|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
5485 representatives is practical if they would stop being old people, and use the internet to meet across the nation. But instead, they still have to move to DC, and partake in person.
|
On February 08 2019 04:18 Plansix wrote:
The entire point of my argument is to highlight that change is not without cost. Politics isn’t about logic or reasoning. The best argument rarely wins and is now how things get done. Politics is about power. It is about winner and losers. Your argument that California’s voters have less power per voter is true, for that one office. That can be changed, but there is a cost to that change and it may come due a generation after the rules are changed. Or very quickly. And we cannot predict what that cost will be. If you want to pay that costs, that is fine. But don’t delude yourself into thinking that the cost doesn’t exist just because the argument for eliminating the EC is well reasoned and logical.
So how about just putting together the smaller states so they have a fair representation? Who needs 50 states anyway... (I might have quoted the wrong post here  )
|
On February 08 2019 05:58 ShoCkeyy wrote:
5485 representatives is practical if they would stop being old people, and use the internet to meet across the nation. But instead, they still have to move to DC, and partake in person.
But then they can't sit in a big impressive building being waited on by staff at the taxpayers expense feeling important about themselves.
|
Not for nothing, but being a senator or congress member is a lot of work. And a fuck ton of travel. It is not being a CEO or head of a company.
|
On February 08 2019 03:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2019 03:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:On February 08 2019 02:24 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2019 02:15 Mohdoo wrote:On February 08 2019 01:53 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2019 01:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 08 2019 00:27 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2019 00:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 08 2019 00:10 Plansix wrote:
The problem was me describing it as a logistical problem, which was not the best way to articulate my point. The US is 50 states, all which get along to varying degrees and each which does its own thing. Our governments and political culture is not built around polling our votes together to elect one person. We don’t view the federal government that way. We send people to the government to represent our state, period. To be slightly hyperbolic, the state of MA doesn’t care what happens to other states beyond that we all get along. The change that would be required to the way we view our government and how the states interact would need to change fundamentally to elect a president by popular vote. But can't we retain that state-focused perspective in the Senate and House of Representatives, while viewing our President as the leader of our entire country? Its been like 200 years, I don’t think it is going to change any time soon. I also don’t think that removing the EC is important to voters. Not compared to other issues. I don't think there is the political will to do it and I doubt there ever will be. In theory, if it were to happen- removing the EC and replacing it with a popular vote- do you think that change would provide a net benefit or net detriment? I’m not sure. I don’t think it will improve things and may make rural states feel more ignored that they already are. Folks forget I’m from a very small town that still does not have high speed internet. My parents live ina dirt road. And this is in MA, a coastal state with a huge population compared to fly over country. Everyone where I’m from feels undervalued and ignored. And the reality is they are right. Boston gives zero fucks about Western Ma and does nothing to help them beyond collect taxes and bitch about the roads. Side note: I am listening to a podcast with former senator Harry Reid. It is worth people’s time if only because he tells the story of putting the first person who tried to bribe him in a choke hold and the FBI had to pull him off. And learning to swim in the pool of a brothel. The rural state issue is really weird. I understand that rural states should be given autonomy and be allowed to exist as they would like to, but the whole idea of giving them really disproportionate national representation doesn't make sense. I understand the whole idea of tyranny of the majority, but states are already given a lot of personal freedom. Mississippi and Oregon may as well be different countries. In many ways, it feels like we end up with tyranny of the minority. Let the rural states do their thing, but their impact on national stuff is not appropriate. Let me put it to you another way. If they don’t get power in the government because they don’t have the population your state does, why should you be able to drive across them? They occupy more landmass in the US and they upkeep and police those roads, so maybe you should be required to pay a “travel tax” for visiting? That they get to set, maybe based on the state you are from?(All of this is not allowed by the constitution because stated did this in the past, FYI) You are arguing that population equals political power because we are a democracy and all people should be equal. But collectively you are saying that where you live should be more powerful and have the ability to dictate to less populated areas, because more votes means more power. But the rural states are not going to find that argument compelling. They are going to say(and have said in the past) that land mass matters. That they are the caretakers of large parts of the country that you are able to travel through because of their labor. That you are able to trade and travel across the country in relative safety because they choose to live in these rural states. And because of that, they deserve 2 senators and a greater say in who is president of the country. And if you try to take that away, they will find other ways to exert power. having tolls for road use makes a lot of sense, giving rural americans a disproportionate amount of influence over who becomes president does not. I don't really mind the senate makeup favoring low population states, to ensure that every state has a viable voice etc, but there's no real coherent argument for why inhabitants from low population areas should have a bigger say regarding foreign policy or the makeup of the supreme court. Norway also has a geographic factor for votes where the low population counties get slightly more representatives. We still have proportional representation though, so the chances of 'mathematically wrong' outcomes are lessened, but one of our recent governments was formed by a coalition that lost the popular vote but narrowly edged out on representatives. Shockingly, as in Norway, the left wing parties generally benefit slightly more from this arrangement, who argues what is kinda flipped on its head. I think it's dumb in Norway too, even if it directly resulted in my side recently winning an election. I mean, all regions need to have representation. This justifies vermont and california both having 2 senators. But for all the stuff that's 'trans-stateional', where it is my understanding that a lot of the executive stuff falls, I don't really see it. I was not referring to tolls. I was referring to tariffs for the privilege of crossing the great state of North Dakota. It will be charged per person and will be $50 each. Unless you are from California, which then it will be $100 each because that state is wealthy and North Dakota provide its with a fantastic service of allow its citizens ship international goods across this great country. There will also be a tariff when you leave the state too, to pay the tariffs going into Minnesota, which is a great state and you should totally pay to visit. They will also be collecting a tax for all the goods you are carrying into the state. I'm being slightly hyperbolic at this point. But these were the ways stated conducted themselves before the Constitution. They screwed with each other constantly. My state had a law saying it was legal to murder anyone from Rhode Island who crossed the border. That law was passed by the statue legislature. Openly debated and everything. It was on the books for like 200 years(though unenforceable). Part of the deal was that the less populated states got slightly more say that their population accounted for. Not a ton, but enough. And we need to do it because there was no way they would agree to sign on without some assurance that NY would reign supreme(back in the days of 13 colonies) I mean look at this map: + Show Spoiler +It isn't like the least populated states are getting away with murder here. You need to put three of them together just to equal the state of MA. It would take the entire midwest to even come close to California. They already have so little power even under the EC.
To bring this to full anti-democracy nightmare levels: With the way the EC currently is, you can hypothetically win the presidency with 21.91% of the popular votes. Realistically impossible buuut that's a pretty bad bug in a system.
|
On February 08 2019 06:50 Plansix wrote:
Not for nothing, but being a senator or congress member is a lot of work. And a fuck ton of travel. It is not being a CEO or head of a company.
A lot of that travel can be cut back if they worked from home... Documents can be sent via internet. It's a waste of tax payer being in the capital all the time.
|
On February 08 2019 07:15 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2019 06:50 Plansix wrote:
Not for nothing, but being a senator or congress member is a lot of work. And a fuck ton of travel. It is not being a CEO or head of a company. A lot of that travel can be cut back if they worked from home... Documents can be sent via internet. It's a waste of tax payer being in the capital all the time.
Ok, no. They cannot do that and do a good job. They cannot vote or work committees if they are not in Washington. They need to go home to their district to meet with their constituents and local government officials. Like when the prison in NYC had its heat break down and no one fixed it, the local rep went to the prison in person. Our state reps visited the city of Lawrence when there was a huge gas explosion, for the sole reason to talk to people on the ground about what was happening. Also almost all fly coach.
|
On February 08 2019 07:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2019 07:15 ShoCkeyy wrote:On February 08 2019 06:50 Plansix wrote:
Not for nothing, but being a senator or congress member is a lot of work. And a fuck ton of travel. It is not being a CEO or head of a company. A lot of that travel can be cut back if they worked from home... Documents can be sent via internet. It's a waste of tax payer being in the capital all the time. Ok, no. They cannot do that and do a good job. They cannot vote or work committees if they are not in Washington. They need to go home to their district to meet with their constituents and local government officials. Like when the prison in NYC had its heat break down and no one fixed it, the local rep went to the prison in person. Our state reps visited the city of Lawrence when there was a huge gas explosion, for the sole reason to talk to people on the ground about what was happening. Also almost all fly coach.
your argument here seems more suited for his position than against it. if they just stayed in their district instead they wouldn’t have to travel to do those things, with the lone exception of voting. and i’m not very convinced that can’t be done remotely.
|
On February 08 2019 07:42 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2019 07:25 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2019 07:15 ShoCkeyy wrote:On February 08 2019 06:50 Plansix wrote:
Not for nothing, but being a senator or congress member is a lot of work. And a fuck ton of travel. It is not being a CEO or head of a company. A lot of that travel can be cut back if they worked from home... Documents can be sent via internet. It's a waste of tax payer being in the capital all the time. Ok, no. They cannot do that and do a good job. They cannot vote or work committees if they are not in Washington. They need to go home to their district to meet with their constituents and local government officials. Like when the prison in NYC had its heat break down and no one fixed it, the local rep went to the prison in person. Our state reps visited the city of Lawrence when there was a huge gas explosion, for the sole reason to talk to people on the ground about what was happening. Also almost all fly coach. your argument here seems more suited for his position than against it. if they just stayed in their district instead they wouldn’t have to travel to do those things, with the lone exception of voting. and i’m not very convinced that can’t be done remotely.
Except for all the other work that is required in congress. They have hearings and meetings in the House constantly. The only reason someone believes the work can be done remotely is because they don't understand the work.
Like seriously, the Chair of Ways and Means is going to issue a subpoena from his living room in his district? Security briefings over Facetime while he is on the shitter?
|
On February 08 2019 07:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2019 07:42 brian wrote:On February 08 2019 07:25 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2019 07:15 ShoCkeyy wrote:On February 08 2019 06:50 Plansix wrote:
Not for nothing, but being a senator or congress member is a lot of work. And a fuck ton of travel. It is not being a CEO or head of a company. A lot of that travel can be cut back if they worked from home... Documents can be sent via internet. It's a waste of tax payer being in the capital all the time. Ok, no. They cannot do that and do a good job. They cannot vote or work committees if they are not in Washington. They need to go home to their district to meet with their constituents and local government officials. Like when the prison in NYC had its heat break down and no one fixed it, the local rep went to the prison in person. Our state reps visited the city of Lawrence when there was a huge gas explosion, for the sole reason to talk to people on the ground about what was happening. Also almost all fly coach. your argument here seems more suited for his position than against it. if they just stayed in their district instead they wouldn’t have to travel to do those things, with the lone exception of voting. and i’m not very convinced that can’t be done remotely. Except for all the other work that is required in congress. They have hearings and meetings in the House constantly. The only reason someone believes the work can be done remotely is because they don't understand the work. Like seriously, the Chair of Ways and Means is going to issue a subpoena from his living room in his district? Security briefings over Facetime while he is on the shitter?
that does build a better case for a centralized government than the first. like i said, particularly your earlier argument seemed oddly suited for his position rather than against it.
that said, i mean, you make it sound like that’s ridiculous. certainly select members would be better off in the capitol on big days. but whether that’s a good argument for keeping all 538 on location i think still stands up for debate. but there is no reason a person can’t issue a subpoena from a home office, and yea, any briefing that isn’t strictly eyes only can certainly be done over a phone right? i’d start getting more skeptical as we move towards paper trails away from DC, but until that point i’d be interested to take a better look at what could be gained or lost by, say, keeping senators and reps home six weeks out of every eight, for instance.
i’ll concede immediately that for more of the normal day to day stuff there will be times where face to face isn’t only better, but mandatory. but i don’t think you’ve made that case even remotely(heh, this actually wasn’t intended.) hearings especially would need to be done in person, but you kind of blew past that and instead seem to hang your argument on the parts of the job that specifically can easily be remote, again. when you go on to insinuate the only way a person can be so deluded (jokingly hyperbolic) is due to not understanding the nature of the work combined with that, i’m left more confused now than before.
|
On February 08 2019 03:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2019 03:24 Kyadytim wrote:
Why are the populous states paying so much of the nation's taxes when they don't have significant power in government?
I don't think anyone whose taxes went up because a congress and president representing a minority of America's population - and decidedly lacking any input or say from the representatives of the states most impacted - decided to repeal the state and local tax exemptions finds an argument that land mass matters compelling. That was literally rural states dictating to urban states. But more importantly, it was also a minority dictating to a majority. It's just fucked up. So you are saying that the results of a single tax bill, that can be undone, in the history of tax bills is justification up end the political dynamic that has existed for 200 years and strip rural states small amount of political power they have in the senate and electoral collect(which isn't even that much)? Are you sure this is a good plan for long term, like over the course of generations? And again, the argument from teh rural states is the only reason California and New England can be so economically prosperous is because of the natural resources and trade that crosses rural states.
That was one example off the top of my head. Arguing that the current system that empowers a minority to control a majority has worked fine for 200 years and therefore will continue working is fallacious. Gahlo brought up that the president can be elected by less than a quarter of the votes, and that more or less holds for the Senate, as well.
www.washingtonpost.com
by 2040 or so, 70 percent of Americans will live in 15 states. Meaning 30 percent will choose 70 senators.
Eight states will have just under half of the total population of the country, 49.5 percent
I've brought this up before, but the problem of disproportionate voting power is getting worse. The time to fix it is now, not in 20 years when the system is falling apart and half of the country has functionally no say in the federal government.
|
So Bezos just posted a story about how AMI (National Enquirer) sent him e-mails trying to blackmail into making public statements that are politically motivated. Remembering AMI's past history with Trump, it makes for an interesting read.
|
On February 08 2019 08:34 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2019 03:32 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2019 03:24 Kyadytim wrote:
Why are the populous states paying so much of the nation's taxes when they don't have significant power in government?
I don't think anyone whose taxes went up because a congress and president representing a minority of America's population - and decidedly lacking any input or say from the representatives of the states most impacted - decided to repeal the state and local tax exemptions finds an argument that land mass matters compelling. That was literally rural states dictating to urban states. But more importantly, it was also a minority dictating to a majority. It's just fucked up. So you are saying that the results of a single tax bill, that can be undone, in the history of tax bills is justification up end the political dynamic that has existed for 200 years and strip rural states small amount of political power they have in the senate and electoral collect(which isn't even that much)? Are you sure this is a good plan for long term, like over the course of generations? And again, the argument from teh rural states is the only reason California and New England can be so economically prosperous is because of the natural resources and trade that crosses rural states. That was one example off the top of my head. Arguing that the current system that empowers a minority to control a majority has worked fine for 200 years and therefore will continue working is fallacious. Gahlo brought up that the president can be elected by less than a quarter of the votes, and that more or less holds for the Senate, as well. www.washingtonpost.comShow nested quote +by 2040 or so, 70 percent of Americans will live in 15 states. Meaning 30 percent will choose 70 senators. Show nested quote +Eight states will have just under half of the total population of the country, 49.5 percent I've brought this up before, but the problem of disproportionate voting power is getting worse. The time to fix it is now, not in 20 years when the system is falling apart and half of the country has functionally no say in the federal government.
This conversation keeps going in circles. This argument get brought up, me and p6 say "yeah but how do you fix it without causing more problems?" and instead of offering any real solutions the same argument is brought up again with any potential issues ignored.
Its the same as useing salt in the north and in midwestern states. Its bad for the earth and creates incredible problems but we still use it.
|
On February 08 2019 08:34 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2019 03:32 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2019 03:24 Kyadytim wrote:
Why are the populous states paying so much of the nation's taxes when they don't have significant power in government?
I don't think anyone whose taxes went up because a congress and president representing a minority of America's population - and decidedly lacking any input or say from the representatives of the states most impacted - decided to repeal the state and local tax exemptions finds an argument that land mass matters compelling. That was literally rural states dictating to urban states. But more importantly, it was also a minority dictating to a majority. It's just fucked up. So you are saying that the results of a single tax bill, that can be undone, in the history of tax bills is justification up end the political dynamic that has existed for 200 years and strip rural states small amount of political power they have in the senate and electoral collect(which isn't even that much)? Are you sure this is a good plan for long term, like over the course of generations? And again, the argument from teh rural states is the only reason California and New England can be so economically prosperous is because of the natural resources and trade that crosses rural states. That was one example off the top of my head. Arguing that the current system that empowers a minority to control a majority has worked fine for 200 years and therefore will continue working is fallacious. Gahlo brought up that the president can be elected by less than a quarter of the votes, and that more or less holds for the Senate, as well. www.washingtonpost.comShow nested quote +by 2040 or so, 70 percent of Americans will live in 15 states. Meaning 30 percent will choose 70 senators. Show nested quote +Eight states will have just under half of the total population of the country, 49.5 percent I've brought this up before, but the problem of disproportionate voting power is getting worse. The time to fix it is now, not in 20 years when the system is falling apart and half of the country has functionally no say in the federal government.
i like the last few quotes stats specifically in regard to whether equal voting power is realistic or not. the argument over the last few pages has conflated location and population density. i don’t buy into the idea that because more people live in metropolitan areas that that necessarily gives metropolitan areas more voting power. there’s no rule saying only diehard liberal borderline fascists need live in cities. that cities vote overwhelmingly liberal is an interesting phenomena, but can that actually be directly linked to geographical location?
i haven’t bought into sermo’s arguments quite yet, while it certainly holds water i don’t think it’s convincing. there’s nothing stopping a bunch of young liberal hipsters moving to flyover country and turning it blue, at which point this argument really shows it’s own weakness.
see: austin texas. this shit is going to turn texas blue as quickly as anyone’s seen a whole state change it’s political identity. does this status quo argument really hold that much water when the status quo can so quickly change? is what’s happening in texas necessarily a bad thing according to this argument?
On February 08 2019 08:47 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2019 08:34 Kyadytim wrote:On February 08 2019 03:32 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2019 03:24 Kyadytim wrote:
Why are the populous states paying so much of the nation's taxes when they don't have significant power in government?
I don't think anyone whose taxes went up because a congress and president representing a minority of America's population - and decidedly lacking any input or say from the representatives of the states most impacted - decided to repeal the state and local tax exemptions finds an argument that land mass matters compelling. That was literally rural states dictating to urban states. But more importantly, it was also a minority dictating to a majority. It's just fucked up. So you are saying that the results of a single tax bill, that can be undone, in the history of tax bills is justification up end the political dynamic that has existed for 200 years and strip rural states small amount of political power they have in the senate and electoral collect(which isn't even that much)? Are you sure this is a good plan for long term, like over the course of generations? And again, the argument from teh rural states is the only reason California and New England can be so economically prosperous is because of the natural resources and trade that crosses rural states. That was one example off the top of my head. Arguing that the current system that empowers a minority to control a majority has worked fine for 200 years and therefore will continue working is fallacious. Gahlo brought up that the president can be elected by less than a quarter of the votes, and that more or less holds for the Senate, as well. www.washingtonpost.comby 2040 or so, 70 percent of Americans will live in 15 states. Meaning 30 percent will choose 70 senators. Eight states will have just under half of the total population of the country, 49.5 percent I've brought this up before, but the problem of disproportionate voting power is getting worse. The time to fix it is now, not in 20 years when the system is falling apart and half of the country has functionally no say in the federal government. This conversation keeps going in circles. This argument get brought up, me and p6 say "yeah but how do you fix it without causing more problems?" and instead of offering any real solutions the same argument is brought up again with any potential issues ignored.
idk how you can look at the stats he’s providing and claim he’s ignoring anything. it’s a forum and we’re discussing an idea to find its strengths and weaknesses. i think the stats at the end are an extremely glaring weakness to your argument.. if it’s that he’s not offering solutions that is specifically your issue, i think you’re confusing a solution you disagree with and a non-solution. the solution has been proposed time and again, truly equal voting. whereas you mention we’re ignoring potential issues. do you not think 30% of the population having 70% of senate representation is a potential issue you’ve ignored...?
|
The stats have no relevance or value in the argument we keep having. No one is disputing that its an issue. Trying to constantly argue that because its a problem it needs to be changed is ignoring the issues with the change to the problem.
|
On February 08 2019 08:47 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2019 08:34 Kyadytim wrote:On February 08 2019 03:32 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2019 03:24 Kyadytim wrote:
Why are the populous states paying so much of the nation's taxes when they don't have significant power in government?
I don't think anyone whose taxes went up because a congress and president representing a minority of America's population - and decidedly lacking any input or say from the representatives of the states most impacted - decided to repeal the state and local tax exemptions finds an argument that land mass matters compelling. That was literally rural states dictating to urban states. But more importantly, it was also a minority dictating to a majority. It's just fucked up. So you are saying that the results of a single tax bill, that can be undone, in the history of tax bills is justification up end the political dynamic that has existed for 200 years and strip rural states small amount of political power they have in the senate and electoral collect(which isn't even that much)? Are you sure this is a good plan for long term, like over the course of generations? And again, the argument from teh rural states is the only reason California and New England can be so economically prosperous is because of the natural resources and trade that crosses rural states. That was one example off the top of my head. Arguing that the current system that empowers a minority to control a majority has worked fine for 200 years and therefore will continue working is fallacious. Gahlo brought up that the president can be elected by less than a quarter of the votes, and that more or less holds for the Senate, as well. www.washingtonpost.comby 2040 or so, 70 percent of Americans will live in 15 states. Meaning 30 percent will choose 70 senators. Eight states will have just under half of the total population of the country, 49.5 percent I've brought this up before, but the problem of disproportionate voting power is getting worse. The time to fix it is now, not in 20 years when the system is falling apart and half of the country has functionally no say in the federal government. This conversation keeps going in circles. This argument get brought up, me and p6 say "yeah but how do you fix it without causing more problems?" and instead of offering any real solutions the same argument is brought up again with any potential issues ignored.
I find the "more" here is usually not applied. The question is not "How do you fix it without producing more problems", but "how do you fix it without producing problems". Which does not make sense. Fixing a big problem and introducing a small problem in doing so is still a net positive.
And there are real solutions. Like having the president be elected by popular vote. Or tossing the whole shitty FPTP winner takes all system that is always the base of everything in the US and stealing a working system from another country.
Yes, those are not solutions which are easy to implement, and of course the people who currently have disproportionate power will fight that stuff.
But that doesn't mean that they are not solutions that solve the problem. It just means that the solution is hard to implement.
A system in which a minority can win over a majority, just because they are the right people, is not a democracy. It is a class society where different peoples opinions on politics are differently important. And you don't even fix their importance to education or wealth or whatever (which would still be a bad idea), but to how much space they occupy and randomness of location. It is simply absurd. And it can be fixed. But there is this weird stockholm syndrome thing going on where you simply thing because it has been like that for a long time, that there is no other way.
Your president is determined by 10 or so swing states. People in small states are worth far more than in big states due to the senate. That shit is bad. And it leads to bad results, like Trump or Bush, both horribly bad presidents who won with a minority of the votes. You could have dodged the whole iraq fiasco simply by having the person who actually won more votes be president, instead of the person who won the right votes in your broken system.
|
On February 08 2019 08:47 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2019 08:34 Kyadytim wrote:On February 08 2019 03:32 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2019 03:24 Kyadytim wrote:
Why are the populous states paying so much of the nation's taxes when they don't have significant power in government?
I don't think anyone whose taxes went up because a congress and president representing a minority of America's population - and decidedly lacking any input or say from the representatives of the states most impacted - decided to repeal the state and local tax exemptions finds an argument that land mass matters compelling. That was literally rural states dictating to urban states. But more importantly, it was also a minority dictating to a majority. It's just fucked up. So you are saying that the results of a single tax bill, that can be undone, in the history of tax bills is justification up end the political dynamic that has existed for 200 years and strip rural states small amount of political power they have in the senate and electoral collect(which isn't even that much)? Are you sure this is a good plan for long term, like over the course of generations? And again, the argument from teh rural states is the only reason California and New England can be so economically prosperous is because of the natural resources and trade that crosses rural states. That was one example off the top of my head. Arguing that the current system that empowers a minority to control a majority has worked fine for 200 years and therefore will continue working is fallacious. Gahlo brought up that the president can be elected by less than a quarter of the votes, and that more or less holds for the Senate, as well. www.washingtonpost.comby 2040 or so, 70 percent of Americans will live in 15 states. Meaning 30 percent will choose 70 senators. Eight states will have just under half of the total population of the country, 49.5 percent I've brought this up before, but the problem of disproportionate voting power is getting worse. The time to fix it is now, not in 20 years when the system is falling apart and half of the country has functionally no say in the federal government. This conversation keeps going in circles. This argument get brought up, me and p6 say "yeah but how do you fix it without causing more problems?" and instead of offering any real solutions the same argument is brought up again with any potential issues ignored. Its the same as useing salt in the north and in midwestern states. Its bad for the earth and creates incredible problems but we still use it.
What I'm arguing is that the problems that would arise out of changing the system are substantially less bad than the problems that will arise if we leave the system alone. Asking for a fix without problems is the utopia fallacy. We're not going to get a perfect solution with no problems.
As an analogy, the flaws in the system are a leaking dam that slowly deteriorating. People keep suggesting that we address the leaks and shore up the dam, and you keep shooting them down as "that will cause other problems" as though the leaking and eventual failure of the dam is not a significant problem that needs to be addressed.
EDIT: Regarding something brian said - the problem with assuming that people can redistribute themselves to gain more political power is that it ignores all of the realities of life. However, it's a good argument that certain liberal leaning billionaires aren't these shadowy manipulators conservatives like to paint them as. Bezos could have had Amazon put its two new HQs in a pair of slightly red congressional districts in slightly red states to try to flip those districts and states 
|
On February 08 2019 09:04 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2019 08:47 Sermokala wrote:On February 08 2019 08:34 Kyadytim wrote:On February 08 2019 03:32 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2019 03:24 Kyadytim wrote:
Why are the populous states paying so much of the nation's taxes when they don't have significant power in government?
I don't think anyone whose taxes went up because a congress and president representing a minority of America's population - and decidedly lacking any input or say from the representatives of the states most impacted - decided to repeal the state and local tax exemptions finds an argument that land mass matters compelling. That was literally rural states dictating to urban states. But more importantly, it was also a minority dictating to a majority. It's just fucked up. So you are saying that the results of a single tax bill, that can be undone, in the history of tax bills is justification up end the political dynamic that has existed for 200 years and strip rural states small amount of political power they have in the senate and electoral collect(which isn't even that much)? Are you sure this is a good plan for long term, like over the course of generations? And again, the argument from teh rural states is the only reason California and New England can be so economically prosperous is because of the natural resources and trade that crosses rural states. That was one example off the top of my head. Arguing that the current system that empowers a minority to control a majority has worked fine for 200 years and therefore will continue working is fallacious. Gahlo brought up that the president can be elected by less than a quarter of the votes, and that more or less holds for the Senate, as well. www.washingtonpost.comby 2040 or so, 70 percent of Americans will live in 15 states. Meaning 30 percent will choose 70 senators. Eight states will have just under half of the total population of the country, 49.5 percent I've brought this up before, but the problem of disproportionate voting power is getting worse. The time to fix it is now, not in 20 years when the system is falling apart and half of the country has functionally no say in the federal government. This conversation keeps going in circles. This argument get brought up, me and p6 say "yeah but how do you fix it without causing more problems?" and instead of offering any real solutions the same argument is brought up again with any potential issues ignored. Its the same as useing salt in the north and in midwestern states. Its bad for the earth and creates incredible problems but we still use it. What I'm arguing is that the problems that would arise out of changing the system are substantially less bad than the problems that will arise if we leave the system alone. Asking for a fix without problems is the utopia fallacy. We're not going to get a perfect solution with no problems. As an analogy, the flaws in the system are a leaking dam that slowly deteriorating. People keep suggesting that we address the leaks and shore up the dam, and you keep shooting them down as "that will cause other problems" as though the leaking and eventual failure of the dam is not a significant problem that needs to be addressed. EDIT: Regarding something brian said - the problem with assuming that people can redistribute themselves to gain more political power is that it ignores all of the realities of life. However, it's a good argument that certain liberal leaning billionaires aren't these shadowy manipulators conservatives like to paint them as. Bezos could have had Amazon put its two new HQs in a pair of slightly red congressional districts in slightly red states to try to flip those districts and states
No one is asking for a fix without problems. This is a false argument no one brought up to ignore the issues inherent with any proposed fix. People are asking to fix the dam issue without blowing up the dam and flooding a bunch of peoples farmlands in order to build a city on the land that the dams lake ocupied.
Your edit argument is silly Bezos split his proposed HQ 2 propsal in order to gobbel up all the subsidies he possibly could have. Ignoring that the places he picked were terrible decisions for the people lliving there and their communities.
|
On February 08 2019 09:21 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2019 09:04 Kyadytim wrote:On February 08 2019 08:47 Sermokala wrote:On February 08 2019 08:34 Kyadytim wrote:On February 08 2019 03:32 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2019 03:24 Kyadytim wrote:
Why are the populous states paying so much of the nation's taxes when they don't have significant power in government?
I don't think anyone whose taxes went up because a congress and president representing a minority of America's population - and decidedly lacking any input or say from the representatives of the states most impacted - decided to repeal the state and local tax exemptions finds an argument that land mass matters compelling. That was literally rural states dictating to urban states. But more importantly, it was also a minority dictating to a majority. It's just fucked up. So you are saying that the results of a single tax bill, that can be undone, in the history of tax bills is justification up end the political dynamic that has existed for 200 years and strip rural states small amount of political power they have in the senate and electoral collect(which isn't even that much)? Are you sure this is a good plan for long term, like over the course of generations? And again, the argument from teh rural states is the only reason California and New England can be so economically prosperous is because of the natural resources and trade that crosses rural states. That was one example off the top of my head. Arguing that the current system that empowers a minority to control a majority has worked fine for 200 years and therefore will continue working is fallacious. Gahlo brought up that the president can be elected by less than a quarter of the votes, and that more or less holds for the Senate, as well. www.washingtonpost.comby 2040 or so, 70 percent of Americans will live in 15 states. Meaning 30 percent will choose 70 senators. Eight states will have just under half of the total population of the country, 49.5 percent I've brought this up before, but the problem of disproportionate voting power is getting worse. The time to fix it is now, not in 20 years when the system is falling apart and half of the country has functionally no say in the federal government. This conversation keeps going in circles. This argument get brought up, me and p6 say "yeah but how do you fix it without causing more problems?" and instead of offering any real solutions the same argument is brought up again with any potential issues ignored. Its the same as useing salt in the north and in midwestern states. Its bad for the earth and creates incredible problems but we still use it. What I'm arguing is that the problems that would arise out of changing the system are substantially less bad than the problems that will arise if we leave the system alone. Asking for a fix without problems is the utopia fallacy. We're not going to get a perfect solution with no problems. As an analogy, the flaws in the system are a leaking dam that slowly deteriorating. People keep suggesting that we address the leaks and shore up the dam, and you keep shooting them down as "that will cause other problems" as though the leaking and eventual failure of the dam is not a significant problem that needs to be addressed. EDIT: Regarding something brian said - the problem with assuming that people can redistribute themselves to gain more political power is that it ignores all of the realities of life. However, it's a good argument that certain liberal leaning billionaires aren't these shadowy manipulators conservatives like to paint them as. Bezos could have had Amazon put its two new HQs in a pair of slightly red congressional districts in slightly red states to try to flip those districts and states No one is asking for a fix without problems. This is a false argument no one brought up to ignore the issues inherent with any proposed fix. People are asking to fix the dam issue without blowing up the dam and flooding a bunch of peoples farmlands in order to build a city on the land that the dams lake ocupied. Your edit argument is silly Bezos split his proposed HQ 2 propsal in order to gobbel up all the subsidies he possibly could have. Ignoring that the places he picked were terrible decisions for the people lliving there and their communities.
That edit thing was a joke, not an argument. I was hoping the face made that clear.
|
On February 08 2019 08:40 Saryph wrote:So Bezos just posted a story about how AMI (National Enquirer) sent him e-mails trying to blackmail into making public statements that are politically motivated. Remembering AMI's past history with Trump, it makes for an interesting read. https://twitter.com/JeffBezos/status/1093643321732464646
And the agreement AMI signed with Mueller said that they could not commit any more crimes in the next 3 years lest the agreement be invalidated and they get hauled back to court. Also, and declarations made to Mueller's team become admissible evidence. They just fucked themselves royally. Especially considering that the subject is personal dirt. I would not be the least bit surprised if they (the special counsel) gain access to all the secrets on the Trump family as a result. Maybe something like a line of inquiry regarding any other information they have on influential people. We can only hope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://www.270towin.com/presidential_map_new/maps/bRgO6.png)
