2020 US Election - Page 175

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.

On November 06 2020 07:03 plated.rawr wrote:

Are you guys even american?? This looks like a 100% genuine freedom missile, probably fired from an all-american Justice Carrier.

On November 06 2020 07:07 Wegandi wrote:


Lol. Im talking about the balance of political power and youre here implying bullshit. It could be fucking Canada or Norway and the GOP would fight it because again....its about ensuring one party rule or maintaining competitive balance.

On November 06 2020 07:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Trump to speak @ 630 ET.

https://twitter.com/Kevinliptakcnn/status/1324483958759804928

I don't expect he will concede.

On November 06 2020 07:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Trump to speak @ 630 ET.

https://twitter.com/Kevinliptakcnn/status/1324483958759804928

I don't expect he will concede.

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.

On November 06 2020 07:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Trump to speak @ 630 ET.

https://twitter.com/Kevinliptakcnn/status/1324483958759804928

I don't expect he will concede.