"SEND HER BACK!" Will they defend this?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The whole idea of each state having two senators was to prevent the big states from being able to trample over the small states.

The idea was to get the small states to ratify the Constitution by tacking on part of the New Jersey Plan to the Virginia Plan, and people realized the problems even back then.

Such an equality will enable the minority to controul in all cases whatsoever, the sentiments and interests of the majority. Seven States will controul six: Seven States, according to the estimates that had been used, composed 24/90 . of the whole people. It would be in the power then of less than 1/3 to overrule 2/3 whenever a question should happen to divide the States in that manner. Can we forget for whom we are forming a Government? Is it for men, or for the imaginary beings called States? Will our honest Constituents be satisfied with metaphysical distinctions? Will they, ought they to be satisfied with being told that the one third compose the greater number of States?

Linky.

It's practical for forming a federal government from existing states, but it is still undemocratic and setting up for conflict in the long-term.

 

[Stacyhs]

I wish a reporter would challenge Trump when he states that Omar has expressed hatred for the US by asking him exactly what she said. And when the Orange Baboon lies, and you know he will, call him on it.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The electoral college is proportional.

And I would argue that the senate is proportional as well, but by a different metric than central-government parliamentarians are used to.

Proportional representation (PR) characterizes electoral systems in which divisions in an electorate are reflected proportionately in the elected body.[1] If n% of the electorate support a particular political party as their favorite, then roughly n% of seats will be won by that party.[2] The essence of such systems is that all votes contribute to the result—not just a plurality, or a bare majority. The most prevalent forms of proportional representation all require the use of multiple-member voting districts (also called super-districts), as it is not possible to fill a single seat in a proportional manner. In fact, the implementations of PR that achieve the highest levels of proportionality tend to include districts with large numbers of seats.[3]

The most widely used families of PR electoral systems are party list PR, the single transferable vote (STV), and mixed member proportional representation (MMP).[4]

The wiki link.

- The US should do X.
- The US does X, if I define X to mean !X.

 

[theprestige]

The wiki link.

- The US should do X.
- The US does X, if I define X to mean !X.

And once again we find my copulatory reserves depleted. Feel free to return to your regularly scheduled thread already in progress.

 

[Ziggurat]

It doesn't matter to you.

It shouldn't matter to anyone. Thought crimes are the stuff of totalitarian dystopias. If your thoughts cannot be held privately, without recrimination, then you are not merely a slave, you are damned.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Broadcasting your thoughts to the planet via the internet is not keeping them private.

 

[Ziggurat]

However, inciting your supporters with racist statements is damaging and does threaten violence.

And that's a good argument for why civility matters. But that's rather my point, actually: The Great Zaganza was wrong to say that calls for civility are bogus.

 

[theprestige]

We all know what he meant. And everyone here knows the point you are trying to make. Go argue the EC and Senate seats in the thread it belongs in.

Already addressed.

 

[Upchurch]

It shouldn't matter to anyone. Thought crimes are the stuff of totalitarian dystopias. If your thoughts cannot be held privately, without recrimination, then you are not merely a slave, you are damned.

What, like accusing people of hating America when they have never said as much?

 

[dudalb]

Fact is the hardline ideologues on both sides would love to surpress the opinions of those who oppose them.

 

[I Am The Scum]

It shouldn't matter to anyone. Thought crimes are the stuff of totalitarian dystopias. If your thoughts cannot be held privately, without recrimination, then you are not merely a slave, you are damned.

In order to not be concerned about the president's racist mind, I would need to accept the proposition that actions are not informed by beliefs. This would obviously be extremely stupid, so you're on your own.

 

[Foolmewunz]

that must be fake

No. He's quoting Diamond & Silk and they are just that stupid to think this grade school argument is effective.

 

[Lurch]

Fact is the hardline ideologues on both sides would love to surpress the opinions of those who oppose them.

I had to re-read this due to the lack of a comma. I was initially trying to grok how a hardline could be "fact".

Should read:

"Fact is, the hardline ideologues..."

 

[Ziggurat]

- "You murdered him!"
- "And how did I murder him? By punching him. You're condeming me to life in prison for punching a man!"

That’s not at all what’s going on here at all. The closer equivalent would be The Great Zaganza claiming that we don’t need to worry about punching, we only need to worry about murder. And I’m saying no, we should still worry about punching.

But it’s still a stupid analogy since punching is a method and murder is a result, whereas incivility is a method but racism is a motive. Analogies are lazy ways to make arguments that can’t actually stand on their own.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

That’s not at all what’s going on here at all. The closer equivalent would be The Great Zaganza claiming that we don’t need to worry about punching, we only need to worry about murder. And I’m saying no, we should still worry about punching.

But it’s still a stupid analogy since punching is a method and murder is a result, whereas incivility is a method but racism is a motive. Analogies are lazy ways to make arguments that can’t actually stand on their own.

I don't agree with your potrayal of my point.
Furthermore, it makes no sense to distinguish in an elected official between his actions and motives unless they have given compelling reason to do so. Racism is NOT a thought crime. Neither is it being uncivil.
Whether something is uncivil depends on the society.
Whether something is racist does not.

 

[jimbob]

And that's a good argument for why civility matters. But that's rather my point, actually: The Great Zaganza was wrong to say that calls for civility are bogus.

There is a difference between incivility and inciting racial hatred.

It's not very polite to call Trump a sexual predator, but he's previously claimed to have sexually assaulted women.

 

[jimbob]

And once again we find my copulatory reserves depleted. Feel free to return to your regularly scheduled thread already in progress.

You did this over in the Tommy Robinson Thread.

Made a statement that you later accepted was untenable but acted snarky, and ironically given some of your other posts, in an uncivil manner, when people point that out to you.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The problem isn't incivility. Trump, and many other politicians, have been uncivil many times. You can make an argument that it's demeaning to the office of president, and/or that politics would be better if people remained polite, but that's not what's happening here.

What's happening here is that the most powerful man in the United States is using his platform to tell racist lies about political opponents in order to stir up hated of them and whip adoring crowds into a frenzy - all in an age when more than 1 terrorist has cited Trump as the impetus behind their actions or their intended actions.

 

[jimbob]

The problem isn't incivility. Trump, and many other politicians, have been uncivil many times. You can make an argument that it's demeaning to the office of president, and/or that politics would be better if people remained polite, but that's not what's happening here.

What's happening here is that the most powerful man in the United States is using his platform to tell racist lies about political opponents in order to stir up hated of them and whip adoring crowds into a frenzy - all in an age when more than 1 terrorist has cited Trump as the impetus behind their actions or their intended actions.

Bingo

 

[Belz...]

Might be worse for fear mongering conservatives that believe their own fear mongering.

But for the rest of us, sanity would return.

I'm sure rural Americans having essentially no representation on the Federal level would be quite ok for you, but not for them. You do understand that this is what the Senate and EC were supposed to address, correct?