Politics

Come here to talk about topics that are not related to development, or even Kansas City.
User avatar
Highlander
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9306
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Politics

Post by Highlander »

Anthony_Hugo98 wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:13 pm
phuqueue wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:28 pm
What, specifically, are the problems with "mob rule" that the electoral college solves?
Without the electoral college, much of the center of the United States would be disregarded, as all candidates would have to do is pander to the large metropolitan areas on the coast, as they could easily win with just the areas of New York, L.A., S.F., And Miami. As many people living in a confined metro area are going to generally have similar viewpoints, elected officials would be voted for based on how they’d address those areas needs, and not nearly as much in regard to the nations needs. While I understand that woefully under explains the complexity of that issue, that’s what it is in effect. That, and pure democracy can easily lead to the rights of the minority being easily taken.
What you are essentially saying is that the votes of people in rural areas should count more than the votes of people in urban areas. As it is now (as Grovester pointed out), most of the campaign money in the US is already spent in a few swing states so its not like candidates even need to appeal pander to the entire country. I don't like the present reality of living in a red or blue state and having your vote not count if you vote for the other party. That's not democratic. Nor is it mob rule to elect a president by the popular vote. We are representative democracy for certain, but that applies to voting for representatives that then vote on a host of mundane issues that may or may not impact us - but electing the president should be done by direct democracy.

I'll also add that the rural states are already disproportionately represented by the Senate where Wyoming with < 1 million people gets the same representation as California with > 35 million.

User avatar
Anthony_Hugo98
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:50 pm
Location: Vicenza, IT

Re: Politics

Post by Anthony_Hugo98 »

phuqueue wrote:
Mon Oct 19, 2020 11:02 am
Anthony_Hugo98 wrote:
Mon Oct 19, 2020 12:04 am
phuqueue wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:43 pm
What is the specific argument that justifies rural interests dominating policy in an urbanized country?
A specific issue I could recognize is practically any firearm legislation. Most all legislation passed in an effort to restrict access to firearms comes from politicians coming from largely urban areas. Firearms are a necessary tool in rural areas, as well as a constitutional right. This is one of the only issues I hold politically that is a non-negotiable for me, if you need context on it.
You're just begging the question here. What I asked is, with the implicit assumption that rural interests are not compatible with urban interests (where they are compatible, there's no conflict, so who cares), what is the argument that justifies privileging the rural interests over the urban interests in an urbanized country? Your response here doesn't actually answer that question, you're just highlighting a specific policy area where rural and urban interests conflict and you're assuming that the rural interests must prevail. That "firearms are a necessary tool in rural areas" explains why the rurals want them, but it doesn't explain why this should necessarily outweigh the urbans' interest in restricting or banning them. That they are "a constitutional right" only helps to explain why the rurals are currently prevailing, it doesn't answer why they should prevail. Moreover, even assuming that the rurals are right about guns, that would fall far short of explaining why the entire electoral system should be slanted to systematically privilege their voices. Because they're right about guns, they should also be empowered to disproportionately influence foreign policy? or fiscal policy? or abortion rights? or etc etc etc?

And just to be clear, I'm not really interested in having the gun argument again right now and am not going to follow you down a tangent that is specifically about guns. Maybe another time.
I’ll take you up on that offer for sure, perhaps in person though, as it’ll save both you and myself from getting carpal tunnel syndrome :lol:
For all my military brothers and sisters out there, thanks for paving the way, ill do my best! AIRBORNE!

mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 10980
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Re: Politics

Post by mean »

phuqueue wrote:
Mon Oct 19, 2020 11:02 am
What I asked is, with the implicit assumption that rural interests are not compatible with urban interests (where they are compatible, there's no conflict, so who cares), what is the argument that justifies privileging the rural interests over the urban interests in an urbanized country?
Wasn't privileging rural interests over urban ones an artifact of the demographics of the late 18th century and the desire of the founders to ensure ratification? It doesn't make any damn sense now as far as I can tell. If anyone can explain how it does, do tell.

User avatar
im2kull
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3332
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:33 pm
Location: KCMO

Re: Politics

Post by im2kull »

flyingember wrote:
Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:27 am
Anthony_Hugo98 wrote:
Mon Oct 19, 2020 12:04 am
phuqueue wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:43 pm
What is the specific argument that justifies rural interests dominating policy in an urbanized country?
A specific issue I could recognize is practically any firearm legislation. Most all legislation passed in an effort to restrict access to firearms comes from politicians coming from largely urban areas. Firearms are a necessary tool in rural areas, as well as a constitutional right. This is one of the only issues I hold politically that is a non-negotiable for me, if you need context on it.
Disclosure: I have no problem with guns, I take groups with kids as young as Kindergartners to events where they do gun shooting to learn to respect guns.


Focus on the tool-toy-weapon description trio.

A toy should never be confused for a gun and toy guns should be banned. As a dangerous tool they need to be treated as such, and making them into toys means people connect guns with something mundane and safe. I really doubt any guns in 1870s were toys, they were tools in the hands of children who were taught respect.

A gun as a tool should never be connected to guns as a weapon. A hunter that needs even a ten round magazine and a sight with a laser and wind adjustment needs to go practice at the range more. Any tool is dangerous in trained hands. Any weapon is dangerous in the hands of the untrained.

Guns with lockout mechanisms and gun safes and all that don't reduce the value of a tool, they reduce the value of a weapon.

Gun form factors and legal carrying methods need to enable tools and not enable weapons. You don't conceal a tool so concealed carry should be banned and visible carry legalized on public property

In terms of legality to carry a weapon, it should be like bringing in a chain saw into a store. Both are deadly and both should be disallowed on private property as picked by the business.

For example, you can bring a chain saw to a big box store but why would you bring one into a clothing store? This the "well regulated" part of the 2nd amendment where because it's a tool you take it where use of that tool would be reasonable. This enables a place to decide for themselves. There was the church shooting where a member shot an intruder. That church should have the right to allow certain people to carry guns if they feel the need for it.

And I could legally carry a chain saw down my street, so I can legally carry a gun down my street.
Your biggest mistake is thinking that legal gun ownership exists to provide rural folks "Tools" for hunting and whatever else.

I assure you, that's NOT why the 2nd amendment exists.

flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 8557
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Politics

Post by flyingember »

im2kull wrote:
Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:40 pm


Your biggest mistake is thinking that legal gun ownership exists to provide rural folks "Tools" for hunting and whatever else.

I assure you, that's NOT why the 2nd amendment exists.
The Federalist Papers give a clue that the 2nd Amendment exists for a very different reason than many believe.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp
To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence
Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
Legal gun ownership exists so that tools can be utilized to protect the people's government, not the individual. It's the pairing of local government with power to influence national government combined with the tools necessary to maintain this power and the requirement to go fight for it when needed.
A gun then apparently cost about 1-2 month's salary. That's not too expensive to buy but it's too expensive to not use regularly. They were practical tools that it just happened could kill a person.

It says nothing about the form of the gun. These aren't weapons for self defense, to be carried around and shot at any perceived target.

Sure, the line is blurred in this era more than today someone's right to own a gun isn't taken away because they have to pick a different gun.

DColeKC
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

grovester wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 7:37 pm
DColeKC wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:04 pm
mean wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 6:17 pm
The perception of being a red state isn't the problem. Red states have values. The problem is being perceived as a gullible bunch of dupes who fall for the cult leader's pussy-grabbing, value-free bullshit.
Interesting. Still hung up on the fact he said he “could” grab a pussy but never has been proven to just randomly grab pussies. You ever play sports? I can’t Believe comments like that are new information to some people.
Interesting. Still apologizing for that POS.
I didn't say I'm sorry... because I'm not. No apology from me.

DColeKC
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

What's so hard to understand how valuable the electoral college is? The Presidential race was never meant to be a "popularity" contest. The difference between people's life styles and beliefs in rural America Vs Urban America is drastic. I've been in both. Why should the rural communities have to live by what the urban communities decide? Why should Urban residents have to live by laws/policies rural Americans want? It's a balancing act that works out fairly well.

The map shared showing where the two candidates spent the most money would drastically change if it were a popularity contest. 50% of the total campaign dollars would be split between LA and NYC and the rest spread out over the next 30 most populated cities. The campaign would be focused on population centers, not entire states.

Of course anyone who leans left wants to get rid of the electoral college. It basically would ensure a few decades of a democratic POTUS if not longer.

Dems play to popularity. Pander and hand out incentives to the poor in exchange for votes with no regard or care to actually get them off the governments titty.

Republicans stick with values and often those aren't popular with the city folk. I can't wait for the Republican party to enact some serious change. I'm over the overly conservative and religious policies.

phuqueue
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2440
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Politics

Post by phuqueue »

If you're only planning to repeat points that were already made and answered four days ago, you know you don't really have to mash that reply button, don't you?

DColeKC
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

phuqueue wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 5:12 pm
If you're only planning to repeat points that were already made and answered four days ago, you know you don't really have to mash that reply button, don't you?
If you're only going to discount my input and reply with a "why even reply", you don't really have to mash that reply button. I guess I could have been lazy and quoted someone else's response with, "I AGREE!!!!!"

For fucks sake.

User avatar
grovester
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4141
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:30 pm
Location: KC Metro

Re: Politics

Post by grovester »

DColeKC wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:53 pm
grovester wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 7:37 pm
DColeKC wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:04 pm


Interesting. Still hung up on the fact he said he “could” grab a pussy but never has been proven to just randomly grab pussies. You ever play sports? I can’t Believe comments like that are new information to some people.
Interesting. Still apologizing for that POS.
I didn't say I'm sorry... because I'm not. No apology from me.
My apologies, I meant to call you an apologist.

: one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apologist

DColeKC
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

grovester wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 8:22 pm
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:53 pm
grovester wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 7:37 pm


Interesting. Still apologizing for that POS.
I didn't say I'm sorry... because I'm not. No apology from me.
My apologies, I meant to call you an apologist.

: one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apologist
I'm starting to think you have an information processing disorder. I said what I said, if you're dense enough to think that's in defense of Trump, I will let you be dense. Of course to you, anytime someone doesn't just on the FUCK TRUMP bandwagon, they're defending Trump. Such an infantile assumption.

User avatar
grovester
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4141
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:30 pm
Location: KC Metro

Re: Politics

Post by grovester »

DColeKC wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 8:57 pm
grovester wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 8:22 pm
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:53 pm


I didn't say I'm sorry... because I'm not. No apology from me.
My apologies, I meant to call you an apologist.

: one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apologist
I'm starting to think you have an information processing disorder. I said what I said, if you're dense enough to think that's in defense of Trump, I will let you be dense. Of course to you, anytime someone doesn't just on the FUCK TRUMP bandwagon, they're defending Trump. Such an infantile assumption.
"Interesting. Still hung up on the fact he said he “could” grab a pussy but never has been proven to just randomly grab pussies. You ever play sports? I can’t Believe comments like that are new information to some people."

Not in defense of Trump.

mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 10980
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Re: Politics

Post by mean »

DColeKC wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:04 pm
mean wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 6:17 pm
The perception of being a red state isn't the problem. Red states have values. The problem is being perceived as a gullible bunch of dupes who fall for the cult leader's pussy-grabbing, value-free bullshit.
Interesting. Still hung up on the fact he said he “could” grab a pussy but never has been proven to just randomly grab pussies. You ever play sports? I can’t Believe comments like that are new information to some people.
How is this not literally the definition of apologism? I pointed out a horrible thing the dude said and you are furiously doing the "it's not that bad" dance. Democrats disqualified Howard Dean for making an enthusiastic squeal in 2004, and Trump talks flippantly about sexual assault--whether he did it or not--and it is forgiven, mostly by people who are supposedly the moral ones? To quote Joe Biden, "Come on!" It's gross.

grovester beat me, but same idea

DColeKC
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

mean wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:13 pm
DColeKC wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:04 pm
mean wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 6:17 pm
The perception of being a red state isn't the problem. Red states have values. The problem is being perceived as a gullible bunch of dupes who fall for the cult leader's pussy-grabbing, value-free bullshit.
Interesting. Still hung up on the fact he said he “could” grab a pussy but never has been proven to just randomly grab pussies. You ever play sports? I can’t Believe comments like that are new information to some people.
How is this not literally the definition of apologism? I pointed out a horrible thing the dude said and you are furiously doing the "it's not that bad" dance. Democrats disqualified Howard Dean for making an enthusiastic squeal in 2004, and Trump talks flippantly about sexual assault--whether he did it or not--and it is forgiven, mostly by people who are supposedly the moral ones? To quote Joe Biden, "Come on!" It's gross.

grovester beat me, but same idea
I'm not making excuses for what he said. I'm offering up the idea that things like that are often said amongst men and I'd be very impressed if you two haven't said anything that could be perceived as inappropriate about the opposite sex. From what I've seen of you on here, if you had billions and power, you'd be completely out of control. Saying you could grab pussies would likely be the least of your errors.

Look at the tiny amount of power you have over this forum and how you utilize that.

DColeKC
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

And what's more gross than saying you could grab pussies.... Joe Biden grabbing little kids awkwardly and kissing odd parts of their heads. As Trump would say, "Joe, don't even talk to me about gross."

User avatar
TheLastGentleman
Valencia Place
Valencia Place
Posts: 1803
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:27 pm

Re: Politics

Post by TheLastGentleman »

If your goal is making conservatism seem like a reasonable and well considered position, you’re failing miserably. If you’re ok with that, cool, but I thought I’d let you know

DColeKC
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

TheLastGentleman wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 10:16 pm
If your goal is making conservatism seem like a reasonable and well considered position, you’re failing miserably. If you’re ok with that, cool, but I thought I’d let you know
I'm not a conservative and hate many of the conservative values. Especially the conservative stance on abortion and LGBTQ rights. I'm also not on here to recruit anyone to any political party or impress any of you in regards to politics. I've been labeled the devils advocate on here, so I'm going to run with it. Otherwise it's just a few guys cranking each other off because they agree with each other. That's boring.

DColeKC
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

On a serious note: Last nights debate was 100 times more watchable than the first one. Both appeared to do well with no major flubs. I do think Biden is going to have to address this Hunter stuff. It won’t impact the election but I really don’t want to end up in the same boat we did with Trump and the Democrats spending all that time investigating. They opened a can of worms and the republicans will do the same damn thing, constantly trying to find dirt on Biden.

One thing I wish Trump would have said to Joe as Joe kept saying “look at my tax returns” in defense of not taking money from his sons dealings. Trump should have said the American people aren’t stupid. Just because your son and brother hold on to your cut in their accounts doesn’t mean you weren’t involved.

mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 10980
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Re: Politics

Post by mean »

DColeKC wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:46 pm
mean wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:13 pm
DColeKC wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:04 pm


Interesting. Still hung up on the fact he said he “could” grab a pussy but never has been proven to just randomly grab pussies. You ever play sports? I can’t Believe comments like that are new information to some people.
How is this not literally the definition of apologism? I pointed out a horrible thing the dude said and you are furiously doing the "it's not that bad" dance. Democrats disqualified Howard Dean for making an enthusiastic squeal in 2004, and Trump talks flippantly about sexual assault--whether he did it or not--and it is forgiven, mostly by people who are supposedly the moral ones? To quote Joe Biden, "Come on!" It's gross.

grovester beat me, but same idea
I'm not making excuses for what he said. I'm offering up the idea that things like that are often said amongst men and I'd be very impressed if you two haven't said anything that could be perceived as inappropriate about the opposite sex. From what I've seen of you on here, if you had billions and power, you'd be completely out of control. Saying you could grab pussies would likely be the least of your errors.

Look at the tiny amount of power you have over this forum and how you utilize that.
What are you talking about? I don't do anything with my "power" lol. There are like two bans. You're on crack.

phuqueue
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2440
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Politics

Post by phuqueue »

DColeKC wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 6:31 pm
phuqueue wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 5:12 pm
If you're only planning to repeat points that were already made and answered four days ago, you know you don't really have to mash that reply button, don't you?
If you're only going to discount my input and reply with a "why even reply", you don't really have to mash that reply button. I guess I could have been lazy and quoted someone else's response with, "I AGREE!!!!!"

For fucks sake.
So we're agreed, you actually have nothing to add to the conversation.
DColeKC wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:46 pm
mean wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:13 pm
DColeKC wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:04 pm


Interesting. Still hung up on the fact he said he “could” grab a pussy but never has been proven to just randomly grab pussies. You ever play sports? I can’t Believe comments like that are new information to some people.
How is this not literally the definition of apologism? I pointed out a horrible thing the dude said and you are furiously doing the "it's not that bad" dance. Democrats disqualified Howard Dean for making an enthusiastic squeal in 2004, and Trump talks flippantly about sexual assault--whether he did it or not--and it is forgiven, mostly by people who are supposedly the moral ones? To quote Joe Biden, "Come on!" It's gross.

grovester beat me, but same idea
I'm not making excuses for what he said. I'm offering up the idea that things like that are often said amongst men and I'd be very impressed if you two haven't said anything that could be perceived as inappropriate about the opposite sex. From what I've seen of you on here, if you had billions and power, you'd be completely out of control. Saying you could grab pussies would likely be the least of your errors.

Look at the tiny amount of power you have over this forum and how you utilize that.
Not sure what you think the rest of your post is doing here if you're "not making excuses" for Trump. What are you doing, then?

There is a difference between something "that could be perceived as inappropriate" and bragging about sexual assault. In my life as a man, which has included plenty of time in the fabled locker room, I have heard (and yes, regrettably, said) a lot of the former, but never the latter. If it is your genuine belief that this is common, it isn't because men generally boast about assaulting women, it is because you surround yourself with bad men and/or are a bad man yourself. Arguing that others in this thread are just as bad is presumptuous and unfounded.

It's also irrelevant. Nobody in this thread is or is running for president. We don't need to hold random strangers to the same standard that we should be holding the head of state (although we should be holding everybody to at least a basic standard of "don't rape people"), and maybe more importantly, we should definitely be holding the head of state to a much higher standard than we hold random strangers.

I can agree that people who have billions and power are completely out of control, though. That's why nobody should have billions or power.

Post Reply