"SEND HER BACK!" Will they defend this?

[Stacyhs]

Interesting in the generally misinformed sense?

Of the six people interviewed, 4 were men (2 white, 2 A-American) and 2 were women (1 white, 1 A-American). Only the men voted for Trump, and the two white men regretted it. The two A-A men, Dixon and Wimbley, did not.

JOSEPH DIXON, DEMOCRAT, VOTED FOR TRUMP: With Trump, I was really sold as soon as he came down that escalator and announced that he was going to run.

Why was he sold on Trump so early? I suspect it was because of the image he had of Trump being a successful businessman a la The Apprentice.

DIXON: It was almost like a big middle finger to all -- to the establishment -- to all of politics and I just felt that we really needed that.

I know that many people felt that way but, to me, it’s an utterly stupid and childish reason to vote for someone to be POTUS.

Wimbley doesn’t think that racism is a problem in the US or that it’s become worse since Trump’s election.

WIMBLEY: It just amazes me. This is 2019. The race relations and the way that we perceive or the way we say things are happening in this country, I don't see it happening.

On the uptick in reported hate crimes:

WIMBLEY: You can say that. I truly don't believe it because I don't see it. I can statistically say anything, but I don't see it.

WIMBLEY: I don't really even call that -- like, the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Law Center -- to me, those are democratic institutions that will say and manipulate anything.

Racism is not a microaggression. Racism is something painful and hurtful. And when we take microaggressions and turn it into the country's against black people, we're literally slapping the people in the face that went through real racism.

I think Wimbley doesn’t see what he doesn’t want to see.

 

[Stacyhs]

Oh for pity's sake! Really?

This was in WA, a single crazy among the protestors at the immigration detention facility went back after the protest and it's not clear yet but suicide by cop may have been the motive.

I heard about it. But a direct connection to AOC? Of course no one had a clue what you were talking about.

Desperation calls for desperate claims.

 

[Belz...]

Besides the fact this is a straw man

And again with the misue of the term. What is it with you and calling arguments I'm making strawmen? You realise they have to be representations of YOUR arguments, not of their consequences, right?

what does it say about liberals' representation now?

Well it says exactly what you think it says, really. What's the point of voting Republican in California, for instance? The fear was always that representative voting would drown out rural concerns because the larger, more city-bound states would overwhelm the smaller ones. Do you disagree with the contention that A) this is a real issue and B) that it's a problem?

If the Senate matched the voting public, conservatives would have no representation?

That's not what I wrote. Please re-read the post you replied to.

I said "rural Americans", not "conservatives".

 

[Delphic Oracle]

And again with the misue of the term. What is it with you and calling arguments I'm making strawmen? You realise they have to be representations of YOUR arguments, not of their consequences, right?

You asserting the outcome as catastrophic and claiming the other person hopes for that outcome is maybe a clever adaptation on a straw man, maybe some other term is appropriate, but in any case, it's a terrible way to have a discussion.

Well it says exactly what you think it says, really.

Dodge noted.

What's the point of voting Republican in California, for instance? The fear was always that representative voting would drown out rural concerns because the larger, more city-bound states would overwhelm the smaller ones. Do you disagree with the contention that A) this is a real issue and B) that it's a problem?

The point of voting in a proportional representation model is to increase the proportion of representation of your interests.

Not sure why it feels like the unstated premise is "if my interests don't end up as the majority, the whole thing is unfair."

I mean it's been pointed out there's blatant disparity between votes cast and resulting representation, you dismiss it away and insist it's the rural vote being squashed?!

 

[smartcooky]

Willem Van Spronsen. His attack was all over the news, didn't you see it? And his manifesto justifying his attack specifically referred to CBP facilities as "concentration camps", which is terminology that AOC helped push.

Did he cite AOC has his "inspiration":.... err NO

Has anyone else referred to CBP facilities as "concentrations camps"? Yes - hundreds of people; politicians of all flavours, and media presenters, and reporters.

This is what really happened - under pressure, you made a rash and unevidenced claim that you could not back up, so now you are frantically clutching at straws to preztel-twist some unrelated facts in order to force fit them into looking like evidence. You failed; we aren't stupid - we see right through your transparent lies.

You don't need AOC's words in order to be outraged at the inhumane conditions under which adults and children are being imprisoned in CPD concentration camps - if you aren't outraged by what you see at these facilities, then you're a sociopath and your wiring is faulty. You only need to be a Trump supporter to believe that these abuses are just fine.

 

[Belz...]

You asserting the outcome as catastrophic and claiming the other person hopes for that outcome is maybe a clever adaptation on a straw man, maybe some other term is appropriate, but in any case, it's a terrible way to have a discussion.

What are you talking about? It's a FACT that proportional representation would mean that the larger, city-based states would dominate politics at the expense of rural, less populous states. Ergo, rural considerations would be more likely to be ignored.

How the **** is that a strawman? You're not making any sense.

Dodge noted.

I'm pretty sure Ginger thinks that liberals are getting under-represented under the current conditions as stated. It's not a dodge to confirm her perspective on the subject.

It really seems that you are reflexively disagreeing with me, no matter what I say.

The point of voting in a proportional representation model is to increase the proportion of representation of your interests.

Not sure why it feels like the unstated premise is "if my interests don't end up as the majority, the whole thing is unfair."

I mean it's been pointed out there's blatant disparity between votes cast and resulting representation, you dismiss it away and insist it's the rural vote being squashed?!

I'm not dismissing anything. I'm stating a fact, and asking a question. Why did you respond if you weren't going to reply to what I actually posted?

This is getting surreal. If you focused in the points and facts rather than trying to score one for your imaginary team, you might be having a discussion.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

This is what really happened - under pressure, you made a rash and unevidenced claim that you could not back up, so now you are frantically clutching at straws to preztel-twist some unrelated facts in order to force fit them into looking like evidence. You failed; we aren't stupid - we see right through your transparent lies.

I'd say it's more likely that he was referring to Van Spronsen originally. If you google his name and hers together you get a bunch of right-wing websites making tenuous connections between them (one example]). If these are the kinds of websites you read, or if you hang out in the kind of spaces that are occupied by people who read those kinds of websites, then it seems entirely reasonable to me that you may believe the same things.

It doesn't make the argument any less spurious, but I see no reason to assume that it wasn't an association that Ziggurat had before making that post. I think he knows that it's not the same thing as what I was talking about, and that Ocasio-Cortez's public statements aren't on the same level as Trump's public statements. I think he knows he's trying to draw a false equivalence. But I see no reason to assume that it's propaganda that he was unaware of until challenged. Seems much more likely to me that it's propaganda that he's previously swallowed.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

What are you talking about? It's a FACT that proportional representation would mean that the larger, city-based states would dominate politics at the expense of rural, less populous states. Ergo, rural considerations would be more likely to be ignored.

No, it is your speculative assertion.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I'll skip being cute for several more posts and just ask:

What is the "correct" amount of rural representation in % of seats allocated?

 

[Belz...]

No, it is your speculative assertion.

Well, even if this was the case, it wouldn't be a strawman, would it?

However, how is it not a fact? Are you seriously contesting the claim that a group of people who are more numerous, and have policy X, in a proportional election, would outweigh a group of people who are less numerous, with policy Y? That's a logical implication! Where's the speculation, there?

Cities and rural areas do not have the same problems and issues. If you have states like NY and CA voting one way, and Wyoming and Alabama voting another, who will win? I'm not saying that the reverse is better. I'm saying that it's a real issue that worries people in the smaller states. How are we do deal with this issue, is the question. So far the answer from forum members have been "**** those yokels.", essentially.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Well, even if this was the case, it wouldn't be a strawman, would it?

Oh dear god.

No, you stating another party wants your speculative outcome to occur is. Or at least its some form of shoehorning those words onto their argument.

Do not even try to play the game where you hop from left foot to right and back on technicalities.

However, how is it not a fact? Are you seriously contesting the claim that a group of people who are more numerous, and have policy X, in a proportional election, would outweigh a group of people who are less numerous, with policy Y? That's a logical implication! Where's the speculation, there?

The speculation there is it hasn't been demonstrated.

I'll grant you that you have a plausible hypothesis.

But, I mean, look at what you just said. Uh, yeah, if you get outvoted, you might need to accept that maybe your interests aren't the most important? Maybe convince people why they should be?

Cities and rural areas do not have the same problems and issues. If you have states like NY and CA voting one way, and Wyoming and Alabama voting another, who will win? I'm not saying that the reverse is better. I'm saying that it's a real issue that worries people in the smaller states.

Why would NY and CA vote "one way"? Do they vote "one way" now?

Turns out they send a mixture of urban and rural interests as their voting population sees fit.

How are we do deal with this issue, is the question. So far the answer from forum members have been "**** those yokels.", essentially.

Oh, this is all about you working out your victimization routine.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And again with the misue of the term. What is it with you and calling arguments I'm making strawmen? You realise they have to be representations of YOUR arguments, not of their consequences, right?

You said "rural Americans having essentially no representation on the Federal level".

You either think I'm arguing that should happen, or you are posting ridiculous hyperbole.

And rural vs conservative, so what? Neither changes the argument I made. We are underrepresented. They are over represented.

Well it says exactly what you think it says, really. What's the point of voting Republican in California, for instance? The fear was always that representative voting would drown out rural concerns because the larger, more city-bound states would overwhelm the smaller ones. Do you disagree with the contention that A) this is a real issue and B) that it's a problem?

You think this is news to anyone? Think you have to explain the EC to us?


Gosh, if only I had known that, now it makes sense why the issues in 1776 should apply today.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, even if this was the case, it wouldn't be a strawman, would it?

It's a bloody straw man if you think I'm saying rural areas should have NO representation.

Not only did I not argue that, if representation were balanced, it would not result in NO representation.

Now that we've cleared that distraction up, you're free to move the discussion forward.

 

[Belz...]

No, you stating another party wants your speculative outcome to occur is.

And where have I done this? Wanting an outcome and being indifferent to it are not the same thing.

The speculation there is it hasn't been demonstrated.

What hasn't been demonstrated? That larger interest groups get their policies done more than smaller groups in proportion? Seriously? You can't possibly call this speculation. You're basically telling me that 2<4 is speculation.

But, I mean, look at what you just said. Uh, yeah, if you get outvoted, you might need to accept that maybe your interests aren't the most important? Maybe convince people why they should be?

And you don't see why that would be really, really difficult, in this specific case? What if someone said that the solution to gerrymandering was to just convince more people?

Oh, this is all about you working out your victimization routine.

...my what? Your posts are getting more and more bizarre. What victimisation?

It's one thing to discuss the benefits and downsides of proportional voting or its alternatives. It's one other entirely to dismiss either the benefits or the downsides. It smacks of a pretermined conclusion.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

And where have I done this? Wanting an outcome and being indifferent to it are not the same thing.

Oh lord sorry, you stated they "would be quite ok" with it.

The rest I'll leave alone so you can address Skeptic's points.

 

[Belz...]

You said "rural Americans having essentially no representation on the Federal level".

You either think I'm arguing that should happen, or you are posting ridiculous hyperbole.

Or I'm illustrating what WOULD likely happen.

And rural vs conservative, so what? Neither changes the argument I made. We are underrepresented. They are over represented.

Ok, "So what", then?

You think this is news to anyone? Think you have to explain the EC to us?

Well clearly you don't quite understand the arguments in favour of it. Which, by the way, does not require you to agree with the EC.

It's a bloody straw man if you think I'm saying rural areas should have NO representation.

Again, I never said or implied this.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

And where have I done this? Wanting an outcome and being indifferent to it are not the same thing.

Oh lord sorry, you stated they "would be quite ok" with it (zero representation of rural interests).

The rest I'll leave alone so you can address Skeptic's points.

 

[Upchurch]

What is the "correct" amount of rural representation in % of seats allocated?

IMHO, approximately the rural % of the US population. Also, super off-topic.

 

[Belz...]

Oh lord sorry, you stated they "would be quite ok" with it.

You seriously don't see the difference? It's quite fundamental.

But I guess I shouldn't expect much from someone who thinks 4>2 is a statement that should be demonstrated.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Guys can we spin off the "Proportional / Direct representation" debate to another thread or at least tie it back into the topic?

Endless hijacks away from the topic aren't better when we do it.