The weakness in this plan is as you stated, there's no incentive for those states that benefit from the EC to do this. 2. People vote for the POTUS via preferential voting instead of FPTP (i.e. the EC delegates have to go with whoever is the Concordent/runoff victor). This is what I think is the most viable option. 1 undermines the whole point of the electoral college. The point of the electoral college is that all the states matter. Running up the scoreboard in California won't help you win Montana etc. If you imposed 1 then a policy that would win you 3% more support in a high population state would justify fucking over 50% of the people in a low population state because only the absolute number matters. Any state that does 1 abdicates their representation to the country as a whole. It doesn't undermine the electoral collage. California still has the same number of delegates regardless of who they are pledged to. States are allowed to choose their own process of selecting the electors. You can't simultaneously cry about state representation and propose stripping said states of their own rights by preventing them from picking their own method of nominating electors. I'm not sure you understand what the electoral college is for friend. And sure, a state is entitled to choose to award their electoral college votes based upon what the voters in another state rather than their own voted for. That doesn't mean it's in line with the purpose of the electoral college.
That is an unnecessary and inflammatory tone and quite interesting when I don't think you've yourself have shown any deep understanding of all the purposes of the electoral system and how those needs and purposes have evolved over time.
|
On March 30 2017 00:03 Mohdoo wrote:
Watching Danglars and xDaunt go from disgusted/dismissive with Trump to Stockholm syndrome has been a bizarre experience. It looks like actual Stockholm syndrome.
Part of me wonders what portion of this phenomena is a result of a 2 party system and the deep feelings of tribalism it creates. Even things as simple as putting on colored jerseys while playing sports as a child are enough to make someone seriously proud of their team. It's interesting how the draw towards connection and alliance for the sake of protection has sprung into such a dysfunctional system.
Part of me has wondered if our country having even 3 different parties would largely derail the tribalism I've seen. To not be so stuck on the idea that it is "either me or them" and to instead have other options would perhaps make people more collaborative and willing to negotiate? I wonder if people feel like they are already committed to their party. Or something. I have no idea. But this isn't confined to Danglars and xDaunt. I know a couple people who went from laughably dismissing Trump to kind of identifying with him and using his persona in the same way people cheer for sports teams. I can totally see some people who give up a part of themselves for the sake of being a part of his power.
If you can start criticizing him for real offenses and not imagined ones, I will join you. Was his support and threats on behalf of AHCA stupid, incompetent, juvenile? Of course. Is his lying on petty matters a disgrace? Naturally! But, as with other things, your own tribalism is unknown to you.
Sometimes we can recognize that someone not our friend has aimed his righteous indignation at the correct targets. Maybe I've seen my side fail to be an opposition party that fights for my interests, so in many ways I welcome an elemental disruptive force. Maybe I think all these unctuous "you should fight to preserve these institutions as are and not unleash Trump on them" are very self serving, since they align with your interest and you're very much content to have my views marginalized in perpetuity. We don't always get to pick our symbols of resistance to an order bent leftward, and in that case Trump is a poor symbol. But nobody would notice the anger normal voters have against elite government that thinks the world is class, race, sex, and sexual orientation, with all their attendant privileges and discriminations, if Clinton were elected. She'd have walked in and everybody celebrated how hate lost, thank god those backward rubes didn't get their way with their misogyny and xenophobia. Well, you didn't want to have the argument, you wanted the defeat, so get prepared to talk to more Trump voters. Because you've adequately demonstrated to me that only strong messages of rejection work these days, and even then impartially.
I don't speak for xDaunt on this matter, he may have different views, and we all recall how quickly people pounce.
|
On March 30 2017 01:07 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2017 00:03 Mohdoo wrote:
Watching Danglars and xDaunt go from disgusted/dismissive with Trump to Stockholm syndrome has been a bizarre experience. It looks like actual Stockholm syndrome.
Part of me wonders what portion of this phenomena is a result of a 2 party system and the deep feelings of tribalism it creates. Even things as simple as putting on colored jerseys while playing sports as a child are enough to make someone seriously proud of their team. It's interesting how the draw towards connection and alliance for the sake of protection has sprung into such a dysfunctional system.
Part of me has wondered if our country having even 3 different parties would largely derail the tribalism I've seen. To not be so stuck on the idea that it is "either me or them" and to instead have other options would perhaps make people more collaborative and willing to negotiate? I wonder if people feel like they are already committed to their party. Or something. I have no idea. But this isn't confined to Danglars and xDaunt. I know a couple people who went from laughably dismissing Trump to kind of identifying with him and using his persona in the same way people cheer for sports teams. I can totally see some people who give up a part of themselves for the sake of being a part of his power. We don't always get to pick our symbols of resistance to an order bent leftward, and in that case Trump is a poor symbol.
This point is fair enough. Its the reason I supported Clinton. Bernie lost and nothing was going to change that. I pray Clinton doesn't run again, but I did not hesitate to support her against Trump.
|
On March 30 2017 01:17 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2017 01:07 Danglars wrote:On March 30 2017 00:03 Mohdoo wrote:
Watching Danglars and xDaunt go from disgusted/dismissive with Trump to Stockholm syndrome has been a bizarre experience. It looks like actual Stockholm syndrome.
Part of me wonders what portion of this phenomena is a result of a 2 party system and the deep feelings of tribalism it creates. Even things as simple as putting on colored jerseys while playing sports as a child are enough to make someone seriously proud of their team. It's interesting how the draw towards connection and alliance for the sake of protection has sprung into such a dysfunctional system.
Part of me has wondered if our country having even 3 different parties would largely derail the tribalism I've seen. To not be so stuck on the idea that it is "either me or them" and to instead have other options would perhaps make people more collaborative and willing to negotiate? I wonder if people feel like they are already committed to their party. Or something. I have no idea. But this isn't confined to Danglars and xDaunt. I know a couple people who went from laughably dismissing Trump to kind of identifying with him and using his persona in the same way people cheer for sports teams. I can totally see some people who give up a part of themselves for the sake of being a part of his power. We don't always get to pick our symbols of resistance to an order bent leftward, and in that case Trump is a poor symbol. This point is fair enough. Its the reason I supported Clinton. Bernie lost and nothing was going to change that. I pray Clinton doesn't run again, but I did not hesitate to support her against Trump.
Voting for Clinton was one of the most disgusting things I've ever done. As shitty as this presidency has been, and even knowing the alternative would probably have been less bad, I find it hard to be upset because, you know, in a way this feels like karmic justice for the entire apparatus that tried to push Clinton out of naked self-interest above the concerns of the people.
The right-wingers here probably feel similar, albeit with more sympathy towards actual conservative policy.
|
On March 30 2017 01:20 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2017 01:17 Mohdoo wrote:On March 30 2017 01:07 Danglars wrote:On March 30 2017 00:03 Mohdoo wrote:
Watching Danglars and xDaunt go from disgusted/dismissive with Trump to Stockholm syndrome has been a bizarre experience. It looks like actual Stockholm syndrome.
Part of me wonders what portion of this phenomena is a result of a 2 party system and the deep feelings of tribalism it creates. Even things as simple as putting on colored jerseys while playing sports as a child are enough to make someone seriously proud of their team. It's interesting how the draw towards connection and alliance for the sake of protection has sprung into such a dysfunctional system.
Part of me has wondered if our country having even 3 different parties would largely derail the tribalism I've seen. To not be so stuck on the idea that it is "either me or them" and to instead have other options would perhaps make people more collaborative and willing to negotiate? I wonder if people feel like they are already committed to their party. Or something. I have no idea. But this isn't confined to Danglars and xDaunt. I know a couple people who went from laughably dismissing Trump to kind of identifying with him and using his persona in the same way people cheer for sports teams. I can totally see some people who give up a part of themselves for the sake of being a part of his power. We don't always get to pick our symbols of resistance to an order bent leftward, and in that case Trump is a poor symbol. This point is fair enough. Its the reason I supported Clinton. Bernie lost and nothing was going to change that. I pray Clinton doesn't run again, but I did not hesitate to support her against Trump. The right-wingers here probably feel similar, albeit with more sympathy towards actual conservative policy.
I think the societal transformation/progress facilitated by the internet made people outgrow their parties. The internet makes it really easy to determine what kinds of thoughts resonate with you, then gives you the ability to be completely surrounded by those ideologies. People who, in 2008, were pretty enthusiastic about the environment and income inequality, may have ended up Bernie supporters in 2016. Before the internet, maybe a bit more moderate and totally fine with Clinton. Same deal with people who were totally cool with GWB but would not stomach the idea of anyone but a transformative tea party candidate in 2016.
In many ways, I think the internet accelerates societal change through a much faster method of what I will call "idea refinement" where broad ideas are sanded down into specific, impassioned positions.
edit: If I may respond to Danglars again: The thing that sticks out to me as stockholm syndrome isn't so much the support of Trump over Clinton as much as it is Putin/Russia favorables after Trump. The polls speak for themselves. Republicans like Mccain didn't used to be so uncommon. The republican party was very tough on Russia for a very long time and that showed no signs of letting up. It wasn't until Putin was so strongly elevated as a strong man by Trump that people started to chest best for Putin too. Trump, purely by being the GOP candidate, totally reversed a bunch of people's deeply held beliefs regarding Russia. I don't think all these people are free thinkers. I think the momentum behind "my party's candidate" changed their minds against their will, in a way.
|
|
|
they could always pull a Kefka and just poison the river
I mean what's the worst that could happen, really
|
Well, China actually did that in Tajikistan, they have build a wall several kilometers inside Tajik territory, as the border is a craggy mountain ridge, and they got away with that.
|
On March 30 2017 01:23 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2017 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On March 30 2017 01:17 Mohdoo wrote:On March 30 2017 01:07 Danglars wrote:On March 30 2017 00:03 Mohdoo wrote:
Watching Danglars and xDaunt go from disgusted/dismissive with Trump to Stockholm syndrome has been a bizarre experience. It looks like actual Stockholm syndrome.
Part of me wonders what portion of this phenomena is a result of a 2 party system and the deep feelings of tribalism it creates. Even things as simple as putting on colored jerseys while playing sports as a child are enough to make someone seriously proud of their team. It's interesting how the draw towards connection and alliance for the sake of protection has sprung into such a dysfunctional system.
Part of me has wondered if our country having even 3 different parties would largely derail the tribalism I've seen. To not be so stuck on the idea that it is "either me or them" and to instead have other options would perhaps make people more collaborative and willing to negotiate? I wonder if people feel like they are already committed to their party. Or something. I have no idea. But this isn't confined to Danglars and xDaunt. I know a couple people who went from laughably dismissing Trump to kind of identifying with him and using his persona in the same way people cheer for sports teams. I can totally see some people who give up a part of themselves for the sake of being a part of his power. We don't always get to pick our symbols of resistance to an order bent leftward, and in that case Trump is a poor symbol. This point is fair enough. Its the reason I supported Clinton. Bernie lost and nothing was going to change that. I pray Clinton doesn't run again, but I did not hesitate to support her against Trump. The right-wingers here probably feel similar, albeit with more sympathy towards actual conservative policy. I think the societal transformation/progress facilitated by the internet made people outgrow their parties. The internet makes it really easy to determine what kinds of thoughts resonate with you, then gives you the ability to be completely surrounded by those ideologies. People who, in 2008, were pretty enthusiastic about the environment and income inequality, may have ended up Bernie supporters in 2016. Before the internet, maybe a bit more moderate and totally fine with Clinton. Same deal with people who were totally cool with GWB but would not stomach the idea of anyone but a transformative tea party candidate. In many ways, I think the internet accelerates societal change through a much faster method of what I will call "idea refinement" where broad ideas are sanded down into specific, impassioned positions.
There's a lot that's going on in this line that I think is still not fully appreciated or understood. Beyond what you describe I feel like there's almost a herd immunity type thing going on, where certain views/voices that would previously have been so isolated as to never connect to impressionable targets and would never reach any sort of voice or influence now suddenly have a place of incredibly density where it's almost inevitable that they will connect to other people.
|
On March 30 2017 01:20 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2017 01:17 Mohdoo wrote:On March 30 2017 01:07 Danglars wrote:On March 30 2017 00:03 Mohdoo wrote:
Watching Danglars and xDaunt go from disgusted/dismissive with Trump to Stockholm syndrome has been a bizarre experience. It looks like actual Stockholm syndrome.
Part of me wonders what portion of this phenomena is a result of a 2 party system and the deep feelings of tribalism it creates. Even things as simple as putting on colored jerseys while playing sports as a child are enough to make someone seriously proud of their team. It's interesting how the draw towards connection and alliance for the sake of protection has sprung into such a dysfunctional system.
Part of me has wondered if our country having even 3 different parties would largely derail the tribalism I've seen. To not be so stuck on the idea that it is "either me or them" and to instead have other options would perhaps make people more collaborative and willing to negotiate? I wonder if people feel like they are already committed to their party. Or something. I have no idea. But this isn't confined to Danglars and xDaunt. I know a couple people who went from laughably dismissing Trump to kind of identifying with him and using his persona in the same way people cheer for sports teams. I can totally see some people who give up a part of themselves for the sake of being a part of his power. We don't always get to pick our symbols of resistance to an order bent leftward, and in that case Trump is a poor symbol. This point is fair enough. Its the reason I supported Clinton. Bernie lost and nothing was going to change that. I pray Clinton doesn't run again, but I did not hesitate to support her against Trump. Voting for Clinton was one of the most disgusting things I've ever done. As shitty as this presidency has been, and even knowing the alternative would probably have been less bad, I find it hard to be upset because, you know, in a way this feels like karmic justice for the entire apparatus that tried to push Clinton out of naked self-interest above the concerns of the people. The right-wingers here probably feel similar, albeit with more sympathy towards actual conservative policy.
I can understand that but if Clinton was the president I would certainly not be defending her by default in most (every?) situations. Then again I'm not a liberal so perhaps it's an unfair comparison to make.
|
You americans need to be defeated in a big world war in order to have a group of winning powers dictate you a new consititution. This hard on for a document that got written by people that believed in slavery and witchcraft makes me puzzled.
A constitution is simply the poltitical contract that a country has given itself at a specific time. If the rules of that time do not apply anymore, change your constitution. Back in the 18th century, a direct vote was not seen as realistic because the country was too big. Today every US- citizen could potentially click on a button on the internet to decide who they are voting for. You don't need to send one person from your village to the state capitol 3 days away to tell them what Biff, Bob, Wild Dan and Hank have voted on. You need 66% of votes to amend the constitution. Maybe once your country is not that devided anymore, you can get some support to create a new one 
|
On March 30 2017 01:35 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2017 01:23 Mohdoo wrote:On March 30 2017 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On March 30 2017 01:17 Mohdoo wrote:On March 30 2017 01:07 Danglars wrote:On March 30 2017 00:03 Mohdoo wrote:
Watching Danglars and xDaunt go from disgusted/dismissive with Trump to Stockholm syndrome has been a bizarre experience. It looks like actual Stockholm syndrome.
Part of me wonders what portion of this phenomena is a result of a 2 party system and the deep feelings of tribalism it creates. Even things as simple as putting on colored jerseys while playing sports as a child are enough to make someone seriously proud of their team. It's interesting how the draw towards connection and alliance for the sake of protection has sprung into such a dysfunctional system.
Part of me has wondered if our country having even 3 different parties would largely derail the tribalism I've seen. To not be so stuck on the idea that it is "either me or them" and to instead have other options would perhaps make people more collaborative and willing to negotiate? I wonder if people feel like they are already committed to their party. Or something. I have no idea. But this isn't confined to Danglars and xDaunt. I know a couple people who went from laughably dismissing Trump to kind of identifying with him and using his persona in the same way people cheer for sports teams. I can totally see some people who give up a part of themselves for the sake of being a part of his power. We don't always get to pick our symbols of resistance to an order bent leftward, and in that case Trump is a poor symbol. This point is fair enough. Its the reason I supported Clinton. Bernie lost and nothing was going to change that. I pray Clinton doesn't run again, but I did not hesitate to support her against Trump. The right-wingers here probably feel similar, albeit with more sympathy towards actual conservative policy. I think the societal transformation/progress facilitated by the internet made people outgrow their parties. The internet makes it really easy to determine what kinds of thoughts resonate with you, then gives you the ability to be completely surrounded by those ideologies. People who, in 2008, were pretty enthusiastic about the environment and income inequality, may have ended up Bernie supporters in 2016. Before the internet, maybe a bit more moderate and totally fine with Clinton. Same deal with people who were totally cool with GWB but would not stomach the idea of anyone but a transformative tea party candidate. In many ways, I think the internet accelerates societal change through a much faster method of what I will call "idea refinement" where broad ideas are sanded down into specific, impassioned positions. There's a lot that's going on in this line that I think is still not fully appreciated or understood. Beyond what you describe I feel like there's almost a herd immunity type thing going on, where certain views/voices that would previously have been so isolated as to never connect to impressionable targets and would never reach any sort of voice or influence now suddenly have a place of incredibly density where it's almost inevitable that they will connect to other people.
Very true and a very good point. As a less political example, think about furry communities. Or other very niche interests. Everything has a voice and place on the internet. It is somewhat of a free market of ideas and is one of the big reasons we are seeing a lot of western countries converge socially.
|
On March 30 2017 01:35 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2017 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On March 30 2017 01:17 Mohdoo wrote:On March 30 2017 01:07 Danglars wrote:On March 30 2017 00:03 Mohdoo wrote:
Watching Danglars and xDaunt go from disgusted/dismissive with Trump to Stockholm syndrome has been a bizarre experience. It looks like actual Stockholm syndrome.
Part of me wonders what portion of this phenomena is a result of a 2 party system and the deep feelings of tribalism it creates. Even things as simple as putting on colored jerseys while playing sports as a child are enough to make someone seriously proud of their team. It's interesting how the draw towards connection and alliance for the sake of protection has sprung into such a dysfunctional system.
Part of me has wondered if our country having even 3 different parties would largely derail the tribalism I've seen. To not be so stuck on the idea that it is "either me or them" and to instead have other options would perhaps make people more collaborative and willing to negotiate? I wonder if people feel like they are already committed to their party. Or something. I have no idea. But this isn't confined to Danglars and xDaunt. I know a couple people who went from laughably dismissing Trump to kind of identifying with him and using his persona in the same way people cheer for sports teams. I can totally see some people who give up a part of themselves for the sake of being a part of his power. We don't always get to pick our symbols of resistance to an order bent leftward, and in that case Trump is a poor symbol. This point is fair enough. Its the reason I supported Clinton. Bernie lost and nothing was going to change that. I pray Clinton doesn't run again, but I did not hesitate to support her against Trump. Voting for Clinton was one of the most disgusting things I've ever done. As shitty as this presidency has been, and even knowing the alternative would probably have been less bad, I find it hard to be upset because, you know, in a way this feels like karmic justice for the entire apparatus that tried to push Clinton out of naked self-interest above the concerns of the people. The right-wingers here probably feel similar, albeit with more sympathy towards actual conservative policy. I can understand that but if Clinton was the president I would certainly not be defending her by default in most (every?) situations. Then again I'm not a liberal so perhaps it's an unfair comparison to make.
No one really is though. Danglars and Neil defend Trump more often than not but are far from incapable of criticizing him. For Neil you usually have to ask to get some actual criticism but he still clearly sees everything that's wrong with Trump as well as the rest of us do.
|
On March 30 2017 01:40 Broetchenholer wrote:
You americans need to be defeated in a big world war in order to have a group of winning powers dictate you a new consititution. This hard on for a document that got written by people that believed in slavery and witchcraft makes me puzzled.
A third of our country is far-right, and so ultrapartisan that they refuse to cooperate with the other two-thirds of the country even when it's mutually beneficial. They like the current US Constitution because it benefits them by having an electoral system that disproportionately represents them (Electoral College, two Senators per state), an extreme right to free speech that prevents any kind of censorship of hate speech or brazenly dishonest propaganda, an explicit right to firearms, etc. In short, in their view, sticking with the current US Constitution is the only guarantee that they can maintain their current way of life and to be in power roughly half the time. There's no way they'd consent to a re-write.
So yeah, as you said, the only way we're changing is if we face some catastrophic national meltdown and have to form a new country. If that happens, don't expect the deep South to come along for the ride.
|
The Constitution doesn't necessarily need to be amended, and with one or two key Supreme Court decisions, a lot of our problems could be solved. However, the likelihood of getting the right case or controversy and the right set of nine judges makes amending the Constitution seem like a better idea
|
On March 30 2017 01:57 LightSpectra wrote:
A third of our country is far-right, and so ultrapartisan that they refuse to cooperate with the other two-thirds of the country even when it's mutually beneficial.
I think what actually happened was a split Overton window on several topics. Public discourse, as represented in the mainstream media, moved leftwards much faster than actual viewpoints. The people whose beliefs went from uncontroversial to demonized in the span of about a decade reformed their own conversation.
The result is two sets of people that consider each others' beliefs to be unthinkable, and who cannot have a productive conversation with each other on those topics. This is a direct consequence of media bias.
They like the current US Constitution because it benefits them by having an electoral system that disproportionately represents them.
The Constitution is deliberately structured to keep a majority from stepping on the minorities. This is a critical feature. Part of that is federalism; although federalism has weakened over time, general power is supposed to rest in the states, which are free to set their own policies on most topics.
|
Unadorned lip service to concepts like federalism are precisely the stuff of folks who would have seen Brown v. Board go the other way, and it will be on the grave of Justices like Rehnquist that we will hopefully lay the body of such vacuous notions. The notion that it has weakened over time is laughable.
|
On March 30 2017 02:33 Buckyman wrote:
The result is two sets of people that consider each others' beliefs to be unthinkable, and who cannot have a productive conversation with each other on those topics.
->
On March 30 2017 02:36 farvacola wrote:
Unadorned lip service to concepts like federalism are precisely the stuff of folks who would have seen Brown v. Board go the other way, and it will be on the grave of Justices like Rehnquist that we will hopefully lay the body of such vacuous notions. The notion that it has weakened over time is laughable.
Thank you for immediately demonstrating my point. Care to supply arguments rather than just dismissing my position?
|
On March 30 2017 02:33 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2017 01:57 LightSpectra wrote:
A third of our country is far-right, and so ultrapartisan that they refuse to cooperate with the other two-thirds of the country even when it's mutually beneficial. I think what actually happened was a split Overton window on several topics. Public discourse, as represented in the mainstream media, moved leftwards much faster than actual viewpoints. The people whose beliefs went from uncontroversial to demonized in the span of about a decade reformed their own conversation. The result is two sets of people that consider each others' beliefs to be unthinkable, and who cannot have a productive conversation with each other on those topics. This is a direct consequence of media bias.
I agree with that, but it doesn't fully explain the picture. The same situation has happened to social conservatives in lots of countries, but it hasn't driven them into the psychiatric ward like what happened with the Republican Party around 2009.
The Constitution is deliberately structured to keep a majority from stepping on the minorities. This is a critical feature. Part of that is federalism; although federalism has weakened over time, general power is supposed to rest in the states, which are free to set their own policies on most topics.
Yes, the Constitution was designed in order to prevent mob rule over a minority. It does that effectively.
EDIT: But what the current system does is distribute representation based off of geographical dispersion as opposed to population. There is no good reason why New York and California, who have about a quarter of America's population, should only have 4% of the Senators between them. That's not a structure "to keep a majority from stepping on the minorities", that's outright nonsense based off of a mistaken, anti-democratic, anti-humanist notion of what federalism means.
|
On March 30 2017 02:33 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2017 01:57 LightSpectra wrote:
A third of our country is far-right, and so ultrapartisan that they refuse to cooperate with the other two-thirds of the country even when it's mutually beneficial. I think what actually happened was a split Overton window on several topics. Public discourse, as represented in the mainstream media, moved leftwards much faster than actual viewpoints. The people whose beliefs went from uncontroversial to demonized in the span of about a decade reformed their own conversation. The result is two sets of people that consider each others' beliefs to be unthinkable, and who cannot have a productive conversation with each other on those topics. This is a direct consequence of media bias.
any evidence on the mainstream media moving leftward faster than actual viewpoints?
it's an interesting question, rather hard ot measure of course; and most people's perceptions on it would be highly unreliable.
it need not be a direct consequences of media bias, more likely media fragmentation, or simply holding very different views and incompatible views.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
