Maybe We Like a Dictator

Maybe we like a dictator?

  • Yes. I want to abandon our democracy and voting, and be ruled by Trump.

    Votes: 13 50.0%

  • No. I want to preserve our democracy.

    Votes: 13 50.0%
  • Total voters
    26
#51
#51
hog88 said:
Each state is it's own entity (as designed by the founders) and receives representation in the EC based on population. That is not DEI.

Explain how you think it is.
Click to expand...
Here is what AI thinks:

“Rural American voters have more power in the U.S. political system due to the structure of several key institutions that give disproportionate weight to less populated states and districts
. While the U.S. population has become increasingly urbanized, the distribution of political power has not shifted in a proportional way.
Here are the main reasons why rural voters have a higher degree of influence:
1. The U.S. Senate
The U.S. Constitution provides each state with equal representation in the Senate, regardless of its population.
  • This system gives a massive advantage to residents of smaller, often more rural states. For example, a Wyoming resident's vote for a U.S. senator has significantly more impact than a California resident's vote.
  • Because many rural states are less populated, the average state represented in the Senate has a more rural population than the U.S. as a whole, giving rural interests a powerful voice in national legislation.
2. The Electoral College
The president is not elected by the national popular vote but by the Electoral College, which is a state-based system.
  • A state's number of electoral votes is equal to its number of representatives in the House plus its two senators.
  • Since every state gets at least three electoral votes (one representative, plus two senators), less populated states are overrepresented in the Electoral College.
  • This forces presidential candidates to campaign and appeal to a wider range of voters across different states, including those in rural areas, rather than simply focusing on dense urban centers.
3. House of Representatives districts
Though House seats are apportioned by population, the system can still favor rural areas.
  • Since one party tends to be more concentrated in urban areas while the other is more widely distributed across rural districts, the latter can gain a structural advantage.
  • For example, research has shown that despite proportional representation rules, rural districts tend to be overrepresented in the House, and dense urban districts tend to be underrepresented.
4. Cohesive voting patterns
The increasing political divide between urban and rural areas has intensified the power of the rural vote.
  • Over the last two decades, voters in rural counties have become increasingly Republican, creating a more cohesive and impactful voting bloc.
  • This concentration of votes can prove decisive in swing states, where small shifts in rural areas can have a significant effect on the statewide and, by extension, national election results.
5. Local elections
In smaller communities, each vote has a much greater impact on local races. A few hundred votes can change the outcome of an election, which gives local organizers and voters a higher degree of power and potential influence.
These institutional and demographic factors combine to create a political system where rural voters wield disproportionate influence in determining national leadership and policy outcomes.“


Sounds like DEI to me. I guess if it applies to your demographics, DEI is ok though.
 
#52
#52
OHvol40 said:
Here is what AI thinks:

“Rural American voters have more power in the U.S. political system due to the structure of several key institutions that give disproportionate weight to less populated states and districts
. While the U.S. population has become increasingly urbanized, the distribution of political power has not shifted in a proportional way.
Here are the main reasons why rural voters have a higher degree of influence:
1. The U.S. Senate
The U.S. Constitution provides each state with equal representation in the Senate, regardless of its population.
  • This system gives a massive advantage to residents of smaller, often more rural states. For example, a Wyoming resident's vote for a U.S. senator has significantly more impact than a California resident's vote.
  • Because many rural states are less populated, the average state represented in the Senate has a more rural population than the U.S. as a whole, giving rural interests a powerful voice in national legislation.
2. The Electoral College
The president is not elected by the national popular vote but by the Electoral College, which is a state-based system.
  • A state's number of electoral votes is equal to its number of representatives in the House plus its two senators.
  • Since every state gets at least three electoral votes (one representative, plus two senators), less populated states are overrepresented in the Electoral College.
  • This forces presidential candidates to campaign and appeal to a wider range of voters across different states, including those in rural areas, rather than simply focusing on dense urban centers.
3. House of Representatives districts
Though House seats are apportioned by population, the system can still favor rural areas.
  • Since one party tends to be more concentrated in urban areas while the other is more widely distributed across rural districts, the latter can gain a structural advantage.
  • For example, research has shown that despite proportional representation rules, rural districts tend to be overrepresented in the House, and dense urban districts tend to be underrepresented.
4. Cohesive voting patterns
The increasing political divide between urban and rural areas has intensified the power of the rural vote.
  • Over the last two decades, voters in rural counties have become increasingly Republican, creating a more cohesive and impactful voting bloc.
  • This concentration of votes can prove decisive in swing states, where small shifts in rural areas can have a significant effect on the statewide and, by extension, national election results.
5. Local elections
In smaller communities, each vote has a much greater impact on local races. A few hundred votes can change the outcome of an election, which gives local organizers and voters a higher degree of power and potential influence.
These institutional and demographic factors combine to create a political system where rural voters wield disproportionate influence in determining national leadership and policy outcomes.“


Sounds like DEI to me. I guess if it applies to your demographics, DEI is ok though.
Click to expand...

I promise you that poster will never grasp/accept this point.

 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#53
#53
OHvol40 said:
Here is what AI thinks:

“Rural American voters have more power in the U.S. political system due to the structure of several key institutions that give disproportionate weight to less populated states and districts
. While the U.S. population has become increasingly urbanized, the distribution of political power has not shifted in a proportional way.
Here are the main reasons why rural voters have a higher degree of influence:
1. The U.S. Senate
The U.S. Constitution provides each state with equal representation in the Senate, regardless of its population.
  • This system gives a massive advantage to residents of smaller, often more rural states. For example, a Wyoming resident's vote for a U.S. senator has significantly more impact than a California resident's vote.
  • Because many rural states are less populated, the average state represented in the Senate has a more rural population than the U.S. as a whole, giving rural interests a powerful voice in national legislation.
2. The Electoral College
The president is not elected by the national popular vote but by the Electoral College, which is a state-based system.
  • A state's number of electoral votes is equal to its number of representatives in the House plus its two senators.
  • Since every state gets at least three electoral votes (one representative, plus two senators), less populated states are overrepresented in the Electoral College.
  • This forces presidential candidates to campaign and appeal to a wider range of voters across different states, including those in rural areas, rather than simply focusing on dense urban centers.
3. House of Representatives districts
Though House seats are apportioned by population, the system can still favor rural areas.
  • Since one party tends to be more concentrated in urban areas while the other is more widely distributed across rural districts, the latter can gain a structural advantage.
  • For example, research has shown that despite proportional representation rules, rural districts tend to be overrepresented in the House, and dense urban districts tend to be underrepresented.
4. Cohesive voting patterns
The increasing political divide between urban and rural areas has intensified the power of the rural vote.
  • Over the last two decades, voters in rural counties have become increasingly Republican, creating a more cohesive and impactful voting bloc.
  • This concentration of votes can prove decisive in swing states, where small shifts in rural areas can have a significant effect on the statewide and, by extension, national election results.
5. Local elections
In smaller communities, each vote has a much greater impact on local races. A few hundred votes can change the outcome of an election, which gives local organizers and voters a higher degree of power and potential influence.
These institutional and demographic factors combine to create a political system where rural voters wield disproportionate influence in determining national leadership and policy outcomes.“


Sounds like DEI to me. I guess if it applies to your demographics, DEI is ok though.
Click to expand...

I asked you what makes YOU think that, not some AI program. Try using that grey matter between your ears every now and then.

Nothing about this sounds like DEI.

2. The Electoral College
The president is not elected by the national popular vote but by the Electoral College, which is a state-based system.
  • A state's number of electoral votes is equal to its number of representatives in the House plus its two senators.
  • Since every state gets at least three electoral votes (one representative, plus two senators), less populated states are overrepresented in the Electoral College.
  • This forces presidential candidates to campaign and appeal to a wider range of voters across different states, including those in rural areas, rather than simply focusing on dense urban centers.
Click to expand...
 
#54
#54
hog88 said:
I asked you what makes YOU think that, not some AI program. Try using that grey matter between your ears every now and then.

Nothing about this sounds like DEI.
Click to expand...
It literally is DEI for rural folks. Let me ask you something, who do you think set up the electoral/federalist/representative system we have, and why do you think they set it up that way?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BeardedVol
#55
#55
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Sending in the National Guard isn’t being a dictator. It’s the country’s CEO enforcing the laws of the land because the bureaucrats running many of our largest, most important cities are failing at that basic function of government.
Click to expand...
Lmao, "enforcing them" with people who have no training to do so, are not in any of the red cities or states with higher crime rates, and are currently being relegated to picking up garbage
 
  • Like
Reactions: MercyPercy and volfanhill
#56
#56
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Is it against the law to murder hundreds of innocent citizens in those cities? Using the NG for responding to domestic emergencies and civil unrest is a good move. If the unhinged element wants to fight the legality in court they can do that. In the mean time the NG will stop the out of control criminals since the state and local governments are failing.
Click to expand...
"Domestic emergencies" that are entirely made up
 
  • Like
Reactions: MercyPercy, EasternVol and BeardedVol
#57
#57
OHvol40 said:
Here is what AI thinks:

“Rural American voters have more power in the U.S. political system due to the structure of several key institutions that give disproportionate weight to less populated states and districts
. While the U.S. population has become increasingly urbanized, the distribution of political power has not shifted in a proportional way.
Here are the main reasons why rural voters have a higher degree of influence:
1. The U.S. Senate
The U.S. Constitution provides each state with equal representation in the Senate, regardless of its population.
  • This system gives a massive advantage to residents of smaller, often more rural states. For example, a Wyoming resident's vote for a U.S. senator has significantly more impact than a California resident's vote.
  • Because many rural states are less populated, the average state represented in the Senate has a more rural population than the U.S. as a whole, giving rural interests a powerful voice in national legislation.
2. The Electoral College
The president is not elected by the national popular vote but by the Electoral College, which is a state-based system.
  • A state's number of electoral votes is equal to its number of representatives in the House plus its two senators.
  • Since every state gets at least three electoral votes (one representative, plus two senators), less populated states are overrepresented in the Electoral College.
  • This forces presidential candidates to campaign and appeal to a wider range of voters across different states, including those in rural areas, rather than simply focusing on dense urban centers.
3. House of Representatives districts
Though House seats are apportioned by population, the system can still favor rural areas.
  • Since one party tends to be more concentrated in urban areas while the other is more widely distributed across rural districts, the latter can gain a structural advantage.
  • For example, research has shown that despite proportional representation rules, rural districts tend to be overrepresented in the House, and dense urban districts tend to be underrepresented.
4. Cohesive voting patterns
The increasing political divide between urban and rural areas has intensified the power of the rural vote.
  • Over the last two decades, voters in rural counties have become increasingly Republican, creating a more cohesive and impactful voting bloc.
  • This concentration of votes can prove decisive in swing states, where small shifts in rural areas can have a significant effect on the statewide and, by extension, national election results.
5. Local elections
In smaller communities, each vote has a much greater impact on local races. A few hundred votes can change the outcome of an election, which gives local organizers and voters a higher degree of power and potential influence.
These institutional and demographic factors combine to create a political system where rural voters wield disproportionate influence in determining national leadership and policy outcomes.“


Sounds like DEI to me. I guess if it applies to your demographics, DEI is ok though.
Click to expand...
Somebody has to use AI to think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, tbh, whodeycin85 and 2 others
#58
#58
hog88 said:
2 wrongs don't make a right. What happens when the next guy thinks it's an appropriate use of the military to respond to a state legislature or governor opposing him?

It's up to the locality and state to take care of their internal problems, if the citizens don't think enough about it to force their local/state elected officials to act then it's damn sure not a feral govt problem.
Click to expand...

It’s quite a stretch to conflate violence in our major cities with political opposition. Curtailing domestic violence is an appropriate use of the NG. The legal issue is whether or not POTUS takes charge of the matter when a governor ignores the problem.

Since there aren’t physical barriers confining the shenanigans from spilling beyond a local, internal problem and the state/local officials can’t control it then let POTUS deploy, save lives and reduce violence, and sort it out in court. Let the state/local officials explain why they failed to quash the violence.
 
#65
#65
NashVol11 said:
"Let the President behave like a dictator and only hold him accountable after the fact, if at all." Seems like we found a 'yes' voter
Click to expand...

Perhaps it wouldn’t get to this point if the governors and mayors would handle their ****. And so far it’s just threats by Trump to intervene. Maybe it will get the local leaders to address the problem.
 
#66
#66
OHvol40 said:
It literally is DEI for rural folks. Let me ask you something, who do you think set up the electoral/federalist/representative system we have, and why do you think they set it up that way?
Click to expand...

So that states and people are represented equally and to prevent mob rule.
 
#67
#67
OHvol40 said:
It literally is DEI for rural folks. Let me ask you something, who do you think set up the electoral/federalist/representative system we have, and why do you thinking they set it up that way?
Click to expand...
It doesn't work too well for the rural folks in New York or Illinois though.
States having equal representation in the Senate helps a bit in protecting their interests and softening the dictatorship of the majority. If someone wants a unitary republic they can see how Indonesia works for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol, Vol since 77 and hog88
#68
#68
Thunder Good-Oil said:
It’s quite a stretch to conflate violence in our major cities with political opposition. Curtailing domestic violence is an appropriate use of the NG. The legal issue is whether or not POTUS takes charge of the matter when a governor ignores the problem.

Since there aren’t physical barriers confining the shenanigans from spilling beyond a local, internal problem and the state/local officials can’t control it then let POTUS deploy, save lives and reduce violence, and sort it out in court. Let the state/local officials explain why they failed to quash the violence.
Click to expand...

The courts and congress have already sorted it out. A president does not have the power to use the NG as a police force.
 
#69
#69
NashVol11 said:
"Let the President behave like a dictator and only hold him accountable after the fact, if at all." Seems like we found a 'yes' voter
Click to expand...

There is almost no chance we will be able to hold him accountable after the fact. His own packed SCOTUS just now ruled that all presidential actions start with the presumption of immunity.

Nobody's paying attention, it seems.
 
#70
#70
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Perhaps it wouldn’t get to this point if the governors and mayors would handle their ****. And so far it’s just threats by Trump to intervene. Maybe it will get the local leaders to address the problem.
Click to expand...
Perhaps too it wouldn't get to this point if the President wasn't a megalomaniac with deteriorating mental facilities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#73
#73
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#74
#74
hog88 said:
The courts and congress have already sorted it out. A president does not have the power to use the NG as a police force.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS “sorts it out”.

Obama killed Osama bin Laden before the legality was sorted out. I’m glad he did it.
 
#75
#75
Thunder Good-Oil said:
It’s quite a stretch to conflate violence in our major cities with political opposition. Curtailing domestic violence is an appropriate use of the NG. The legal issue is whether or not POTUS takes charge of the matter when a governor ignores the problem.

Since there aren’t physical barriers confining the shenanigans from spilling beyond a local, internal problem and the state/local officials can’t control it then let POTUS deploy, save lives and reduce violence, and sort it out in court. Let the state/local officials explain why they failed to quash the violence.
Click to expand...
^^^ would have housed red-coats
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11 and EasternVol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top