EPT2020 US Election - Page 173
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
| ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
On November 06 2020 06:33 Wegandi wrote: The political unit and polity of this country is not based on individual persons. Its based off the 50 states. It has been since our inception (which preceded both parties). Using the popular vote is meaningless when talking about the power dynamics of our institutions (do you care about those now or do you want to alter and abolish still?). I’ll be honest, I usually regret engaging with you in politics threads. If your arguments were at least incisive and well-considered, maybe it’d be easier to tolerate the aggressive-bordering-on-ad hominem argumentation, but you come so half-cocked it’s hard to see the purpose in continuing. Here, for instance. You’re pre-assuming “we are a nation of 50 states” as the desired circumstance in a discussion about whether to add more states. We weren’t 50 states at our inception, of course, but aside from the factual inaccuracy you don’t even bother arguing why that’s a good thing. If you had, we could discuss the merits of those arguments and how they apply to the question at hand. Then you throw in the semi-nonsensical jab implying I previously didn’t care about our institutions, or that I want to alter or abolish them, which maybe doesn’t merit response but here’s one anyway: yes, I care about our institutions, which is why I’m making arguments about how best to improve them. I’m not advocating abolishing anything, and everyone has alterations they’d like to make. That’s politics. As a libertarian I bet you have alterations you’d like to make as well. One common argument in favor of state-based institutions rather than national ones (I can’t respond to your argument, since you didn’t supply one) is that we’re not one monolithic mass of humans, we’re a bunch of smaller communities, each with our own cultures, values, economies, etc. So we extend the rights and privileges of statehood, including institutional power over national decision-making, to each one. It still might seem wild to weight communities in WY 70x greater than communities in CA for national decision-making, but let’s accept the premise anyway. There’s two other communities we’re not extending those privileges to, and they’re both quite a bit bigger than WY. Why? The only argument against you’ve given is that it would hurt Republicans, but there’s nothing about Republicans’ current position that’s fundamentally fairer than the hypothetical alternative. Their voters’ voices will still be weighted more heavily than everyone else. | ||
|
Shingi11
290 Posts
| ||
FlaShFTW
United States10533 Posts
On November 06 2020 07:22 Zambrah wrote: Honestly I think the Senate race in Georgia is more interesting, Georgia doesnt ACTUALLY matter for the presidency at this point right? If we assume that PA is gonna be Biden's, which in all honesty is very very likely, no it doesn't matter. Symbolically it means that Peach Red Georgia is now no longer the Republican stronghold they wished like Texas. | ||
|
FlaShFTW
United States10533 Posts
On November 06 2020 07:22 ChristianS wrote: I’ll be honest, I usually regret engaging with you in politics threads. If your arguments were at least incisive and well-considered, maybe it’d be easier to tolerate the aggressive-bordering-on-ad hominem argumentation, but you come so half-cocked it’s hard to see the purpose in continuing. Here, for instance. You’re pre-assuming “we are a nation of 50 states” as the desired circumstance in a discussion about whether to add more states. We weren’t 50 states at our inception, of course, but aside from the factual inaccuracy you don’t even bother arguing why that’s a good thing. If you had, we could discuss the merits of those arguments and how they apply to the question at hand. Then you throw in the semi-nonsensical jab implying I previously didn’t care about our institutions, or that I want to alter or abolish them, which maybe doesn’t merit response but here’s one anyway: yes, I care about our institutions, which is why I’m making arguments about how best to improve them. I’m not advocating abolishing anything, and everyone has alterations they’d like to make. That’s politics. As a libertarian I bet you have alterations you’d like to make as well. One common argument in favor of state-based institutions rather than national ones (I can’t respond to your argument, since you didn’t supply one) is that we’re not one monolithic mass of humans, we’re a bunch of smaller communities, each with our own cultures, values, economies, etc. So we extend the rights and privileges of statehood, including institutional power over national decision-making, to each one. It still might seem wild to weight communities in WY 70x greater than communities in CA for national decision-making, but let’s accept the premise anyway. There’s two other communities we’re not extending those privileges to, and they’re both quite a bit bigger than WY. Why? The only argument against you’ve given is that it would hurt Republicans, but there’s nothing about Republicans’ current position that’s fundamentally fairer than the hypothetical alternative. Their voters’ voices will still be weighted more heavily than everyone else. Hey man, 50 is a nice even number and the flag as it stands looks good with 50 stars. There's your reason for why we don't add more states. open shut case, easy. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On November 06 2020 07:22 Zambrah wrote: Honestly I think the Senate race in Georgia is more interesting, Georgia doesnt ACTUALLY matter for the presidency at this point right? It's important to have more electoral college votes so no shenanigans can happen with the PA electors like GH described earlier | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8916 Posts
On November 06 2020 07:21 Wegandi wrote: You realize most nations have modeled their country and institutions off the US right? Having bicameral legislature, judicial branch with SC, checks and balances and a constitution, etc. When the US ratified the Constitution there were almost no similarly styled countries in the world (the Iroquous nation were probably the closest in practice). You can thank the US for how Germany was set up post unification. most nations? really? | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
Maybe focus more on those coasts, might sweep the Coasts sans Florida and SC with some effort. I wish I had faith in the Democrats to learn and change and adapt for the better though.  | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8277 Posts
On November 06 2020 07:20 StasisField wrote: GA would get Biden to 269 so he would need one more state called in his favor to seal the deal. ? Biden is currently on 264, with GA holding 16 EC votes. If he flips GA, he just outright wins with at 280 | ||
|
FlaShFTW
United States10533 Posts
On November 06 2020 07:26 Excludos wrote: ? Biden is currently on 264, with GA holding 16 EC votes. If he flips GA, he just outright wins with at 280 This is assuming Arizona is in the Biden column. I'm still under the belief that AP and FOX called it way too early. | ||
|
Diavlo
Belgium2915 Posts
On November 06 2020 07:26 Excludos wrote: ? Biden is currently on 264, with GA holding 16 EC votes. If he flips GA, he just outright wins with at 280 Arizona should not have been called yet. He is at 253. | ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
On November 06 2020 07:26 Excludos wrote: ? Biden is currently on 264, with GA holding 16 EC votes. If he flips GA, he just outright wins with at 280 I believe this is with the assumption that AZ goes to Biden. Edit - well I'm slow. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8277 Posts
On November 06 2020 07:27 FlaShFTW wrote: This is assuming Arizona is in the Biden column. I'm still under the belief that AP and FOX called it way too early. Aha, that's fair. While unlikely, he could still mathematically lose Arizona I guess | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
If Trump requires only one successful challenge or other shenanigans, I see the Republicans still kinda backing him, I see them helping with escalating, and I see them finding judges to rule whatever nonsense they want. The moment you have to do this everywhere, this support vanishes immediately and you will see Republicans and judges alike leave the sinking ship asap. | ||
|
KOFgokuon
United States14912 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
darthfoley
United States8004 Posts
| ||
|
darthfoley
United States8004 Posts
On November 06 2020 07:30 Nevuk wrote: With NV and GA wouldn't he be put over the top? He would be exactly at 270, so yes | ||
|
FlaShFTW
United States10533 Posts
On November 06 2020 07:28 Excludos wrote: Aha, that's fair. While unlikely, he could still mathematically lose Arizona I guess Yes. Trump is actually towing the line of necessary proportion to get ahead in Arizona. Also PA Secretary of State is speaking at her press conference and Chuck Todd made some interesting comments that I agree with. She mentioned that we will be able to see the projected winner by tonight (implying Biden) and it's a little shocking to see an elected, supposedly non-partisan official (she's a dem but for the sake of voting she should be non-partisan), and she seems to be implying a Dem win. | ||
| ||
