[POLITICS] Republican Rand Paul blocks vote to help 9/11 victims because he is a horrible person

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Direct elections would just be better. I never understand the arguments against it. Why the fuck do we NEED the electoral college?

I think would have made a lot of sense back when they rebellion against England was over and they had to try and convince all these little states not just to become their own independent entities. To convince them they weren't giving up all their autonomy when joining a democratic system with a much larger overall population. To convince them "No its okay you get a say". But I dunno.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

SNIP

'not too long ago' was 20 years ago. That's an entirely new, more liberal voting generation raised and an most of an entire generations worth of old conservative voters dead. TV shows like Glen Beck didn't get canceled because he was too outrageous, they went away because his average viewer was 70+ and died

And you've got flocks of Shapiros and Crowders and Molyneauxs and Owens's to replace them.

Or at least, that's what they keep telling me.

I've yet to hear a good explanation for why my Montanan vote is worth more than a vote from Dallas or Oakland.

Because Montana as a population of 1million, and Dallas has a population of 2 million. Your single montana vote is .001% of all montana votes, whereas a single vote in Dallas is .00005% of all Dallas votes.
A single vote in Montana has a higher impact than a single vote from Dallas

I know the math. I'm challenging why the math exists. I'm not two people, I shouldn't get the equivalent of two votes just because I live in a place that's mostly empty.

Thats just the way it is. If we did direct elections, you'd have 1 vote sure, but no one would care about Montana. Why would a politician ever go there when there are twice as many votes in Dallas alone? A politician could just carry New York, LA, Dallas, Chicago, Boston and maybe Atlantic City and they'd win the election. Everywhere else would just be the outskirts of the closest major city.

Why does anyone need to go anywhere? TV and the internet and phones exist. Campaigning is just another barrier that favors the rich.

How is the President caring about people in one state reliant on not caring about another? This is why we have mayors and governors and congresspeople and senators. The President is supposed to care about the whole country, not that Trump gets that. The Electoral College makes politicians not care about everyone, Democracy would change that. New York Republicans and Texan Democrats would get their voices heard.

I never relied on them showing up to my door to support a candidate. Not being a huge bigot did however.

Because States compete. Texas doesn't want New York to get the new Amazon warehouse, they want it for themselves. California doesn't want Florida to be where the next Avengers movie is shot, they want it for themselves.
Commerce and tax revenue is a zero sum game. Your loss is my victory, and vice versa. Politicians have to pander to states, because people in those states only care about those states.
If there were two equally liberal nice candidates, but one was like "Yeah fuck those people in New York. What has New York ever done for Nevada?" you're going to be more likely to vote for the other guy.
Its impossible to please all 50 states, but when given a choice between a candidate that shits on your state, and one that doesn't, most voters choose the later. And yes, to most voters not going to their state is considered shitting on them, as in they don't matter.

 

[WindKnight]

Direct elections would just be better. I never understand the arguments against it. Why the fuck do we NEED the electoral college?

I think would have made a lot of sense back when they rebellion against England was over and they had to try and convince all these little states not just to become their own independent entities. To convince them they weren't giving up all their autonomy when joining a democratic system with a much larger overall population. To convince them "No its okay you get a say". But I dunno.

I think the general idea was at one time the 'empty states' were at least producing stuff america needed to survive, so they were given a larger sway to stop more populous areas using the majority given by pure population to be short sighted and do stuff that would damage such production and harm the country as a whole.

 

[CaitSeith]

SNIP

Because the larger point still stands. Between those three cities there are enough millions of votes to outsource and win every election

Not it doesn't! Even merely a 10% from the rest of the country is enough to surpass them. DO THE MATH!!!

 

[Saelune]

SNIP

'not too long ago' was 20 years ago. That's an entirely new, more liberal voting generation raised and an most of an entire generations worth of old conservative voters dead. TV shows like Glen Beck didn't get canceled because he was too outrageous, they went away because his average viewer was 70+ and died

And you've got flocks of Shapiros and Crowders and Molyneauxs and Owens's to replace them.

Or at least, that's what they keep telling me.

I've yet to hear a good explanation for why my Montanan vote is worth more than a vote from Dallas or Oakland.

Because Montana as a population of 1million, and Dallas has a population of 2 million. Your single montana vote is .001% of all montana votes, whereas a single vote in Dallas is .00005% of all Dallas votes.
A single vote in Montana has a higher impact than a single vote from Dallas

I know the math. I'm challenging why the math exists. I'm not two people, I shouldn't get the equivalent of two votes just because I live in a place that's mostly empty.

Thats just the way it is. If we did direct elections, you'd have 1 vote sure, but no one would care about Montana. Why would a politician ever go there when there are twice as many votes in Dallas alone? A politician could just carry New York, LA, Dallas, Chicago, Boston and maybe Atlantic City and they'd win the election. Everywhere else would just be the outskirts of the closest major city.

Why does anyone need to go anywhere? TV and the internet and phones exist. Campaigning is just another barrier that favors the rich.

How is the President caring about people in one state reliant on not caring about another? This is why we have mayors and governors and congresspeople and senators. The President is supposed to care about the whole country, not that Trump gets that. The Electoral College makes politicians not care about everyone, Democracy would change that. New York Republicans and Texan Democrats would get their voices heard.

I never relied on them showing up to my door to support a candidate. Not being a huge bigot did however.

Because States compete. Texas doesn't want New York to get the new Amazon warehouse, they want it for themselves. California doesn't want Florida to be where the next Avengers movie is shot, they want it for themselves.
Commerce and tax revenue is a zero sum game. Your loss is my victory, and vice versa. Politicians have to pander to states, because people in those states only care about those states.
If there were two equally liberal nice candidates, but one was like "Yeah fuck those people in New York. What has New York ever done for Nevada?" you're going to be more likely to vote for the other guy.
Its impossible to please all 50 states, but when given a choice between a candidate that shits on your state, and one that doesn't, most voters choose the later. And yes, to most voters not going to their state is considered shitting on them, as in they don't matter.

And what does the government or Presidency have to do with that? The Presidency should not have to appeal to shallow pride like that. That same kind of thinking is where bigotry comes from, why people are ok with letting children die in concentration camps 'cause they are not us'.

 

[Nedoras]

Direct elections would just be better. I never understand the arguments against it. Why the fuck do we NEED the electoral college?

I think would have made a lot of sense back when they rebellion against England was over and they had to try and convince all these little states not just to become their own independent entities. To convince them they weren't giving up all their autonomy when joining a democratic system with a much larger overall population. To convince them "No its okay you get a say". But I dunno.

That was a part of it yes. There was a massive amount of tension between the states early on, to the point where a war breaking out was very possible. It's true that states were afraid of losing their autonomy. That early chaotic period is actually pretty interesting history.

There's all manner of other reasons though. One being that some of the founders were legitimately afraid of direct elections for the presidency. There's truth to the idea that the college exists to keep out populists and demagogues. However the idea of that working proved to be wrong almost two centuries ago when Jackson got into office. Then there's the whole it was to appease slave heavy states thing. No matter how you really look at it, it's a relic of the past that exists purely out of tradition and fear. The modern reasons for defending it have no rationality behind them.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

SNIP

Because the larger point still stands. Between those three cities there are enough millions of votes to outsource and win every election

Not it doesn't! Even merely a 10% from the rest of the country is enough to surpass them. DO THE MATH!!!

Yeah but that 10% is spread out over everywhere else.
I did the math in an earlier post. 1 million democrat new yorkers moving to texas flips texas blue, and keeps new york blue. You don't get how sparsely populated the rest of the US is and how spread out it is. There are more people in Dallas alone than there are in Montana

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

SNIP

'not too long ago' was 20 years ago. That's an entirely new, more liberal voting generation raised and an most of an entire generations worth of old conservative voters dead. TV shows like Glen Beck didn't get canceled because he was too outrageous, they went away because his average viewer was 70+ and died

And you've got flocks of Shapiros and Crowders and Molyneauxs and Owens's to replace them.

Or at least, that's what they keep telling me.

I've yet to hear a good explanation for why my Montanan vote is worth more than a vote from Dallas or Oakland.

Because Montana as a population of 1million, and Dallas has a population of 2 million. Your single montana vote is .001% of all montana votes, whereas a single vote in Dallas is .00005% of all Dallas votes.
A single vote in Montana has a higher impact than a single vote from Dallas

I know the math. I'm challenging why the math exists. I'm not two people, I shouldn't get the equivalent of two votes just because I live in a place that's mostly empty.

Thats just the way it is. If we did direct elections, you'd have 1 vote sure, but no one would care about Montana. Why would a politician ever go there when there are twice as many votes in Dallas alone? A politician could just carry New York, LA, Dallas, Chicago, Boston and maybe Atlantic City and they'd win the election. Everywhere else would just be the outskirts of the closest major city.

Why does anyone need to go anywhere? TV and the internet and phones exist. Campaigning is just another barrier that favors the rich.

How is the President caring about people in one state reliant on not caring about another? This is why we have mayors and governors and congresspeople and senators. The President is supposed to care about the whole country, not that Trump gets that. The Electoral College makes politicians not care about everyone, Democracy would change that. New York Republicans and Texan Democrats would get their voices heard.

I never relied on them showing up to my door to support a candidate. Not being a huge bigot did however.

Because States compete. Texas doesn't want New York to get the new Amazon warehouse, they want it for themselves. California doesn't want Florida to be where the next Avengers movie is shot, they want it for themselves.
Commerce and tax revenue is a zero sum game. Your loss is my victory, and vice versa. Politicians have to pander to states, because people in those states only care about those states.
If there were two equally liberal nice candidates, but one was like "Yeah fuck those people in New York. What has New York ever done for Nevada?" you're going to be more likely to vote for the other guy.
Its impossible to please all 50 states, but when given a choice between a candidate that shits on your state, and one that doesn't, most voters choose the later. And yes, to most voters not going to their state is considered shitting on them, as in they don't matter.

And what does the government or Presidency have to do with that? The Presidency should not have to appeal to shallow pride like that. That same kind of thinking is where bigotry comes from, why people are ok with letting children die in concentration camps 'cause they are not us'.

Because the presidency helps regulate industry and well regulations. Oil laws don't effect Florida, but they do effect Kentucky and California and Texas. So a politician promising to reduce oil regulations is appealing to oil state voters, and not to other state voters. Now apply that to every industry.
And no, competition is not how you get concentration camps. You get them from the direct opposite, a rigged system that punishes the poor and rewards the wealthy, thus leaving the wealthy in need of a boogie man to take the poors' mind off the system. Trump isn't putting kids in cages because he genuinely cares about them taking jobs, he's doing it to distract poor Texans from the fact he's been laundering money for the Russian mob for 30 years and the NRA was in on it.

 

[Marik2]

Maybe in the next decade Texas will become blue due to all the New Yorkers and Californians flooding into the state to avoid high taxes. Austin is basically Los Angeles now with Google and Apple here.

 

[CaitSeith]

SNIP

Because the larger point still stands. Between those three cities there are enough millions of votes to outsource and win every election

Not it doesn't! Even merely a 10% from the rest of the country is enough to surpass them. DO THE MATH!!!

Yeah but that 10% is spread out over everywhere else.
I did the math in an earlier post. 1 million democrat new yorkers moving to texas flips texas blue, and keeps new york blue. You don't get how sparsely populated the rest of the US is and how spread out it is. There are more people in Dallas alone than there are in Montana

If you did the math, you didn't post it.

Dallas: 1.341 million
Texas: 28.7 million

If 1 million NY democrats moved to Dallas and swung it blue, you'd probably be complaining about the same thing (but at State level)

 

[Saelune]

SNIP

'not too long ago' was 20 years ago. That's an entirely new, more liberal voting generation raised and an most of an entire generations worth of old conservative voters dead. TV shows like Glen Beck didn't get canceled because he was too outrageous, they went away because his average viewer was 70+ and died

And you've got flocks of Shapiros and Crowders and Molyneauxs and Owens's to replace them.

Or at least, that's what they keep telling me.

I've yet to hear a good explanation for why my Montanan vote is worth more than a vote from Dallas or Oakland.

Because Montana as a population of 1million, and Dallas has a population of 2 million. Your single montana vote is .001% of all montana votes, whereas a single vote in Dallas is .00005% of all Dallas votes.
A single vote in Montana has a higher impact than a single vote from Dallas

I know the math. I'm challenging why the math exists. I'm not two people, I shouldn't get the equivalent of two votes just because I live in a place that's mostly empty.

Thats just the way it is. If we did direct elections, you'd have 1 vote sure, but no one would care about Montana. Why would a politician ever go there when there are twice as many votes in Dallas alone? A politician could just carry New York, LA, Dallas, Chicago, Boston and maybe Atlantic City and they'd win the election. Everywhere else would just be the outskirts of the closest major city.

Why does anyone need to go anywhere? TV and the internet and phones exist. Campaigning is just another barrier that favors the rich.

How is the President caring about people in one state reliant on not caring about another? This is why we have mayors and governors and congresspeople and senators. The President is supposed to care about the whole country, not that Trump gets that. The Electoral College makes politicians not care about everyone, Democracy would change that. New York Republicans and Texan Democrats would get their voices heard.

I never relied on them showing up to my door to support a candidate. Not being a huge bigot did however.

Because States compete. Texas doesn't want New York to get the new Amazon warehouse, they want it for themselves. California doesn't want Florida to be where the next Avengers movie is shot, they want it for themselves.
Commerce and tax revenue is a zero sum game. Your loss is my victory, and vice versa. Politicians have to pander to states, because people in those states only care about those states.
If there were two equally liberal nice candidates, but one was like "Yeah fuck those people in New York. What has New York ever done for Nevada?" you're going to be more likely to vote for the other guy.
Its impossible to please all 50 states, but when given a choice between a candidate that shits on your state, and one that doesn't, most voters choose the later. And yes, to most voters not going to their state is considered shitting on them, as in they don't matter.

And what does the government or Presidency have to do with that? The Presidency should not have to appeal to shallow pride like that. That same kind of thinking is where bigotry comes from, why people are ok with letting children die in concentration camps 'cause they are not us'.

Because the presidency helps regulate industry and well regulations. Oil laws don't effect Florida, but they do effect Kentucky and California and Texas. So a politician promising to reduce oil regulations is appealing to oil state voters, and not to other state voters. Now apply that to every industry.
And no, competition is not how you get concentration camps. You get them from the direct opposite, a rigged system that punishes the poor and rewards the wealthy, thus leaving the wealthy in need of a boogie man to take the poors' mind off the system. Trump isn't putting kids in cages because he genuinely cares about them taking jobs, he's doing it to distract poor Texans from the fact he's been laundering money for the Russian mob for 30 years and the NRA was in on it.

So what you're saying is, the Electoral College is terrible, and Trump is terrible, and you shouldn't waste your time shitting on me when I am not the problem.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

SNIP

Okay fine I'll quote myself

"You could have taken 1 million voters out of New York, leaving Hilary with at 3,556,124 votes to Trump's 2,819,534 and it still goes Blue. Those 1 million in Texas however gets Hilary to 4,877,868 to Trump's 4,685,047.
That would have flipped the election. Trump gets 263 electoral college, Hilary 268. Close, very close, probably a recount, but a win none the less.
Swing states are more important."

And lets go in deeper 'cause I'm enjoying this.
Pennsylvania 2016: Trump 2,912,941, Hilary 2,844,705.
Now lets look at Chicago 2016:
Hilary 890,705, Trump 132,738

You could take 200,000 Chicago Democratic voters, move them to Pennsylvania, Hilary still takes Chicago 690,705 to 132738, but now Pennsylvania is Trump 2912941, Hilary 3844705, putting the new electoral count, including our edits to Texas as Hilary 288, Trump 243.

Fuck it, lets go deeper!
Florida Trump 4,605,515 Hilary 4,485,745
Los Angeles Hilary 2,464,364 Trump 769,743
You could take 1 million Democratic voters out of LA, move them to Florida. LA is now 1,464,364 Hilary to Trump 769,743.
Florida is now Trump 4,605,515 to Hilary 5,485,745, meaning she wins Florida and our electoral count is now Trump 219 Hilary 317.

So yes the math does work. With 2,200,000 Democrats moving from guaranteed safe cities you swing entire states worth of elections.

 

[Nedoras]

SNIP

Okay fine I'll quote myself

"You could have taken 1 million voters out of New York, leaving Hilary with at 3,556,124 votes to Trump's 2,819,534 and it still goes Blue. Those 1 million in Texas however gets Hilary to 4,877,868 to Trump's 4,685,047.
That would have flipped the election. Trump gets 263 electoral college, Hilary 268. Close, very close, probably a recount, but a win none the less.
Swing states are more important."

And lets go in deeper 'cause I'm enjoying this.
Pennsylvania 2016: Trump 2,912,941, Hilary 2,844,705.
Now lets look at Chicago 2016:
Hilary 890,705, Trump 132,738

You could take 200,000 Chicago Democratic voters, move them to Pennsylvania, Hilary still takes Chicago 690,705 to 132738, but now Pennsylvania is Trump 2912941, Hilary 3844705, putting the new electoral count, including our edits to Texas as Hilary 288, Trump 243.

Fuck it, lets go deeper!
Florida Trump 4,605,515 Hilary 4,485,745
Los Angeles Hilary 2,464,364 Trump 769,743
You could take 1 million Democratic voters out of LA, move them to Florida. LA is now 1,464,364 Hilary to Trump 769,743.
Florida is now Trump 4,605,515 to Hilary 5,485,745, meaning she wins Florida and our electoral count is now Trump 219 Hilary 317.

So yes the math does work. With 2,200,000 Democrats moving from guaranteed safe cities you swing entire states worth of elections.

And how is it in any way practical for people to move across the country just to vote and maybe turn a state "blue"? This hypothetical you're throwing at us is made in complete hindsight and is useless. It's not in any way realistic either. People can't just move on a whim. This hypothetical also ignores many details about the 2016 election in general, and assumes things will go the same way in 2020.

I also can't tell if you're being serious, as your posts kind of come across as a joke.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Direct elections would just be better. I never understand the arguments against it. Why the fuck do we NEED the electoral college?

I think would have made a lot of sense back when they rebellion against England was over and they had to try and convince all these little states not just to become their own independent entities. To convince them they weren't giving up all their autonomy when joining a democratic system with a much larger overall population. To convince them "No its okay you get a say". But I dunno.

I think the general idea was at one time the 'empty states' were at least producing stuff america needed to survive, so they were given a larger sway to stop more populous areas using the majority given by pure population to be short sighted and do stuff that would damage such production and harm the country as a whole.

Plus, rich slaveholding landowners wanted more political power relative to more abolitionist-friendly city folks, hence the Great Compromise, the 3/5ths compromise, and the Census counting every person in the country instead of just the citizens.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I don't really understand this. We know that the typical republican is kinda evil but this should be a matter of political self preservation for them. As I understand 9/11 is seen in America as a national tragedy and its victims are greatly honored and dearly missed. So isn't knowingly screwing over the victims of 9/11 akin to political suicide? So why do it?

It's not political suicide for people whose political career depends principally on wealthy campaign contributors because wealthy campaign contributors will keep funding someone who votes either way.

 

[Gergar12_v1legacy]

Rand Paul meanwhile voted for the final tax bill even after his paygo efforts failed because he serves the rich and only the rich.