First migrant facility for children opens under Biden

[Pato del Muerto 53331]

2 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

 

Also as a Republican, how can you justify a DC resident paying any federal tax at all really?  Because that would be an alternative solution.  US citizens who don't have representation in either the House or the Senate don't have a say in how government money is spent, and should be exempt from federal income tax.

If only there was some pithy, rhyming slogan about this issue. 

[Ojo Rojo 2040]

3 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Yeah and this doesn’t have shit to do with Trump.  20 fucking negs for posting an article that isn’t the best look is fucking stupid.  Glad we get to hear “but but but Trump” for the next 50 years everytime the new admin doesn’t get it right.  Good on AOC by the way for calling it like she’s sees it. We need a lot more of that in this world. 

Except it has everything to do with Trump because the only reason why this particular article is of interest at all (and the reason it was posted here) is because Trumptards can incorrectly use it to compare what Biden is doing to what Trump did.  Classic false equivalency.  As has already been pointed out, no one wants to see kids in prison-like shitty temporary housing, okay? (unless you are R and the kids are brown)  But sometimes the situation dictates that is the best we can do.  It's the humane, best bad option Trump could have used too, but chose family separation and cages instead to appease his racist xenophobic base.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

6 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Why do you so want to deny US citizens their representation? We fought a war with the UK over such things.

We fought a war over this.  It's a founding American principle - no taxation without representation.

But it's not like Republicans are pro-American ideals anymore. 

Not to get into the weeds here, but there are ways around it. Make DC the couple square miles that entails government buildings and white houses, cede "DC" back to Maryland and Virginia for tax purposes. Correct me if I am wrong, but this also works to keep the capital of the US (DC) not in a state or a state, as prescribed by the US Constitution, so if that's still in there, it checks that box too? This is just one idea, many smarter folks can come up with better ones that also have an end state where DC is not a state.

But DC being a state is the desired outcome, not that US citizens get representation, for the Democratic votes in the EC and extra senators, right?

Wait, is "why do you want to deny US citizens their representation?" just asking a question here, when DC becoming a state solely for the democratic votes in the EC and the extra senators is the only care (you've said as much in other threads), an example of this disingenuous that people keep talking about? I'm starting to get it! Masterful trolling, sir.

Edited February 24, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[fattyflattie 4640]

6 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

You might find that Puerto Ricans are quite conservative on average if you knew them. 

I bet many are.  And I bet we’d get a helluva 180* on open borders movement/loose immigration reform if they start voting like South Texas Hispanics have recently.  

[DonkeyCigars 143]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I bet many are.  And I bet we’d get a helluva 180* on open borders movement/loose immigration reform if they start voting like South Texas Hispanics have recently.  

If the bolded was a reliable outcome; 1000% this would happen.

Because there is nothing inherently virtuous about the policy, but rather what the policy will give as an end result for the political party.

[wildcat09 29556]

18 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I think so, that's fair, for sure.

I think the most fair thing would be to say Democrats want to gain power through enfranchisement because that is where their untapped target market is and the only option for growth and success while the GOP seeks to, formerly keep, and now gain power through the disenfranchisement which is trying to slow the Democrats growth through lawful (and, to be fair, gray area and sometimes unlawful) means.

In other words, there is nothing intrinsically virtuous in Democrat or GOP, they are only acting/reacting to the variables and inputs that determine their end result.

"One side wants good things. The other side wants bad things. Thus, they're both essentially the same and neither is actually more virtuous than the other."

[Pato del Muerto 53331]

12 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Not to get into the weeds here, but there are ways around it. Make DC the couple square miles that entails government buildings and white houses, cede "DC" back to Maryland and Virginia for tax purposes. Correct me if I am wrong, but this also works to keep the capital of the US (DC) not in a state or a state, as prescribed by the US Constitution, so if that's still in there, it checks that box too? This is just one idea, many smarter folks can come up with better ones that also have an end state where DC is not a state.

But DC being a state is the desired outcome, not that US citizens get representation, for the Democratic votes in the EC and extra senators, right?

Wait, is "why do you want to deny US citizens their representation?" just asking a question here, when DC becoming a state solely for the democratic votes in the EC and the extra senators is the only care (you've said as much in other threads), an example of this disingenuous that people keep talking about? I'm starting to get it! Masterful trolling, sir.

Actually I think all the statehood stuff is being driven by Big Flag, who are trying to get more states added individually every few years to boost sales. Word is they’ve already got designs for 51-54 star flags distributed to government officials. But I’ve said too much. 
 

its a nonpartisan group, as they are happy to sell rainbow flags as well as Trump flags, nazi flags, confederate battle flags.  There’s a flag for everything now. BLM, Isis, Cleveland Indians. 

they just want to sell flags, and the flag lobby is fierce. 

Edited February 24, 2021 by Pato del Muerto

[DonkeyCigars 143]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

"One side wants good things. The other side wants bad things. Thus, they're both essentially the same and neither is actually more virtuous than the other."

Not exactly what was said.

The vessels, GOP or DEM, are value neutral. They are just made up of a group of people looking to obtain power, to create conditions more favorable for themselves. The idea of "good things" and "bad things" is foolish-- people just want things that are favorable to a life or world in which they want to live.

A group of people assigning the value that "letting felons or people in jail vote" is "good" is a subjective and cultural construct. A group of people assigning the value that transient people without a standard form of ID is "bad" is a subjective and cultural construct.

My position is that good and bad can only be defined by the end result and if it furthers the ball to the goal line for whatever it is you are trying to achieve, because I think that is more in line with politics and politicians (specifically US, but generally as well) than any other idealistic or theoretical definition.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Not to get into the weeds here, but there are ways around it. Make DC the couple square miles that entails government buildings and white houses, cede "DC" back to Maryland and Virginia for tax purposes. Correct me if I am wrong, but this also works to keep the capital of the US (DC) not in a state or a state, as prescribed by the US Constitution, so if that's still in there, it checks that box too? This is just one idea, many smarter folks can come up with better ones that also have an end state where DC is not a state.

But DC being a state is the desired outcome, not that US citizens get representation, for the Democratic votes in the EC and extra senators, right?

Wait, is "why do you want to deny US citizens their representation?" just asking a question here, when DC becoming a state solely for the democratic votes in the EC and the extra senators is the only care (you've said as much in other threads), an example of this disingenuous that people keep talking about? I'm starting to get it! Masterful trolling, sir.

Just MD.  VA took back its part right before the Civil War.

But also, you'd need both MD and DC to vote on annexation and that has about as much chance of happening as NY annexing North Jersey.  Regional animosity is a real thing.  At this point, the only workable path for enfranchisement is for DC to be a separate state.  And I don't necessarily like it either, because if we are going to have city states, then NYC and LI should have the right to separate from NY state.

But also it isn't "solely for the democratic votes."  This is something that DC residents have wanted since its founding.  They are American citizens without adequate representation.  So rather than cutting things on party lines and giving up because your party doesn't want to actually govern anyone, maybe you should reach out to them and see where you and they can meet in the middle, as Americans.  And then work to move your party to a place where it can be competitive for the votes of those American citizens residing in DC.

Having read a lot of your posts now, you might want to reexamine the party platforms and see where it is you really stand.  Don't vote R just because its R.

[Biff Tannen 46061]

1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

The vessels, GOP or DEM, are value neutral. They are just made up of a group of people looking to obtain power, to create conditions more favorable for themselves.

I reject this premise.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

I reject this premise.

Then, what is the counter? I'm not a political philosopher, but I think it's a valid point of view.

Edited February 24, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[Biff Tannen 46061]

1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Then, what is the counter? I'm not a political philosopher, but I think it's a valid point of view.

I would posit that your statement is valid for the GOP.  They have proven time and again they do not care at all about their constituents.  Dems seek power as well, but the aims of that power are to keep it by doing good for not only their supporters, but actually all Americans.  This hasn't necessarily always been done well, but it has been the goal.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

4 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Just MD.  VA took back its part right before the Civil War.

But also, you'd need both MD and DC to vote on annexation and that has about as much chance of happening as NY annexing North Jersey.  Regional animosity is a real thing.  At this point, the only workable path for enfranchisement is for DC to be a separate state.  And I don't necessarily like it either, because if we are going to have city states, then NYC and LI should have the right to separate from NY state.

But also it isn't "solely for the democratic votes."  This is something that DC residents have wanted since its founding.  They are American citizens without adequate representation.  So rather than cutting things on party lines and giving up because your party doesn't want to actually govern anyone, maybe you should reach out to them and see where you and they can meet in the middle, as Americans.  And then work to move your party to a place where it can be competitive for the votes of those American citizens residing in DC.

Having read a lot of your posts now, you might want to reexamine the party platforms and see where it is you really stand.  Don't vote R just because its R.

Speaking of adequate representation, I think ultimately we need to determine what is it we want from the Democratic Republic. Do we want equal representation by states as a federated system-- you know, a united group of states, or United States-- because we (states) are all equal partners in this experiment? Or, do we want to be more metocratic and favor big populations and cities and do away with the electoral college?

Both sides have pros and cons (EC, representation of smaller populations, potential to have a non-majority in power, etc.), but we need to iron out the mission first. Then we can determine a model or models.

[Captainant 28387]

34 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I think so, that's fair, for sure.

I think the most fair thing would be to say Democrats want to gain power through enfranchisement because that is where their untapped target market is and the only option for growth and success while the GOP seeks to, formerly keep, and now gain power through the disenfranchisement which is trying to slow the Democrats growth through lawful (and, to be fair, gray area and sometimes unlawful) means.

In other words, there is nothing intrinsically virtuous in Democrat or GOP, they are only acting/reacting to the variables and inputs that determine their end result.

Uhhhh what? Seeking power through disenfranchisement of voters is anti-democratic by definition. It's preventing people from being able to consent to be governed. That's just an oligarchy at that point.

[ndawg 1242]

1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Then, what is the counter? I'm not a political philosopher, but I think it's a valid point of view.

I worry I'm going to sound like I'm saying something obvious, here, but what the hell. There are all sorts of types of people in this world. There are self centered narcissists/sociopaths, there are average blokes, and there are people who are deeply motivated to make the world better. A better point of view would involve understanding that there are vastly different temperaments, and they are represented quite differently in the ranks of the Republicans and Democrats.

I think you're limited by a narrow perspective of politics as a never ending episode of Game of Thrones. Start seeing the differences in temperament, ethics, etc. that go far beyond ideology.

[sidis 9990]

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I got to read the article.

First, it is opened for reduced population density of existing "detainees," in response to COVID.

Second, it appears to be for unaccompanied minors 13-17, rather than children separated from parents.

Finally, the Trump administration detained a lot of children.  While we can reverse that policy, that doesn't mean the children are automagically set free.  Alternatives to detention seem to be let them go in the US or let them go in Mexico, neither of which is particularly appealing.

was there a post after this one that was relevant?  because this one seemed to answer the question.

[wildcat09 29556]

13 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Not exactly what was said.

The vessels, GOP or DEM, are value neutral. They are just made up of a group of people looking to obtain power, to create conditions more favorable for themselves. The idea of "good things" and "bad things" is foolish-- people just want things that are favorable to a life or world in which they want to live.

A group of people assigning the value that "letting felons or people in jail vote" is "good" is a subjective and cultural construct. A group of people assigning the value that transient people without a standard form of ID is "bad" is a subjective and cultural construct.

My position is that good and bad can only be defined by the end result and if it furthers the ball to the goal line for whatever it is you are trying to achieve, because I think that is more in line with politics and politicians (specifically US, but generally as well) than any other idealistic or theoretical definition.

I love it when conservatives embrace postmodernism.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Uhhhh what? Seeking power through disenfranchisement of voters is anti-democratic by definition. It's preventing people from being able to consent to be governed. That's just an oligarchy at that point.

I conceded that there is true disenfranchisement (illegal), but I was generally using the term not in the technical/narrow sense, but more in the broader application of legally keeping the aperture as small as possible based on the market research for GOPs to win.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I love it when conservatives embrace postmodernism.

Hahaha. that is actually really funny. I need a cold shower after appreciating that.

Edited February 24, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[Captainant 28387]

Just now, DonkeyCigars said:

I conceded that there is true disenfranchisement (illegal), but I was generally using the term not in the technical/narrow sense, but more in the broader application of legally keeping the aperture as small as possible based on the market research for GOPs to win.

yeah.... Changing the laws to reduce the total number of eligible voters to intentionally distort the constituency's demographics is anti-democratic. See: apartheid; "One person one vote"; etc.

[Js1 86939]

6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

yeah.... Changing the laws to reduce the total number of eligible voters to intentionally distort the constituency's demographics is anti-democratic. See: apartheid; "One person one vote"; etc.

Let's not forget my favorite anti-democratic act:  letting legislators pick their own voters ("gerrymandering") 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

7 minutes ago, ndawg said:

I worry I'm going to sound like I'm saying something obvious, here, but what the hell. There are all sorts of types of people in this world. There are self centered narcissists/sociopaths, there are average blokes, and there are people who are deeply motivated to make the world better. A better point of view would involve understanding that there are vastly different temperaments, and they are represented quite differently in the ranks of the Republicans and Democrats.

I think you're limited by a narrow perspective of politics as a never ending episode of Game of Thrones. Start seeing the differences in temperament, ethics, etc. that go far beyond ideology.

I don't think I agree with you. The only people it seems to me that can lay a moral claim to anything beyond boring, petty, everyday self-centeredness and selfish ambition, are those on the extreme fringes. Are there exceptions? Sure, but I don't generally see them. It appears otherwise that politics is the mechanism for the transfer of power in order to use it for your own purposes, against the will of others.

And even then, there is always an argument of egoism vs altruism and are people doing "good" for the sake of good or for selfish reasons?

At the end of the day there is only one Good. We don't really know it. I certainly don't claim to be in perfect knowledge of it.

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

You are astonishingly stupid. 

[Captainant 28387]

1 minute ago, Hank Scorpio said:

You are astonishingly stupid. 

He's either astonishingly stupid, or a troll.

But definitely skipped on his civics courses either way

[ndawg 1242]

8 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I don't think I agree with you. The only people it seems to me that can lay a moral claim to anything beyond boring, petty, everyday self-centeredness and selfish ambition, are those on the extreme fringes. Are there exceptions? Sure, but I don't generally see them. It appears otherwise that politics is the mechanism for the transfer of power in order to use it for your own purposes, against the will of others.

And even then, there is always an argument of egoism vs altruism and are people doing "good" for the sake of good or for selfish reasons?

At the end of the day there is only one Good. We don't really know it. I certainly don't claim to be in perfect knowledge of it.

Okay, now make the obvious counter-argument. Argue that the extremists are actually the most self centered politicians, because if they really believed in their vision of progress, they'd employ a pragmatic approach designed to cause the most amount of optimal change, rather one that only causes gridlock.

[washparkhorn 9967]

3 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Thought he was a Bernie guy? 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

37 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Speaking of adequate representation, I think ultimately we need to determine what is it we want from the Democratic Republic. Do we want equal representation by states as a federated system-- you know, a united group of states, or United States-- because we (states) are all equal partners in this experiment? Or, do we want to be more metocratic and favor big populations and cities and do away with the electoral college?

Both sides have pros and cons (EC, representation of smaller populations, potential to have a non-majority in power, etc.), but we need to iron out the mission first. Then we can determine a model or models.

I know the European Union is a dirty word for Republicans, but its more or less what they claim to want from a federal government.  When we decided to make the federal government the primary tax collecting entity and the only entity capable of conscription, we pretty much did away with the illusion that we are a "united group of states" rather than the United States, and we did this when we all agreed to the Constitution.  We further cemented this with the Civil War.  We simply aren't a confederacy.

There are small fixes that can right the ship.  Get rid of the EC for the Presidency and let the Senate check executive power like it is supposed to.  If/when the Senate and Presidency are controlled by the same party, that party will have received an overwhelming majority of votes by necessity.  There should never be the possibility of minority control for both.  That isn't a check.  Its minority rule.  It should not be possible for unchecked minority rule to exist.  Period.  And the founders absolutely did not intend for it to be possible.  But then they also didn't intend for the executive to equal power all by itself.  They expected that someone like McConnell would represent Kentucky as its Senator.  Instead he represents the national Republican party.  In the founders time, Representatives and Senators actually gave a shit about their states.  They allied with each other to get things done, but they didn't completely subjugate themselves to party rule.  Another alternative would be to keep the EC and flip the powers of the House and Senate, but that would take a lot more work to do.

But if we are going to go the other way and be a confederacy, the federal government needs to get out of the taxation business entirely and have states kick up money on a schedule and as needed.  Conscription and military recruiting also needs to be state by state.  And states need to be able to have strict residency requirements, or reciprocal deals, to prevent benefit seeking movement.  The federal government would only really be concerned with trade and litigation between the states.  Instead, we have a party that has been clamoring for states rights for decades, but doesn't want to lower taxes or allow "blue" states to manage their own internal affairs using their own money.  So while NY was told to get fucked and that it should have budgeted better when covid hit state and city coffers, we are about to bail TX out who also should have budgeted better.  But this is what happens when you have a tyrannical minority bent on punitive action rather than governance.  We aren't a group of equal states.  If we were, you wouldn't get a say in where tax money from my state goes.  Instead, your state is tyrannical, and my state when its able to get power elects people who aren't willing to push back.  So you take without giving.  And that's a recipe for making enemies not friends between the states.

Edited February 24, 2021 by FondrenRoad

[Foosters 18225]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

Yes the GOP is the one trying to add the voters from DC and PR to their permanent coffers, forever changing the math in favor of one party.  

hahahahahahah

[ChiTownDoc 21323]

14 hours ago, fakebusiness said:

Why would this get me banned? Honest question.

Derp

[DonkeyCigars 143]

5 minutes ago, ndawg said:

Okay, now make the obvious counter-argument. Argue that the extremists are actually the most self centered politicians, because if they really believed in their vision of progress, they'd employ a pragmatic approach designed to cause the most amount of optimal change, rather one that only causes gridlock.

Okay. Beyond making my robot brain explode from the multitude of truths (and confirming the subjective nature of this all); what, I respectfully ask, is your point? 

[Neonmoon 38130]

What happened to the intelligent conservatives? I mean, I swear to god, I used to know them. 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

24 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I know the European Union is a dirty word for Republicans, but its more or less what they claim to want from a federal government.  When we decided to make the federal government the primary tax collecting entity and the only entity capable of conscription, we pretty much did away with the illusion that we are a "united group of states" rather than the United States, and we did this when we all agreed to the Constitution.  We further cemented this with the Civil War.  We simply aren't a confederacy.

There are small fixes that can right the ship.  Get rid of the EC for the Presidency and let the Senate check executive power like it is supposed to.  If/when the Senate and Presidency are controlled by the same party, that party will have received an overwhelming majority of votes by necessity.  There should never be the possibility of minority control for both.  That isn't a check.  Its minority rule.  It should not be possible for unchecked minority rule to exist.  Period.  And the founders absolutely did not intend for it to be possible.  But then they also didn't intend for the executive to equal power all by itself.  They expected that someone like McConnell would represent Kentucky as its Senator.  Instead he represents the national Republican party.  In the founders time, Representatives and Senators actually gave a shit about their states.  They allied with each other to get things done, but they didn't completely subjugate themselves to party rule.  Another alternative would be to keep the EC and flip the powers of the House and Senate, but that would take a lot more work to do.

But if we are going to go the other way and be a confederacy, the federal government needs to get out of the taxation business entirely and have states kick up money on a schedule and as needed.  Conscription and military recruiting also needs to be state by state.  And states need to be able to have strict residency requirements, or reciprocal deals, to prevent benefit seeking movement.  The federal government would only really be concerned with trade and litigation between the states.  Instead, we have a party that has been clamoring for states rights for decades, but doesn't want to lower taxes or allow "blue" states to manage their own internal affairs using their own money.  So while NY was told to get fucked and that it should have budgeted better when covid hit state and city coffers, we are about to bail TX out who also should have budgeted better.  But this is what happens when you have a tyrannical minority bent on punitive action rather than governance.  We aren't a group of equal states.  If we were, you wouldn't get a say in where tax money from my state goes.  Instead, your state is tyrannical, and my state when its able to get power elects people who aren't willing to push back.  So you take without giving.  And that's a recipe for making enemies not friends between the states.

A lot to digest here.

So we are saying that we are not a united group of states and we should do away with the EC for a myriad of well stated reasons, but are you accounting for the consequences? The "disenfranchisement" of smaller states, in the sense they get nerfed in relation to larger populations. What of the founders intentions, as you pointed out in other cases, to not have just a few major cities set the course for everyone across the continental US? Maybe the answer is, well, sucks to suck rural's and Montana and South Dakota!

Also we have to be honest that NYC and LA and PHL and ATL and HOU are going to attract and board and feed and grow a population of more-or-less likeminded people with similar self-interested political desires. Having large, urban cultures and values-- whatever those are, as they are dynamic and will evolve, or devolve, over time-- seem to be not what the founders intended as well if I am understanding why the EC was put in place in the first place.

T

Quote

they expected that someone like McConnell would represent Kentucky as its Senator.  Instead he represents the national Republican party.  In the founders time, Representatives and Senators actually gave a shit about their states.  They allied with each other to get things done, but they didn't completely subjugate themselves to party rule. 

What you just described is a consequence of technology and interconnectedness. Whereas States were unique in their specific needs and desires and culture and population, that has largely been eradicated with the advent of lighting speed connections via fiber. I would argue that a modern analogy here could be made for regions. There are a handful of regions, made up of a group of states, in the US that look/talk/live like each other and can be folded into a mega state, ideally. e.g. Antebellum South, PACNW, NYNJ, NE, Great Plains, etc.

Anyways, I feel like we are digressing so I'll stop.

[ndawg 1242]

1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Okay. Beyond making my robot brain explode from the multitude of truths (and confirming the subjective nature of this all); what, I respectfully ask, is your point? 

Because I think if you develop the habit of considering competing and contradictory points of view when you formulate opinions, you won't have to suffer from the limitations of a "robot brain" anymore.

[Longhorn_Fan68 34079]

1 hour ago, Celery Man said:

It would be fair to say that Democrats seek to gain power through enfranchisement while the GOP seeks to gain power through disenfranchisement

[Biff Tannen 46061]

4 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Also we have to be honest that NYC and LA and PHL and ATL and HOU are going to attract and board and feed and grow a population of more-or-less likeminded people with similar self-interested political desires.

Again, I reject this premise. Large cities are amazingly diverse.  

[Brian Fantana 6856]

25 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Okay. Beyond making my robot brain explode from the multitude of truths (and confirming the subjective nature of this all); what, I respectfully ask, is your point? 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

1 minute ago, ndawg said:

Because I think if you develop the habit of considering competing and contradictory points of view when you formulate opinions, you won't have to suffer from the limitations of a "robot brain" anymore.

In this instance, if both things are true, then where does that lead you to land? If my opinion, informed by my firsthand experiences and perspectives and weltanschauung is true, and your opinion which is a competing and contradictory point of view is true, where does that leave us?

The reason I asked what is your point and alluded to a brain with only so much cognitive resource and ability to conceptualize in a non-quantum way, is because my first reaction to your post was how do we reconcile everyone having a correct opinion?

Like I mentioned above, I feel like this all goes back to not having a clear mission. In 2021 we have no shared sense or understanding of what we are even supposed to be doing here in the USA and as a government. It was easier to hold together a nation of people who had champions and representatives with power before literally everyone was given a voice and opinion thanks to technology. The mirror that is this nebulous idea of utilitarian good and right and a government is an ethical and moral machine to see rules are put in place to advance the causes of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has been shattered into a million little pieces. That's my thesis, at least.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

10 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Again, I reject this premise. Large cities are amazingly diverse.  

politically speaking. binary two-party politics, specifically.

[washparkhorn 9967]

20 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

What happened to the intelligent conservatives?

Ego got the best of them and their movement. Then, conservatism had its Clevon moment with Trump. 

De-evolution in action.  Idiocracy wasn't supposed to be a business plan. 

[fattyflattie 4640]

1 hour ago, washparkhorn said:

I’m not familiar with him as a poster. But thought he took digs on Trump too much to be a trumper.  I thought he was one of yours that got loose ha. 

[Dahobbs 18185]

21 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

In this instance, if both things are true, then where does that lead you to land? If my opinion, informed by my firsthand experiences and perspectives and weltanschauung is true, and your opinion which is a competing and contradictory point of view is true, where does that leave us?

The reason I asked what is your point and alluded to a brain with only so much cognitive resource and ability to conceptualize in a non-quantum way, is because my first reaction to your post was how do we reconcile everyone having a correct opinion?

Like I mentioned above, I feel like this all goes back to not having a clear mission. In 2021 we have no shared sense or understanding of what we are even supposed to be doing here in the USA and as a government. It was easier to hold together a nation of people who had champions and representatives with power before literally everyone was given a voice and opinion thanks to technology. The mirror that is this nebulous idea of utilitarian good and right and a government is an ethical and moral machine to see rules are put in place to advance the causes of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has been shattered into a million little pieces. That's my thesis, at least.

You are unbelievable vapid. 

(1) I (and you) have no idea what the phrase "ability to conceptualize in a non-quantum way" means. It is pure gobbledygook.

(2) "It was easier to hold together a nation of people who had champions and representatives with power before literally everyone was given a voice and opinion thanks to technology" - gee, if only I could think of some prominent individual who had the ability to get 40% of the population to do whatever he said. Nope. I guess that didn't happen thanks to technology. No champions of good or bad ideas here. 

(3)  "The mirror that is this nebulous idea of utilitarian good and right and a government is an ethical and moral machine to see rules are put in place to advance the causes of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has been shattered into a million little pieces." - you shattered that mirror because you reject the basic premise that there is such a thing as a good. See above where you literally said that enfranchising people is just as good/bad as disenfranchising people. 

Edited February 24, 2021 by Dahobbs

[Dahobbs 18185]

7 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I’m not familiar with him as a poster. But thought he took digs on Trump too much to be a trumper.  I thought he was one of yours that got loose ha. 

Guys, he is pleading ignorance and failure to give a shit enough to correct himself. Obviously we should give him (or her) a break. 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You are unbelievable vapid. 

(1) I (and you) have no idea what the phrase "ability to conceptualize in a non-quantum way" means. It is pure gobbledygook.

(2) "It was easier to hold together a nation of people who had champions and representatives with power before literally everyone was given a voice and opinion thanks to technology" - gee, if only I could think of some prominent individual who had the ability to get 40% of the population to do whatever he said. Nope. I guess that didn't happen thanks to technology. No champions of good or bad ideas here. 

(3)  "The mirror that is this nebulous idea of utilitarian good and right and a government is an ethical and moral machine to see rules are put in place to advance the causes of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has been shattered into a million little pieces." - you shattered that mirror because you reject the basic premise that there is such a thing as a good. See above where you literally said that enfranchising people is just as good/bad as disenfranchising people. 

1) Let me rephrase and apologies for confusing you: "ability to process a multitude of truths, about the same topic, at the same time, with none being correct and yet all being correct, depending on when and how you view them".

2) Again, apologies for the lack of clarity on my part leading to confusion: when I say hold together a nation of people who had champions and representatives with power, I meant hold together as a union of states and people who actually wanted to be countrymen with each other. It feels like that 40% feel so differently that, if it weren't for national security and economic interest, there would be zero desire to be in the same country with the other %. Same with Democrats and how they feel about the 40%. heck, even in these threads, people cannot seem to get their arms around respectful disagreement in opinion and belief without resorting to insults and name calling and attempts. It's really strange to me.

3) There is such a thing as Good, but when it comes to politics and power, good (and bad) are social constructs used as tools. They are excuses to act in whatever way is the most efficient to achieving the goal. This is what I've seen and experienced, at least, just this one man's opinion. I think this opinion explains a lot of what we see from politics and politicians, as well, so I feel it's not an opinion without merit though I respect your disagreement.

[ndawg 1242]

10 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

In this instance, if both things are true, then where does that lead you to land? If my opinion, informed by my firsthand experiences and perspectives and weltanschauung is true, and your opinion which is a competing and contradictory point of view is true, where does that leave us?

The reason I asked what is your point and alluded to a brain with only so much cognitive resource and ability to conceptualize in a non-quantum way, is because my first reaction to your post was how do we reconcile everyone having a correct opinion?

Like I mentioned above, I feel like this all goes back to not having a clear mission. In 2021 we have no shared sense or understanding of what we are even supposed to be doing here in the USA and as a government. It was easier to hold together a nation of people who had champions and representatives with power before literally everyone was given a voice and opinion thanks to technology. The mirror that is this nebulous idea of utilitarian good and right and a government is an ethical and moral machine to see rules are put in place to advance the causes of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has been shattered into a million little pieces. That's my thesis, at least.

Neither are true. Your assertion that morality is only found at the extremes of the spectrum is not true. The counterargument I was suggesting you explore is not itself true. The latter was only meant to reveal a flaw in the former, and there will be further flaws in that counterargument that additional scrutiny would reveal.

Your worldview includes your belief that politicians in the middle of our left/right political spectrum are motivated by the pursuit of power -- because if they weren't, you seemed to argue, they'd hold one of the more ideological positions that is found on the extremes. That belief can be easily refuted. A politician who is driven to make maximum progress toward their ideal can easily justify a steadfast commitment to the middle: progress can only be made at the negotiating table, after all.

I don't want to come across like a condescending prick, and I'm trying to avoid sermonizing you. However, the opinions you're espousing simply haven't been tempered by even minimal critical thinking. You can clearly apply critical thinking towards the opinions of others, so why not apply it towards your own?

[tantric superman 4668]

So does "crowd sourced" mean he's banned, because I treat my neg rep like Mahot McGhandi treated his ejacalit, and I don't want to waste it.

[ndawg 1242]

5 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

3) There is such a thing as Good, but when it comes to politics and power, good (and bad) are social constructs used as tools. They are excuses to act in whatever way is the most efficient to achieving the goal. This is what I've seen and experienced, at least, just this one man's opinion. I think this opinion explains a lot of what we see from politics and politicians, as well, so I feel it's not an opinion without merit though I respect your disagreement.

You are ascribing motivation categorically to people you don't know. What kinds of observations and experiences have you accumulated that give you justified confidence in ascertaining their motivations?

[washparkhorn 9967]

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

 I thought he was one of yours

[DonkeyCigars 143]

Just now, ndawg said:

Neither are true. Your assertion that morality is only found at the extremes of the spectrum is not true. The counterargument I was suggesting you explore is not itself true. The latter was only meant to reveal a flaw in the former, and there will be further flaws in that counterargument that additional scrutiny would reveal.

Your worldview includes your belief that politicians in the middle of our left/right political spectrum are motivated by the pursuit of power -- because if they weren't, you seemed to argue, they'd hold one of the more ideological positions that is found on the extremes. That belief can be easily refuted. A politician who is driven to make maximum progress toward their ideal can easily justify a steadfast commitment to the middle: progress can only be made at the negotiating table, after all.

I don't want to come across like a condescending prick, and I'm trying to avoid sermonizing you. However, the opinions you're espousing simply haven't been tempered by even minimal critical thinking. You can clearly apply critical thinking towards the opinions of others, so why not apply it towards your own?

Thank you for this post.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 hour ago, DonkeyCigars said:

A lot to digest here.

So we are saying that we are not a united group of states and we should do away with the EC for a myriad of well stated reasons, but are you accounting for the consequences? The "disenfranchisement" of smaller states, in the sense they get nerfed in relation to larger populations. What of the founders intentions, as you pointed out in other cases, to not have just a few major cities set the course for everyone across the continental US? Maybe the answer is, well, sucks to suck rural's and Montana and South Dakota!

Also we have to be honest that NYC and LA and PHL and ATL and HOU are going to attract and board and feed and grow a population of more-or-less likeminded people with similar self-interested political desires. Having large, urban cultures and values-- whatever those are, as they are dynamic and will evolve, or devolve, over time-- seem to be not what the founders intended as well if I am understanding why the EC was put in place in the first place.

T

What you just described is a consequence of technology and interconnectedness. Whereas States were unique in their specific needs and desires and culture and population, that has largely been eradicated with the advent of lighting speed connections via fiber. I would argue that a modern analogy here could be made for regions. There are a handful of regions, made up of a group of states, in the US that look/talk/live like each other and can be folded into a mega state, ideally. e.g. Antebellum South, PACNW, NYNJ, NE, Great Plains, etc.

Anyways, I feel like we are digressing so I'll stop.

Liberty is a 2 way street.  Why should SD have the same say as CA in deciding whether the 39 million people in CA have to send their sons off to die in a war?  Are the sons of SD worth more than the sons of CA?

And that's the real problem.  The rural states have their check on the urban centers.  The urban centers have no check on the rural states.  Checks need to work both ways.  Eliminating the EC would do that.  In 2016, the GOP controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency and didn't win the combined popular vote in any of the 3.  This is the definition of a tyrannical minority.   By eliminating the EC in 2016, you'd have a GOP Senate, and House, and President Clinton.   And if that Senate and House executed their constitutional powers dutifully, they would check President Clinton as the Constitution prescribes.  And without the EC, the only time you would ever have a Presidency and Senate controlled by the same party is when we are all pretty much on the same page.  The normal majority party would need an overwhelming majority to get it done, and the normal minority party would need at least a simple majority to get it done.  There would never be minority rule and there should never be minority rule.  And this is actually what the founders envisioned.

And a lot of this has been made worse by the fact that rural states elect people that don't do anything at all for them.  Not a single South Dakota elected Republican gives a shit about South Dakotans.  They were elected to punish urban states rather than improve South Dakota.  And in Texas, the Ted Cruz out front should have given this away to you.  He doesn't give a fuck at all about Texas, but he tries to punish NY every chance he gets.  If the supposed rural states actually elected people that gave rural states a chance, maybe it would be a different story.  Most urban voters understand the necessity of welfare and are willing to apply it by state as well as by person.  But that isn't the country we live in.  We live in one where rural states elect people to punish urban states and now we all hate each other because of it.  Its entirely unsustainable.  There are now many scenarios that could occur that would end the nation fairly quickly because of it.  If I was in charge of China, I'd be making hyper aggressive moves in Asia already.  We simply don't have the ability to tolerate a draft as a people anymore.  And as long as they keep it away from our land and waters, we would descend into civil war before we unified against an external threat.

Texas doesn't deserve AOC giving a fuck about y'all, but she does.  That's the type of people we elect.  You elected Ted Cruz.  So who exactly needs to be checked?

Edited February 24, 2021 by FondrenRoad

[DonkeyCigars 143]

6 minutes ago, ndawg said:

You are ascribing motivation categorically to people you don't know. What kinds of observations and experiences have you accumulated that give you justified confidence in ascertaining their motivations?

Sure I am doing that, I mean standard issue heuristics, right? I am absolutely abstracting my observations and experiences to a broader set because if I couldn't do that, then I'd necessarily have to absolutely know or never know--which is absurd. Literally.

My observations and experiences are from living a long life in the US and watching politics at work, on a local and national level, mostly in Texas and the United States, with a cursory understanding and viewing of some international politics.