War in Ukraine

#21,051
#21,051
luthervol said:
Sure you do. You root for the team who you feel will put the most dollars in your pocket and whatever other distant criteria you may use.
Click to expand...

You couldn’t be more wrong. I’m not anywhere near as shallow or self absorbed as you are.

If there was a candidate that actually had a viable plan to eliminate the debt that included real spending cuts AND massive but temporary tax increases I would probably support that person. Our problem as a country is we run it on a max 4 year plan, usually a 2 year plan and that plan is to get the controlling party reelected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: red butler, ***RoadVol***, Weezer and 3 others
#21,052
#21,052
AM64 said:
In terms of voting and urban rule Tennessee isn't Georgia, yet. And nobody knew until the last time around Georgia was New York ... allegedly. You do understand the concept that when options are taken away people tend to get angry, and there's a lot of people between the four metropolitan areas in Tennessee? Those people are more self reliant than city dwellers; best not to trivialize them. Remember a couple of slogans: "No taxation without representation" and "Don't tread on me"?
Click to expand...
No one is trivializing them. One person, one vote doesn't trivialize them. Anything else trivializes the person whose vote counts less.
 
#21,055
#21,055
AM64 said:
In terms of voting and urban rule Tennessee isn't Georgia, yet. And nobody knew until the last time around Georgia was New York ... allegedly. You do understand the concept that when options are taken away people tend to get angry, and there's a lot of people between the four metropolitan areas in Tennessee? Those people are more self reliant than city dwellers; best not to trivialize them. Remember a couple of slogans: "No taxation without representation" and "Don't tread on me"?
Click to expand...

With all the migration into TN we will become GA, not nearly as dumb as Georgians but we will turn blue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#21,056
#21,056
hog88 said:
You couldn’t be more wrong. I’m not anywhere near as shallow or self absorbed as you are.

If there was a candidate that actually had a viable plan to eliminate the debt that included real spending cuts AND massive but temporary tax increases I would probably support that person. Our problem as a country is we run it on a max 4 year plan, usually a 2 year plan and that plan is to get the controlling party reelected.
Click to expand...
Didn't you support Trump?
 
#21,059
#21,059
luthervol said:
So how would you like votes to be weighted on the county level? The state level?
Click to expand...

I wouldnt weight it, I would have strict limits on who could vote. Start with married couples with kids who can pass a basic civics test and work out from there.
 
#21,062
#21,062
luthervol said:
Do you not believe in one person one vote - weighted equally?
If not, whose vote should be weighted more heavily and why?
Click to expand...

That sounds great in principle, but that's a straight democracy or might makes right. Pure democracies don't do well in practice. So, no, I think it's a bad idea. A lot of compromise went into the original plan for the country, and a lot of the compromise was based on ensuring that states with large populations didn't overwhelm what less populous states needed and wanted. Why in the hell would we want a country where CA, NY, and perhaps one other state determine the direction of the entire country? Why would we want Tennessee dictated by three or four cities? Why do you think people refer to the US heartland as "flyover country" - perhaps because big coastal metropolitan areas see the rest of the country as insignificant?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wireless1
#21,063
#21,063
volgr said:
I wouldnt weight it, I would have strict limits on who could vote. Start with married couples with kids who can pass a basic civics test and work out from there.
Click to expand...
So among the people you would allow to vote, you think each vote should be counted equally?
 
#21,066
#21,066
hog88 said:
I didn’t vote for him in 16 or 20 even though I believed he was infinitely better than either of his opponents.
Click to expand...
So you didn't vote for the candidate you found to be infinitely better than the other viable opponent in what you knew would be a close election?

That may be the dumbest stance imaginable.
 
#21,068
#21,068
luthervol said:
So you didn't vote for the candidate you found to be infinitely better than the other viable opponent in what you knew would be a close election?

That may be the dumbest stance imaginable.
Click to expand...
No what's stupid is voting for someone who you think has no business being in office. You are 100% the problem with why we have shat candidates. You are 100% the problem. Along with all the Trump sycophants
 
  • Like
Reactions: VOLALUM and hog88
#21,070
#21,070
luthervol said:
Do you not believe in one person one vote - weighted equally?
If not, whose vote should be weighted more heavily and why?
Click to expand...

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.
Click to expand...
- Alexander Fraser Tytler

This quote was made in the late 1700s or early 1800s and was profoundly prophetic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave and AM64
#21,071
#21,071
volfanhill said:
No what's stupid is voting for someone who you think has no business being in office. You are 100% the problem with why we have shat candidates. You are 100% the problem. Along with all the Trump sycophants
Click to expand...
Does that imply that you are the solution?
I have always and will always vote for the best viable candidate.
Anything else is utter stupidity.
 
#21,072
#21,072
volgr said:
Locally, yes. State level, possibly, I'd entertain arguments for and against.
Click to expand...

I agree with local votes being equal. At the state level, it still pits the rural population against the urban population. Urban and rural areas have different views and different needs and one shouldn't overwhelm the other. One very simple example is transportation - cities have one need and are candidates for public transportation, rural areas have a very different set of needs.
 
#21,073
#21,073
hog88 said:
- Alexander Fraser Tytler

This quote was made in the late 1700s or early 1800s and was profoundly prophetic.
Click to expand...
And that is precisely why greed is a horrible motivator.
Greed should be demonized, not celebrated; that's been our biggest downfall.
 
#21,074
#21,074
luthervol said:
So you didn't vote for the candidate you found to be infinitely better than the other viable opponent in what you knew would be a close election?

That may be the dumbest stance imaginable.
Click to expand...

No, that’s how bad I thought Trump was. He was so bad I couldn’t vote for him so what does that say about his opponents?
 
#21,075
#21,075
AM64 said:
I agree with local votes being equal. At the state level, it still pits the rural population against the urban population. Urban and rural areas have different views and different needs and one shouldn't overwhelm the other. One very simple example is transportation - cities have one need and are candidates for public transportation, rural areas have a very different set of needs.
Click to expand...
You can take that to the county level. Many counties have a majority of the population living in a comparatively small area. Should the wishes of that small area override the wishes of the people living in the larger area?
Do people vote or square miles? That's what it boils down to.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top