Gerrymandering in Virginia

[NEO]

It's too late to make the changes needed to save this country. We'll Balkanize or end up under a 1 party authoritarian rule.

We will balkanize.

This gerrymandering shows it.

 

[NEO]

I think we all agree on that. Of course, the POTUS that did the most for the debt (Clinton) was the one elected by a coalition of non income taxpayers.....

You left out Newt.

Last time I ever saw our government work.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

You left out Newt.

Last time I ever saw our government work.

Yeah, that clearly impacted it too...

 

[OrangeTsar]

depending on what you are calling the end Athenian Democracy, there are huge number of reasons outside of the voting system that caused it to fall.

it lost a war to Sparta, please explain how being a democracy lead to that.
it failed at establishing a colony in Sicily after investing a good bit of money.
There was a plague that killed a big chunk of the population, I guess the roman citizen soldiers voted theirs away.
They also lost their navy which protected their trade network.
their Democracy failed when they couldn't vote someone competent enough to deal with their issues. the Romans got EXTREMELY lucky with Cincinnatus, had he continued to reject their offers and had they been stuck with all the other failures they would have ended a lot sooner.

I too have read Thucydides.

The Athenian democracy elected Pericles and Alcebiades. Pericles led Athens into said war with Sparta which led directly to his decision to bring all Atticans inside the city walls which directly caused said plagues. Alcebiades is largely responsible for the war in Sicily which to the loss of said colony. The Athenian people voted in their own doom; sort of like California and NYC are doing today.
Meanwhile, the Roman Republic with its limited franchise of property owners selected a pair of counsels each year who could cancel one another out and led to almost 5 centuries of stable government. This ended the populares like the Gracchi brothers and later Julius Caesar started courting power from the general populace leading to civil war, the destruction of the Republic and the creation of the Roman Empire under Augustus.

 

[NEO]

Yeah, that clearly impacted it too...

I would literally take that entire group and flip them out right now with what we have.

Other than Reagan he is the only president I ever liked.

And NAFTA was Bush SR so I can’t even really blame him for that.

 

[LouderVol]

At this stage I don't particularly care if welfare recipients are second class citizens. Irresponsible people of all stripes are why we get stuck with the shitshow we keep getting stuck with, so why not limit the damage? People that are net drains on society should be limited until they straighten out as part of being wards of the state- let them be drug tested, searched, inspected, arms removed, etc. until they get themselves right. Either way too many people can vote as it stands today.

The best way to not have to worry about any of this is to get rid of welfare, get rid of perverse incentives to stay on or use welfare, etc.

EDIT: if the community wants to- and volunteers itself- to keep people off of government welfare (which none of us can simply opt out of paying), then we've got plenty of non-profit and/or faith-based service opportunities available.

because it doesn't. You think getting rid of 500 billion in welfare for citizens is going to help us when we add 500 billion in business subsidies? the problem isn't only at the bottom.

once you begin slicing away groups of people it never stops. Its a real easy extension of your argument to go from "People who pay no taxes can't vote" to "People who are net takers can't vote". Its the exact same argument, they are a net drain and not really bearing their weight.

 

[LouderVol]

But voting is not included in the RoRs.

I assume you mean the BoR, not sure what the RoR is.

regardless I am not sure why that matters, there are amendments that cover voting.

 

[hog88]

I assume you mean the BoR, not sure what the RoR is.

regardless I am not sure why that matters, there are amendments that cover voting.

Yes and even with those amendments the franchise can still be restricted.

 

[LouderVol]

In my youth, I would have agreed with your point. As I grow older, I keep realizing more and more that some people really shouldn’t be voting.
I know that is an unconventional and unconstitutional position; but let’s face it; a large number of Americans are frankly idiots.
We are not a democracy as many people keep pointing out.

and that is where it stops.

once we give them an inch to take away rights from some, it will be taken away from all.

each and every right needs to be treated equally. unless you are willing to deny all rights to those on welfare, you don't even have an internally consistent argument, before you get to the Constitution.

 

[ButchPlz]

because it doesn't. You think getting rid of 500 billion in welfare for citizens is going to help us when we add 500 billion in business subsidies? the problem isn't only at the bottom.

once you begin slicing away groups of people it never stops. Its a real easy extension of your argument to go from "People who pay no taxes can't vote" to "People who are net takers can't vote". Its the exact same argument, they are a net drain and not really bearing their weight.

I don't think it fixes it. The bold is irrelevant anyway, because it doesn't have to do with voting. Get rid of business and farm subsidies too.

People who are net takers shouldn't vote either. We're trying to have a functional society here. Letting takers keep voting to take while we all have to chip in is a drain.

 

[LouderVol]

So the store didn’t just give you stuff huh? For free huh? Because maybe you didn’t contribute???


And a church is a charity. Gov is not designed to be a charity.

government is not designed to be a business either. its not, nor ever should be, a for profit institution that you want it to be. the government is there to ensure the equal protection and application of the laws. anything else and it has lost its purpose and becomes tyrannical.

 

[LouderVol]

Guys in 1988 our national debt was 50 percent of GDP.

We are now well over 100 percent of GDP.

If you truly care about the future of this country and your children something has to change.

easy peasy.

balanced budget amendment.

everyone keeps their rights, and the power of the government is restricted.

and before you cry about that being impossible, so is taking away voting rights.

 

[LouderVol]

I too have read Thucydides.

The Athenian democracy elected Pericles and Alcebiades. Pericles led Athens into said war with Sparta which led directly to his decision to bring all Atticans inside the city walls which directly caused said plagues. Alcebiades is largely responsible for the war in Sicily which to the loss of said colony. The Athenian people voted in their own doom; sort of like California and NYC are doing today.
Meanwhile, the Roman Republic with its limited franchise of property owners selected a pair of counsels each year who could cancel one another out and led to almost 5 centuries of stable government. This ended the populares like the Gracchi brothers and later Julius Caesar started courting power from the general populace leading to civil war, the destruction of the Republic and the creation of the Roman Empire under Augustus.

there was plenty of dumb even with the two consuls and limited voting rights. that distinction of Republic vs Democracy isn't the difference in why one fell and another stuck around.

 

[LouderVol]

Yes and even with those amendments the franchise can still be restricted.

yeah, so can our 2A, even without the Dem crazies. I doubt you support taking 2A rights away from those on welfare.

freedom of speech is restricted.

all rights have restrictions, doesn't mean they shouldn't apply to all citizens.

 

[hog88]

and that is where it stops.

once we give them an inch to take away rights from some, it will be taken away from all.

each and every right needs to be treated equally. unless you are willing to deny all rights to those on welfare, you don't even have an internally consistent argument, before you get to the Constitution.

The rights where the constitution specifically allows restrictions need to be treated the same as rights that the constitution says they shall not be infringed?

 

[hog88]

yeah, so can our 2A, even without the Dem crazies. I doubt you support taking 2A rights away from those on welfare.

freedom of speech is restricted.

all rights have restrictions, doesn't mean they shouldn't apply to all citizens.

The 2A doesn't say "shall not be infringed unless on welfare".

 

[LouderVol]

I don't think it fixes it. The bold is irrelevant anyway, because it doesn't have to do with voting. Get rid of business and farm subsidies too.

People who are net takers shouldn't vote either. We're trying to have a functional society here. Letting takers keep voting to take while we all have to chip in is a drain.

Remove citizens united and you would have a point about nothing to do with voting. those businesses are funding politicians more than citizens are, and that goes a lot further than voting.

we are already two steps down this slippery slope and we haven't even made it out of this thread.

even under a simplified tax code you are going to have people on the edge of being net takers vs net payers. are you really going to take away rights on a yearly basis determined on April 15th?

what happens to the person who is a net payer one year, votes against politicians who increase spending, but his candidate loses; and spending goes up, and suddenly he becomes a net taker? LOL sorry you lost the election, now you can't vote to fix it?

next your litmus test on rights is going to include some dollar amount one must contribute to keep your rights. and then that amount will constantly rise till its only in the hands of the wealthiest, and that looks even worse than the welfare mob being in charge.

 

[LouderVol]

The rights where the constitution specifically allows restrictions need to be treated the same as rights that the constitution says they shall not be infringed?

yup.

you believe a 1 year old has the right to keep & bear arms? its their gun, mom and dad don't have a say?

 

[LouderVol]

The 2A doesn't say "shall not be infringed unless on welfare".

none of our rights do. which is why you guys are FOS.

2A doesn't say anything about the government being able to take away your guns while you are in prison either. "shall not be infringed upon"

 

[hog88]

yup.

you believe a 1 year old has the right to keep & bear arms? its their gun, mom and dad don't have a say?

I see that you're going Luther on us with dumbazz scenarios?

I'll just put this so your simple mind can understand it. A minor has only the rights their parents allow them to have.

 

[ButchPlz]

Remove citizens united and you would have a point about nothing to do with voting. those businesses are funding politicians more than citizens are, and that goes a lot further than voting.

we are already two steps down this slippery slope and we haven't even made it out of this thread.

even under a simplified tax code you are going to have people on the edge of being net takers vs net payers. are you really going to take away rights on a yearly basis determined on April 15th?

what happens to the person who is a net payer one year, votes against politicians who increase spending, but his candidate loses; and spending goes up, and suddenly he becomes a net taker? LOL sorry you lost the election, now you can't vote to fix it?

next your litmus test on rights is going to include some dollar amount one must contribute to keep your rights. and then that amount will constantly rise till its only in the hands of the wealthiest, and that looks even worse than the welfare mob being in charge.

Without addressing the rest of it, you realize the country pretty much started that way, right?

 

[hog88]

none of our rights do. which is why you guys are FOS.

2A doesn't say anything about the government being able to take away your guns while you are in prison either. "shall not be infringed upon"

Luther hack your account?

The 13th and 14th amendment allow restriction of rights to incarcerated felons.

 

[OrangeTsar]

and that is where it stops.

once we give them an inch to take away rights from some, it will be taken away from all.

each and every right needs to be treated equally. unless you are willing to deny all rights to those on welfare, you don't even have an internally consistent argument, before you get to the Constitution.

How about if we put the welfare recipients on a work program in exchange for the right to vote? That would solve the issue maybe?

 

[OrangeTsar]

next your litmus test on rights is going to include some dollar amount one must contribute to keep your rights. and then that amount will constantly rise till its only in the hands of the wealthiest, and that looks even worse than the welfare mob being in charge.

We are already there. Dont pay your property taxes and see just how long it is before you lose your right to own said property

 

[OrangeTsar]

So the store didn’t just give you stuff huh? For free huh? Because maybe you didn’t contribute???


And a church is a charity. Gov is not designed to be a charity.

Go to a concession stand. Concession means to give someone something right?