EU passes the "link tax"

The UK's biggest market was the rest of the European union, any state of the United States has most likely the other states as their biggest market, and I bet that any of them, including California, would take a massive hit if the tried to secede and leave the union because they don't want to comply with any federal laws at all.

It would be a bone headed self defeating move born out of believing themselves individually more important than the union.

Read who I was quoting, someone who did a pretty stupid remark and what I was doing was mocking said remark.

Funny thing is, you cant leave the union, you can join but never leave. Funny thing is government needs to scale down, state governments need to go and the federal sets a standard and then counties and local governments set up detailed rules that make sense for their areas. This allows representation of the local area while still allowing a voice in the larger picture and keeps a few big cities from dictating over a entire state how things should be run. Problem is the world thinks going to a one world government is better and the EU is a perfect example of why thats not a good idea.
 
Or maybe learn to stop being so petty. Giving everyone a participation cookie does nothing but lower the quality of life to give largely stupid people something more for simply existing.



If you're in a primitive, miserable county I suppose that holds true. There is no reason to cater to people with such a belief system. The good news is smart populations are successful and can afford and develop the means to protect themselves. No reason to dilute your country and qualify of life to the whims of the idiotic "that isn't fair, gimmie!" countries of the world. If you want to correct these behaviors you don't give in to their demands, you let them die off. They'll be replaced by better, smarter people who are ready to join the civilized world.



That is the stupidest thing I've read in a long time. Of course they intended it to be like this. The entire government is designed around protecting the minority. And it is about as far from a "dictatorship" as you can get. The entire system of checks & balances prevents massive knee jerk reactions from occurring, which slows the process down. That is the exact opposite of how dictatorships function.



What? Lower house caters more to high density populations. Upper more to smaller populations. It balances out. Otherwise the concerns and issues faced in certain parts of the country will get swept under the rug. Their votes would be practically meaningless.



No. For obvious reasons.



No. That is how you create a under class of 2nd class citizens.



And these constitutional rights are meaningless if one section of a country can vote to change and amend them at their will. All you would need is a few highly influential people in one area of the country (a few cities) and they would essentially control the fate of the country. Large groups are easily bought via group think. If you successfully tap into one area you will have substantially more power than someone who has to gather support and cater to the needs of various small groups across the country.

One person = one vote sounds great on paper, but that isn't reality. It turns into one person = 500,000 votes and shifts power substantially to a few individuals.

It would turn into nothing more than smoke and mirrors with little real checks and balances in place.

Whatever minority you don't care about today is irrelevant. Because there will always be minorities and giving them practically zero say is shameful. Jumping off topic into party politics here but ironically, the Democrat party used to be in favor of minorities. Now days they're just interested in grabbing as much power as possible hence the push to get rid of the constitutional republic with an elaborate system of checks & balances.

Tried liking post 20 times but forum won't do it :(.
 
There is no such thing as a smart population. There are always stupid individuals in every population, no matter how much superior you think your country is to anyone else. Or do you presume to say that yours has absolutely no crime? Every society has low-iq individuals, who didn't win at the job lottery either, so they have no income. Some become bums, others criminals. Crime is a symptom, and policing a band aid, not a fix. You need fix the cause of crime (and mass migration).

As I wasn't referring to people anyway, but to countries. Countries that have something, that don't want to share it with others. What do you think the immigration crisis is? People from poor countries trying to take what rich countries have. Wouldn't it be better to uplift these countries with aid and resources to make them good enough so that the people there stop walking out en-masse?.
I think you have some serious misunderstandings about how the world actually works.

In general, criminals are not criminals because they don't have jobs nor because their trying to feed/house/clothe/be responsible for others. Life is not a movie. Criminals are not all Jean Valjean.
Poverty does not create criminals by default. It's what often is associated with poverty that has a major impact. Number one factor....daddy? If a child has a father or father-figure in the home he is drastically less likely to be a criminal. It does not matter if the family is poor or not. You're welcome to not take my word for it, the research has been done and my comments are not controversial.
There is no 'job lottery' and the term itself shits on those who struggled to find gainful employment. Those who want jobs, will almost always find one. It may not be the job of their dreams or what they studied for at Uni, but a job can be found by nearly anyone willing to work.

As to the immigration crisis, what created it is nothing more than poor immigration and border control. Full stop.
As to aiding other countries....holy balls! Please look into how much foreign aid is given out by OECD countries before you act like nobody is trying to 'uplift' third-world shitholes. Problem isn't the aid. Problem is the third-world shitholes. Corruption when it comes to gov't spending is a problem, a serious problem for even the US with a free (but mentally challenged) press and other assorted liberties....it's a MASSIVE problem elsewhere, especially when it's not even their own money. The only way to have a situation where people from 'western' countries are not inundated by people from elsewhere is to make them all like 'western' countries.....which sounds great....but is utterly impossible without them wanting the exact same things and valuing the exact same things. You can't change culture from the outside nor can you change it with vast sums of aid and crossing your fingers.

Not every problem has a solution. Sometimes, the only thing we can do is deal with whatever it is as best we can. Wishful thinking does not accomplish anything. Wealth redistribnution is not the answer. Globalization is not the answer.
 
Last edited:
That is not the way we do things in the USA, because we have these things called States, which, contrary to popular belief wield great power over the lives of their citizens. In many ways, more than the Federal Government itself.

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt with your "Wyoming is worth 20x that of someone in California" comment. That you are only exaggerating for effect because it's certainly not even remotely accurate.
Arguing about the effect being 2x 5x or 20x is besides the point. The fact remains that some votes count more than others.

The EU has states too, do you presume that they don't wield power over their citizens? The EU has no direct intervening power for individual states. They can suggest policies. That's it. If someone doesn't adhere to their policies they'll draft a paper saying "Orban bad". But they can't interfere directly.

Member states benefit greatly from being in the EU. The UK might be a net contributor, but that doesn't mean they aren't benefiting from the EU.
 
I think you have some serious misunderstandings about how the world actually works.
No, the world is broken. I'm saying how it should work not how it works. If it worked like that, there would be no problem.

In general, criminals are not criminals because they don't have jobs nor because their trying to feed/house/clothe/be responsible for others. Life is not a movie. Criminals are not all Jean Valjean.
Said none, except you. Your strawman building skills need some work.

Poverty does not create criminals by default. It's what often is associated with poverty that has a major impact. Number one factor....daddy? If a child has a father or father-figure in the home he is drastically less likely to be a criminal. It does not matter if the family is poor or not. You're welcome to not take my word for it, the research has been done and my comments are not controversial.
The lack of a father figure is a contributing factor, nobody doubts that. That doesn't mean living on the poverty line isn't the main cause. Who is more likely to turn to drugs and crime? A child with a single parent on or below the poverty line, or a child with a single parent having their needs met?

There is no 'job lottery' and the term itself shits on those who struggled to find gainful employment. Those who want jobs, will almost always find one. It may not be the job of their dreams or what they studied for at Uni, but a job can be found by nearly anyone willing to work.
There absolutely is, just because you struggle doesn't mean you get employment on par with how much you struggled for it. There are so many unqualified individuals in high positions, and so many unemployed well educated people that you must live in a bubble to don't take notice. This rhetoric that anyone looking for work can find work matching their qualifications is used to be pushed by our communist government behind the iron curtain. With technological unemployment booming, this will be a more pressing issue every year.

As to the immigration crisis, what created it is nothing more than poor immigration and border control. Full stop.
Your really didn't understand a single damn word from what I said did you?

As to aiding other countries....holy balls! Please look into how much foreign aid is given out by OECD countries before you act like nobody is trying to 'uplift' third-world shitholes. Problem isn't the aid. Problem is the third-world shitholes. Corruption when it comes to gov't spending is a problem, a serious problem for even the US with a free (but mentally challenged) press and other assorted liberties....it's a MASSIVE problem elsewhere, especially when it's not even their own money. The only way to have a situation where people from 'western' countries are not inundated by people from elsewhere is to make them all like 'western' countries.....which sounds great....but is utterly impossible without them wanting the exact same things and valuing the exact same things. You can't change culture from the outside nor can you change it with vast sums of aid and crossing your fingers.
Aid doesn't mean throwing money at them and expect dictators and corrupt governments to magically get better. It is as much administrational aid as is financial. The trick is making them put aside nationalistic pride and actually accepting outside help. No matter which way you look at it nationalism is a hindrance. I'm not saying it's easy, or don't presume to know how it should be done, but it seems the only permanent solution.
Not every problem has a solution. Sometimes, the only thing we can do is deal with whatever it is as best we can. Wishful thinking does not accomplish anything. Wealth redistribnution is not the answer. Globalization is not the answer.
Yeah because you're afraid of the idea of people getting something for nothing, if I paid 2 cents for a loaf of bread they should too! Typical selfish thinking. You'd rather spend 10 billion on keeping them away from the pot, than to spend 1 billion on allowing them to feed.
 
Poverty does not create criminals by default.
Uh, citation needed. No, it doesn't make every single person turn into a criminal. Yes, you introduce poverty to pretty much any area in the world, the crime rate is going to go up. Yes, other factors influence crime rate also, but poverty is a huge one.

Laowai said:
There is no 'job lottery' and the term itself shits on those who struggled to find gainful employment. Those who want jobs, will almost always find one. It may not be the job of their dreams or what they studied for at Uni, but a job can be found by nearly anyone willing to work.
This is a micro-level view on a macro-level situation. True, a lottery isn't a great analogy, since that implies it's pure chance whether you get a job or not. Musical chairs is much closer comparison. The most determined people in musical chairs are more likely to get a spot, but there's still plenty of luck involved. More importantly, there's not enough chairs for everyone, just most people. At any given time, the number of available jobs shrinks or grows. This number is frequently lower than the number of people who need full-time income.

If that wasn't true, then wages would be pretty great across the board, since companies would have to compete with each other for people more heavily. Strikes would be almost unheard of, because conditions would be so good because companies would be desperate to retain workers. The concept of "struggling" to find work almost wouldn't exist, because there would be too many opportunities. Large events like The Great Depression wouldn't affect employment, because there would always be enough jobs. This flies against the face of observable reality.

People who are desperate to find work have a higher probability of finding a job. That in no way proves there are enough jobs for everyone who needs one.
 
Last edited:
I don't think they intended the dictatorship of the minority we have today, where the vote of a person in a rural small state like Wyoming is worth 20x that of someone in California or Texas.

One person one vote, right?

It is appropriate for the majority to get their way. Not all the time on every subject, that's why we have protected constitutional rights that the electoral process cannot easily override, but why should the 12 people who live in flyover country dictate to the rest of us how to live our lives?
No, it's not. The majority tend to be easily swayed and short sighted, which is why we are a republic, not a democracy. There are plenty of countries that are not republics you can move to though, should this one not be to your liking.

It sounds like what you really want however is limited federal government, so the will of the people of Wyoming doesn't intrude on your daily life, because the federal government isn't supposed to intrude on your daily life. That's why the feds have a specific list of enumerated powers. Unless you're actually wanting to stamp out detractors by removing their balance on federal power, that should be a perfect compromise, and luckily we have grade school history books to teach us how it's designed to work.
 
No, the world is broken. I'm saying how it should work not how it works. If it worked like that, there would be no problem.
Said none, except you. Your strawman building skills need some work.
The lack of a father figure is a contributing factor, nobody doubts that. That doesn't mean living on the poverty line isn't the main cause. Who is more likely to turn to drugs and crime? A child with a single parent on or below the poverty line, or a child with a single parent having their needs met?

There absolutely is, just because you struggle doesn't mean you get employment on par with how much you struggled for it. There are so many unqualified individuals in high positions, and so many unemployed well educated people that you must live in a bubble to don't take notice. This rhetoric that anyone looking for work can find work matching their qualifications is used to be pushed by our communist government behind the iron curtain. With technological unemployment booming, this will be a more pressing issue every year.
Your really didn't understand a single damn word from what I said did you?
Aid doesn't mean throwing money at them and expect dictators and corrupt governments to magically get better. It is as much administrational aid as is financial. The trick is making them put aside nationalistic pride and actually accepting outside help. No matter which way you look at it nationalism is a hindrance. I'm not saying it's easy, or don't presume to know how it should be done, but it seems the only permanent solution.

Yeah because you're afraid of the idea of people getting something for nothing, if I paid 2 cents for a loaf of bread they should too! Typical selfish thinking. You'd rather spend 10 billion on keeping them away from the pot, than to spend 1 billion on allowing them to feed.
You have a hard time keeping up with your own words? You said not having a job creates bums or criminals. It's not a strawman to argue that criminality generally comes from somewhere other than the unemployment line.
Poor or not, as I said earlier, does not matter. Not having a father or father-figure in the home increases the liklihood that a child will be a criminal by a lot. Does it increase it more for poor folks? Perhaps. There are so many variables to that equation I don't imagine there is any certainty one way or the other.

Dude..... You make up shit like 'job lottery' when it's not random chance that gets people employed. Making good decisions and putting in effort matter. Knowing people helps too but I'd say that goes hand in hand with making good decisions. I'm sure there are a certain group of self-hating leftists that the idea of a 'job lottery' resonate with but I imagine that for most people who've ever had a job or who understand personal responsibility, that gibberish rings hollow.

We disagree. Nationalism is not a hindrance. Nationalism is not relevant. Culture is. Giving somebody money and expecting them to do with it as *you* want them to do....won't work often, it likely won't work ever if they're of a different culture. Few countries have issue accepting help....I am not sure why you think that's the problem. I have not looked into it but I don't imagine many countries refuse aid. The real problem is that history has shown it changes little to nothing. You want to know what actually has improved shithole countries for more than a minute? Colonialism. Let that fact sink in.

I am not a fan of direct financial foreign aid at all. Not one little bit. I certainly won't be disingenious and pretend the 'west' does not give a whole lot of aid that takes many forms though.
 
Last edited:
Uh, citation needed. No, it doesn't make every single person turn into a criminal. Yes, you introduce poverty to pretty much any area in the world, the crime rate is going to go up. Yes, other factors influence crime rate also, but poverty is a huge one.
No, it isn't. Being poor in the US isn't really *poverty* for most. I've seen poverty. I traveled through Central America for a year and have lived in China for nearly a decade. The homeless in the US have it better than many in poverty elsewhere. If poverty by itself causes crime...how does it work? A sliding scale? In this city anyone earning less than X is considered to be at risk of becoming a criminal but in a different city it's another number entirely? Perhaps 'poverty' isn't a root cause.

Here's a bunch of stats.
I know it's not a study but it's a start.
Fatherless homes are what we should be looking at and focusing on.
Ever wonder why all the trillions we've spent to combat poverty in the US accomplished exactly nothing? It's because marriage/family structure was never addressed. Instead, money was tossed at things.

This is a micro-level view on a macro-level situation. True, a lottery isn't a great analogy, since that implies it's pure chance whether you get a job or not. Musical chairs is much closer comparison. The most determined people in musical chairs are more likely to get a spot, but there's still plenty of luck involved. More importantly, there's not enough chairs for everyone, just most people. At any given time, the number of available jobs shrinks or grows. This number is frequently lower than the number of people who need full-time income.

If that wasn't true, then wages would be pretty great across the board, since companies would have to compete with each other for people more heavily. Strikes would be almost unheard of, because conditions would be so good because companies would be desperate to retain workers. The concept of "struggling" to find work almost wouldn't exist, because there would be too many opportunities. Large events like The Great Depression wouldn't affect employment, because there would always be enough jobs. This flies against the face of observable reality.

People who are desperate to find work have a higher probability of finding a job. That in no way proves there are enough jobs for everyone who needs one.
Never said there were enough jobs for everyone, only that those who want to work....will. You don't seem to disagree.

The thing about working is that it always leads to something significantly better than not working will. It does not matter what kind of a job it is.
 
Last edited:
I hope these companies suffer, I hope the country suffers, I hope they lose billions of dollars, I hope they are miserable and that life is terrible for all of them. Amen.

Sounds like you're praying for bad things to happen to people... That doesn't seem very Christian of you (I assume Christian based on the "amen").
 
No, it isn't. Being poor in the US isn't really *poverty* for most. I've seen poverty. I traveled through Central America for a year and have lived in China for nearly a decade. The homeless in the US have it better than many in poverty elsewhere. If poverty by itself causes crime...how does it work? A sliding scale? In this city anyone earning less than X is considered to be at risk of becoming a criminal but in a different city it's another number entirely? Perhaps 'poverty' isn't a root cause.

Here's a bunch of stats.
You're making an argument that fatherlessness is ALSO a factor. None of what you posted shows poverty ISN'T. On the contrary, poverty makes a family unit harder to maintain, if not impossible economically and can INCREASE fatherlessness.

Laowai said:
Ever wonder why all the trillions we've spent to combat poverty in the US accomplished exactly nothing?
Okay, I can see you're in the denying objective reality camp if you actually believe this. We can debate what the weather's going to be, but we can't have a discussion if I say the sky is blue and you say it's green. Social Security alone has reduced poverty among the elderly by double digit percentages for decades:

https://www.cbpp.org/research/socia...mericans-above-poverty-than-any-other-program
https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2018/09/what-effect-does-social-security-have-on-poverty

Calling that "exactly nothing" means you're denying empirical data. I can't have a discussion on those terms, that's not how my brain works. You win.
 
This doesn't make sense.

When you post a link, you are giving the originating site traffic.

The more traffic the originating site gets, the more money they make.

Why should you pay for giving them business?

This law is so boneheaded it hurts, and will probably just serve to run aggregation sites out of Europe to other places where they are not subject to EU jurisdiction.

Old people who don't understand the internet should recuse themselves from regulating it.
don't worry, that stuff will be here soon enough
 
You're making an argument that fatherlessness is ALSO a factor. None of what you posted shows poverty ISN'T. On the contrary, poverty makes a family unit harder to maintain, if not impossible economically and can INCREASE fatherlessness.

Okay, I can see you're in the denying objective reality camp if you actually believe this. We can debate what the weather's going to be, but we can't have a discussion if I say the sky is blue and you say it's green. Social Security alone has reduced poverty among the elderly by double digit percentages for decades:

https://www.cbpp.org/research/socia...mericans-above-poverty-than-any-other-program
https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2018/09/what-effect-does-social-security-have-on-poverty

Calling that "exactly nothing" means you're denying empirical data. I can't have a discussion on those terms, that's not how my brain works. You win.
Look at the poverty rates before our 'war' on it and today. Pretty f'n close to identical.
And no, I'm making the argument that our 'poverty' isn't poverty in most cases. Pretty far from poverty actually. If you were making the argument that people who cannot feed themselves and who have nowhere to live and who lives in a country with zero social safety nets may turn to petty crime to survive....I'd find it difficult to argue with. What people will normally do, and what they'd do in survival mode are not the same. However, most cases of 'poverty' in the States are far removed from that and essentially poverty in name only. Therefore, poverty clearly cannot be the root cause it's portrayed to be by some.

One guy: I have little money, no job, often no food, no stable housing....this is poverty. POVERTY CAUSES CRIME!
Another guy: I have one cell phone, a TV, a car, a PC w/ internet, I live in an apartment....this is poverty. POVERTY CAUSES CRIME!
First guy: ...

Look, there is zero doubt that there is a high correlation between poverty and crime. If the poverty is actual poverty or perceived poverty due to wealth inequality or whatnot, it does not make a difference. Correlation does not equal causation though. You'll liikely want to say the same to me in a moment.
There is also zero doubt that there is a high correlation between fatherlessness and crime. Even if we disagree on which plays a more important role, don't you think both issues should be addressed if possible? Especially since fighting against fatherlessness and the cultural/political issues that encourage it cannot be a negative under any scenario I can fathom.

I see it as
no dad -----> incomplete human --------> impaired decision making process ---------> crime and/or poverty
 
Last edited:
Okay, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt:
Look at the poverty rates before our 'war' on it and today. Pretty f'n close to identical.
This is from the US Census:

1536763441612.png


The "war on poverty" policies started in 64. From that chart, the average poverty rate after it was implement was reduced by about a third. In other words, that's a difference of about 1 in 3 people not being at the poverty line anymore. About 10 years onward, it seems to fluctuate back and forth, but never coming close to previous highs. Conclusion I draw? The war on poverty permanently lowered the poverty rate, but wasn't enough to eliminate it much below 15%. My guess is if you got rid of it, the numbers would quickly shoot back up to previous highs again.

and AGAIN

Social security has had a MUCH more dramatic rate on poverty among the elderly:

w10466.jpg


I wasn't able to find a graph showing it from the 30s, but the before / after implementation of it was even more dramatic. Before Social Security was implemented, the poverty rate among the elderly was about 50%. In other words, that's over a 75% total drop in the poverty rate among the elderly since SS was implemented. So again, please clarify this statement:

Laowai said:
Ever wonder why all the trillions we've spent to combat poverty in the US accomplished exactly nothing?
If we can't agree on objective reality, there's no point in discussing it further.
 
Last edited:
Okay, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt:
This is from the US Census:

View attachment 151044

The "war on poverty" policies started in 64. From that chart, the average poverty rate after it was implement was reduced by about a third. In other words, that's a difference of about 1 in 3 people not being at the poverty line anymore. About 10 years onward, it seems to fluctuate back and forth, but never coming close to previous highs. Conclusion I draw? The war on poverty permanently lowered the poverty rate, but wasn't enough to eliminate it much below 15%. My guess is if you got rid of it, the numbers would quickly shoot back up to previous highs again.

and AGAIN

Social security has had a MUCH more dramatic rate on poverty among the elderly:

View attachment 151045

I wasn't able to find a graph showing it from the 30s, but the before / after implementation of it was even more dramatic. Before Social Security was implemented, the poverty rate among the elderly was about 50%. In other words, that's over a 75% total drop in the poverty rate among the elderly since SS was implemented. So again, please clarify this statement:

If we can't agree on objective reality, there's no point in discussing it further.


From the outside it looks like you are arguing with fox news..... No daddy causes crime, not poverty? Illegal imigration is only because we don't have a wall/border security, not because we've destabilized/bombed the shit out of a bunch of countries to bring 'freedom/democracy' (Read, replace leaders with more easily manipulated US friendly (corrupt) ones)...... It's a lot of words around bad fact-less arguments, so there's no point in wasting time arguing.

I'm sure our corrupt politicians are salivating at the thought of being able to tax something like this in the US......
 
Arguing about the effect being 2x 5x or 20x is besides the point. The fact remains that some votes count more than others.

The EU has states too, do you presume that they don't wield power over their citizens? The EU has no direct intervening power for individual states. They can suggest policies. That's it. If someone doesn't adhere to their policies they'll draft a paper saying "Orban bad". But they can't interfere directly.

Member states benefit greatly from being in the EU. The UK might be a net contributor, but that doesn't mean they aren't benefiting from the EU.


Immaterial. It does not matter that some people's votes seem to count more. States vote, with their electoral votes, not by the popular vote. The popular vote is used to determine how the States will use their Electoral Votes.

The entire system was set up so that the Senate itself wasn't the voting power for the President because that was the initial plan. 50 States, 2 votes each. I would hope that what we have today sounds better than the initial plan to you. Is my hope misplaced?


If you want to presume than be my guest, just don't presume to put your words in my mouth.

As for the EU, I mostly don't give a damned what they do or how, as long as they aren't fucking with the USA and trying to push their bullshit on us. Not my country, they want to do stupid shit it's fine with me.
 
Last edited:
Okay, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt:
This is from the US Census:

View attachment 151044

The "war on poverty" policies started in 64. From that chart, the average poverty rate after it was implement was reduced by about a third. In other words, that's a difference of about 1 in 3 people not being at the poverty line anymore. About 10 years onward, it seems to fluctuate back and forth, but never coming close to previous highs. Conclusion I draw? The war on poverty permanently lowered the poverty rate, but wasn't enough to eliminate it much below 15%. My guess is if you got rid of it, the numbers would quickly shoot back up to previous highs again.

and AGAIN

Social security has had a MUCH more dramatic rate on poverty among the elderly:

View attachment 151045

I wasn't able to find a graph showing it from the 30s, but the before / after implementation of it was even more dramatic. Before Social Security was implemented, the poverty rate among the elderly was about 50%. In other words, that's over a 75% total drop in the poverty rate among the elderly since SS was implemented. So again, please clarify this statement:

If we can't agree on objective reality, there's no point in discussing it further.


Ask me, Social Security is much of the reason for the poverty.

Look, I get it, the government decided that people won't save for themselves, which is stupid, people will do it, just not everyone. Personally I'm a Darwinist on this, and if a person won't look toward their own future than I don't care what happens to them. I have been paying into SS for 45 years. I have paid a lot into SS and I will probably not get it all back. That alone is reason enough not to like SS or see it as a net benefit for the country. All we are doing with SS is coddling people leaving the foolish some hope that SS will be enough for them and it's not. Never has been.
 
Immaterial. It does not matter that some people's votes seem to count more. States vote, with their electoral votes, not by the popular vote. The popular vote is used to determine how the States will use their Electoral Votes.

The entire system was set up so that the Senate itself wasn't the voting power for the President because that was the initial plan. 50 States, 2 votes each. I would hope that what we have today sounds better than the initial plan to you. Is my hope misplaced?


If you want to presume than be my guest, just don't presume to put your words in my mouth.

As for the EU, I mostly don't give a damned what they do or how, as long as they aren't fucking with the USA and trying to push their bullshit on us. Not my country, they want to do stupid shit it's fine with me.

I guess my feeling is this:

States aren't sentient beings who suffer if policies hurt them, or benefit when policies work in their favor. People are. The states themselves are immaterial. Government policies should work in the favor of as many people as possible, and thus having some peoples votes carry a greater weight than others is an inherently unfair system.

I understand why our founding fathers created the system this way. They were addressing the concerns of smaller states from being dominated by larger states. It was intended to persuade the smaller states to join the union in a time before we had some sort of national identity like we have today. They really should have had this expire after a few generations as that national identity was established..

Having a minority of people who live in rural settings that don't reflect how some 85% of Americans live today have an outsized influence on our politics is just wrong. Sure, these minority populations need to be protected, just like every other minority, so their concerns aren't completely ignored by the majority, but that's why it takes significant super majorities to change the constitution.

As more and more people move to cities on the coast and abandon their rural heritage, this system just becomes more and more unfair. At some point it has to change. Today only 15% of Americans live in rural areas. When do we mix things up and address this imbalance? Or should these low population interior states continue to have two senators and three electoral votes no matter how small their populations become? What if there is only one guy left in Wyoming some day. Does he still get three electoral votes?

I'm just surprised large states like Texas and California haven't gotten pissed off already and split into 3-4 smaller states each in order to gain a more representative level of influence.
 
I guess my feeling is this:

................. and thus having some peoples votes carry a greater weight than others is an inherently unfair system....................

But the point I am trying to get across is, because it's the States actually doing the voting, albeit based upon the voting by the State's citizens, (if the Electoral College follows), then the perception that there is a greater or lesser "weight" to individual's votes is a fiction. The individual is not voting at a national level, only at a voting district level. District's voting is tabulated and counted to determine how the State will vote at the national level.

This is why I didn't call out your objection to gerrymandering which is an entirely valid risk/threat to our voting system.

The founding fathers weren't concerned about "smaller states from being dominated by larger states" because the proposal for how we would elect a president was that the Senate only would vote giving equal representation to every state while ignoring that some states represented far greater numbers of the population. It was that concern, that the smaller states represented too few and unfairly represented states with larger populations, that the electoral college was proposed giving each State a number of electoral votes equal to their Senators + each member in the House, the House being population based. It was this change that was supposed to be more equatable by allowing each State their vote, but weighting the power of each State by their population.

Because of the electoral college, a candidate needs 270 votes to win. Also, because of the electoral college and the population spread of the States, currently a candidate can win with just 13 States behind him. Both California and Texas are among those powerful 13 States. I don't see these 13 States wanting to have their voting power broken up. This power is why these States have so much power in Congress, on Select Committees, and why these States are courted by big business. These are not the States being shafted by the system. These are the States getting favor all the way around. I would think that it shows. They are also the richest States in the Union and their populations seem to be the richest, and perhaps happiest. I've never dug into it to see if that's true, but it shouldn't be hard to do.

This is my understanding of the way things truly are. I do not claim that it is perfect or even the best that it can be.
 
But the point I am trying to get across is, because it's the States actually doing the voting, albeit based upon the voting by the State's citizens, (if the Electoral College follows), then the perception that there is a greater or lesser "weight" to individual's votes is a fiction. The individual is not voting at a national level, only at a voting district level. District's voting is tabulated and counted to determine how the State will vote at the national level.

This is why I didn't call out your objection to gerrymandering which is an entirely valid risk/threat to our voting system.

The founding fathers weren't concerned about "smaller states from being dominated by larger states" because the proposal for how we would elect a president was that the Senate only would vote giving equal representation to every state while ignoring that some states represented far greater numbers of the population. It was that concern, that the smaller states represented too few and unfairly represented states with larger populations, that the electoral college was proposed giving each State a number of electoral votes equal to their Senators + each member in the House, the House being population based. It was this change that was supposed to be more equatable by allowing each State their vote, but weighting the power of each State by their population.

Because of the electoral college, a candidate needs 270 votes to win. Also, because of the electoral college and the population spread of the States, currently a candidate can win with just 13 States behind him. Both California and Texas are among those powerful 13 States. I don't see these 13 States wanting to have their voting power broken up. This power is why these States have so much power in Congress, on Select Committees, and why these States are courted by big business. These are not the States being shafted by the system. These are the States getting favor all the way around. I would think that it shows. They are also the richest States in the Union and their populations seem to be the richest, and perhaps happiest. I've never dug into it to see if that's true, but it shouldn't be hard to do.

This is my understanding of the way things truly are. I do not claim that it is perfect or even the best that it can be.

You're right about that's how it is, and that's how it was intended. The whole point that people tend to forget while still managing to acknowledge that one state can be very different from another, is that this is the United STATES of America and the point of not using popular vote for everything is to avoid mob rule by a majority of people in certain regions who might otherwise make no consideration to the population in other areas/states. It's also why until a crappy constitutional amendment, US senators were not elected by general vote, but could be selected by state legislatures to represent the state rather than the population avoiding the issue of a wave of people moving from one locale to another and having more influence across multiple elections since changing a state's legislature would take longer than one general election.
 
The whole point that people tend to forget while still managing to acknowledge that one state can be very different from another, is that this is the United STATES of America and the point of not using popular vote for everything is to avoid mob rule by a majority of people in certain regions who might otherwise make no consideration to the population in other areas/states.

Is this really any better than the alternative though? We have replaced a perceived tyranny of the majority with a tyranny of the minority, which - by the way - is the very thing democracy was designed to avoid...
 
Poverty does not create criminals by default. It's what often is associated with poverty that has a major impact.
If I was poor and didn't have a job I'd go to your house and take your stuff and pawn it. I need my video games and my pornhub subscription.

?u=http%3A%2F%2Fgif-finder.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F10%2FOlaf-I-Dont-Give-A-Fuck.gif

There is no 'job lottery' and the term itself shits on those who struggled to find gainful employment. Those who want jobs, will almost always find one. It may not be the job of their dreams or what they studied for at Uni, but a job can be found by nearly anyone willing to work.
This has... problems. A job is not a job, as we obviously know cause working at McDonalds isn't the same thing as working as an IT at a company. Besides working at McDonalds to be a soul crushing boring job, it doesn't pay well either. It also doesn't give you any real usable experience unless you think applying for a good job with "would you like fries with that" is going to impress anyone.

There's also the problem with scammers, as I'm dealing with them on a constant hour by hour moment of my life. Just going to pull a number out of my ass, but I figure half the jobs in the United States exist specifically to extract money and give nothing in return. People who work for these scam artists are doing so cause they need a job and they need the money asap. These are the people calling you 20 times a day to tell you that your computer has a virus, or Wells Fargo employee's who seem to religiously scam people, or mediums who talk to the dead and charge you money to do so.

People will do desperate things for money.

Not every problem has a solution. Sometimes, the only thing we can do is deal with whatever it is as best we can. Wishful thinking does not accomplish anything. Wealth redistribnution is not the answer. Globalization is not the answer.
Wealth redistribution is the answer, just not one people like to hear. Unless you want to enact The Purge to remove all those poor people. At some point self driving cars will take away driving jobs, AI will take desk jobs, and kiosks will take away jobs from people who work at a register. Amazon will find a way to run their warehouse without employee's. Gotta have an answer for all these problems.
 
Is this really any better than the alternative though? We have replaced a perceived tyranny of the majority with a tyranny of the minority, which - by the way - is the very thing democracy was designed to avoid...


I don't understand this. As population shifts and people move across the country, representation in the house changes to match. This effects the number of electoral votes a give State receives thus changing the power a given State has in the election. It's why Wyoming has only 3 electoral votes and California 55.

What's more, the real argument I see is that because of this mechanic, as few as 13 states are the only ones that matter. Can anyone trace back over the decades and find an election in which the outcome hinged on Wyoming?

In the 2016 election President Trump received 304 electoral votes, 34 more than what was required to win. In order of their electoral "weight" the following States are the ones that counted most for Trump;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election

36 Texas (2 electors voted for candidates other than Trump)
29 Florida
20 Pennsylvania
18 Ohio
16 Georgia
16 Michigan
15 North Carolina
11 Arizona
11 Indiana
11 Tennessee
10 Missouri
10 Wisconsin
9 Alabama
9 South Carolina
8 Louisiana
7 Oklahoma
6 Arkansas
6 Colorado
6 Kansas
6 Iowa
6 Mississippi
5 West Virginia
This is 271, the following States also voted for Trump, but you could say that they were so small, they didn't matter other than they denied others their vote.

5 Nebraska
4 Idaho
3 Montana
3 Wyoming
3 North Dakota
3 South Dakota
3 Hawaii

And Trump picked up one rouge Electoral vote from Maine although the State went Blue.

25 more votes

Now maybe my math is off somewhere but for some reason the list above only counts for 296 total votes, supposed to be 5 more somewhere but I can't spot it. But I hope this explains what I am saying, that in effect the votes of seven States didn't even count. Of course this is the case almost every election.
 
As far as the electoral college is concerned, it's mostly screwed up because of how the states themselves have setup the rules. Too many states have went to a winner-take-all model -- I think Nebraska and Maine are the only states that don't. That means my vote is essentially worthless here in California as a Republican; the electoral votes will always go to the Democrat candidate. California has made things worse by not even giving Republicans a chance to vote in Senate elections; only the top 2 candidates with the most votes in the primary (the Democrat candidates) are listed on the general election ballot. The concerns of those outside the major rural areas are basically ignored in this state. This is why state votes should not be simple votes but based on districts that should represent everybody. If anything, the rural areas need more representation because every district can still be dominated by a geographically small urban area. You can see the same struggles in the EU and Brexit -- the politics typically get dominated by the large urban areas but when the entire population got to vote for Brexit -- the rural population actually showed up and shocked those in London. I think the EU eventually breaks up because those running it certain don't represent the values of all of the members.

Immaterial. It does not matter that some people's votes seem to count more. States vote, with their electoral votes, not by the popular vote. The popular vote is used to determine how the States will use their Electoral Votes.

The entire system was set up so that the Senate itself wasn't the voting power for the President because that was the initial plan. 50 States, 2 votes each. I would hope that what we have today sounds better than the initial plan to you. Is my hope misplaced?
 
Is this really any better than the alternative though? We have replaced a perceived tyranny of the majority with a tyranny of the minority, which - by the way - is the very thing democracy was designed to avoid...
What tyranny? The US is a two party system, presidents from both parties have been regularly back and forth for decades, control of the national congress has been back and forth for decades. In the meanwhile, the constitution and subsequently the bill of rights has been enforced many times against various states of either "color" to ensure that people still have their rights no matter what bug their particular state has gotten up their butt.

So what "tyranny" are you referring to? It's not as if the federal government is a one party system like the California government has effectively been for almost 30 years. We had a black democrat president who got re-elected, where the hell is the "tyranny"? Now if you were specifically referring to the TSA, the NSA, etc. then sure, but those don't really have anything to do with the voting public at all since they're non-elected bureaucracies.

Also, as people have pointed out a couple of times now in this thread, about 1/4 of the states account for more than 50% of the electoral votes anyway, and of those states there are representatives from both national parties in power and people from all walks of life. Hell, here in California unless I vote for the state party, it doesn't matter who I vote for because it's irrelevant.

BTW, did you know that it's up to the states to decide if the electoral votes are "winner take all" or representative by district or similar? Seems not. The funny part about that is, if CAs electoral votes were representational, the 1/3 or so that would go red would likely outweigh the blue votes in a state like TX, possibly the same for NY as well.

Apparently it really isn't obvious, but the system was intentionally setup to cause gridlock, prevent mob rule, and not allow just rapidly passing legislation constantly.
 
Last edited:
Wealth redistribution is the answer, just not one people like to hear. Unless you want to enact The Purge to remove all those poor people. At some point self driving cars will take away driving jobs, AI will take desk jobs, and kiosks will take away jobs from people who work at a register. Amazon will find a way to run their warehouse without employee's. Gotta have an answer for all these problems.

The answer is in front of your face, it's the same answer that has always existed. People will do what they have to do. Nothing stops people from starting new businesses for themselves, and others. Nothing but themselves.

Not even that crippled up genius in a wheelchair predicted that people would stream themselves playing games on the internet and make money doing it. There are several companies starting up over the last couple of decades where people are recreating "lost trades". Custom craftsmen making straight razors and real leather belts and other goods because ..... despite being more costly, they're really nice products. Disposable has become just cheap, as cheap as cheap can get. Quality starts becoming the new frugal choice. People are using hydroponics to grow vegetables to sell at local markets, it must be having an impact because now there are Super Markets that are trying out growing their own right in the store.



https://www.fastcompany.com/3058155/at-this-supermarket-the-produce-section-grows-its-own-produce\
 
As far as the electoral college is concerned, it's mostly screwed up because of how the states themselves have setup the rules. Too many states have went to a winner-take-all model -- I think Nebraska and Maine are the only states that don't. That means my vote is essentially worthless here in California as a Republican; the electoral votes will always go to the Democrat candidate. California has made things worse by not even giving Republicans a chance to vote in Senate elections; only the top 2 candidates with the most votes in the primary (the Democrat candidates) are listed on the general election ballot. The concerns of those outside the major rural areas are basically ignored in this state. This is why state votes should not be simple votes but based on districts that should represent everybody. If anything, the rural areas need more representation because every district can still be dominated by a geographically small urban area. You can see the same struggles in the EU and Brexit -- the politics typically get dominated by the large urban areas but when the entire population got to vote for Brexit -- the rural population actually showed up and shocked those in London. I think the EU eventually breaks up because those running it certain don't represent the values of all of the members.

Texas had two electors that voted against the State's "red outcome". Alaska had one and Washington State had four. Other States can do the same although they did not.

The secret to fixing California's problem .... is to leave California (y)

Enough leave and they lose representation in the House and Electoral votes as well.
 
............ Now if you were specifically referring to the TSA, the NSA, etc. then sure, ......
Can't speak to the TSA as that is Homeland Security. But the NSA is DoD, and that is what it is for very good reasons.

NSA is connect to the DOD bone, the DoD bone's connected to the Joint Cheif's bone, the Joint Cheif's bone's connected to the President's bone .... so hear the word .....

Yea I'm getting stupid, it's the end of the day .... sue me :sleep:
 
Guess as a red blooded American patriot I dont feel, understand, or want to share in your sentiment of having unelected tyrants dictating my life through ivory tower despotism.
Not everyone is elected, Fireman and Police by your logic should be elected, when in reality they are not elected in the US, Canada, Ireland, the UK, or in the EU. I call that BS as a fellow American, though I at least know My ancestry as someone of French, English, and quite possibly Irish ancestry, My family lived in Ireland from 1620-1820 at the Invitation of King James the 1st of England, I also know that the UK is composed of more than just England, so yes I have immigrant ancestors, My oldest known family member was born in Wexford Ireland in 1770.
 
Arguing about the effect being 2x 5x or 20x is besides the point. The fact remains that some votes count more than others.

The EU has states too, do you presume that they don't wield power over their citizens? The EU has no direct intervening power for individual states. They can suggest policies. That's it. If someone doesn't adhere to their policies they'll draft a paper saying "Orban bad". But they can't interfere directly.

Member states benefit greatly from being in the EU. The UK might be a net contributor, but that doesn't mean they aren't benefiting from the EU.
EU States are Countries with Standing Militaries, States in the US have no standing Militaries and the National Guard does not count since States in the US are not Countries.
 
Zilch, Nada, Zero, Goose Egg, and Void. ;)

That would be all 50, they are called The National Guard. Maybe I am taking the term "standing" a little too liberally for you, but they all have a core Active Duty Contingent that goes to work in uniform at least 5 days a week on average. That core is ready to respond and call up the rest on order of the Governor or upon Activation by the US DoD.

But perhaps you don't think that counts.
 
Can't speak to the TSA as that is Homeland Security. But the NSA is DoD, and that is what it is for very good reasons.

NSA is connect to the DOD bone, the DoD bone's connected to the Joint Cheif's bone, the Joint Cheif's bone's connected to the President's bone .... so hear the word .....

Yea I'm getting stupid, it's the end of the day .... sue me :sleep:
The US Militaries primary loyalty is to the US Constitution, not to a President.
 
That would be all 50, they are called The National Guard. Maybe I am taking the term "standing" a little too liberally for you, but they all have a core Active Duty Contingent that goes to work in uniform at least 5 days a week on average. That core is ready to respond and call up the rest on order of the Governor or upon Activation by the US DoD.

But perhaps you don't think that counts.
The US States don't have individual militaries, National Guard troops can be Federalized in a heartbeat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Liver
like this
Not true, see above.
I was in the US Army, I'm speaking from Experience, those in the US Military take an Oath to the US Constitution, not to a POTUS.

You are thinking of taking an Oath to a Liter, like Hitler had the German Military do, in the US that is not done.
 
The US Militaries primary loyalty is to the US Constitution, not to a President.

You don't fully get that whole "Command and Chief" thing do you?

Yes, I swore an oath to defend the constitution way back in 1981, and re-affirmed that oath several times over my military career. But in every Army building that I ever walked into that had offices for people in positions of Command, there were pictures of every Commanding Officer in that chain of command and every single collect ended with the President of the United States of America.

Do you think that was just for show?
 
I was in the US Army, I'm speaking from Experience, those in the US Military take an Oath to the US Constitution, not to a POTUS.

You are thinking of taking an Oath to a Liter, like Hitler had the German Military do, in the US that is not done.

And in that same oath you swore to obey the lawful orders of the officers appointed above you and that goes all the way to the Commander and Chief, POTUS.

Or did you forget that part of your oath.
https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html

Oath of Enlistment
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

And also, to remind you, the President also swore to uphold the Constitution as well.

https://www.presidentsusa.net/oathofoffice.html

  • US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
  • Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

It's not an either or thing brother.

Am I misunderstanding you in some way? Did I miss something key to the conversation earlier?

OH, and yea, I retired in '98, got a little experience myself. And my dick is bigger too.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top