Just hours after El-Paso Mass Shooting in Dayton Ohio Masked Gunam with body armor kills 10+/Gunman dead
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 10, 11, 12  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12612

PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 3:51 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
ribeye wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Ribeye, I don’t have an answer for you. But these are the discussions I think we ought to be having, more so than capping mag rounds. It’s not an either or, it’s more vs less for me.

There are examples every which way. High gun ownership, low and high rates of violence. Low gun ownership, low and high rates of violence. That’s exactly why I think the problem is cultural, and the manifestation is what actually occurs.

We are kidding ourselves if we think capping mag rounds is going to move the needle on gun violence since nearly all incidents of gun violence occurs with just a few rounds and we have already made mass shooting illegal.


You are providing a straw man here. No one that I know of is suggesting that capping mag rounds is going to move the needle much on overall gun violence. It can mitigate mass shooting deaths as have occurred too often.

I have yet to hear an argument what is the harm if we eliminate the personal ownership of clips that hold over 10 rounds.

And you continue with this fixated belief that seems to be a sort of tunnel vision, or let's call it Sunset Boulevard vision. If you look straight ahead you can see what is in front of you, but if you don't look down the side streets or beyond the turn, you miss much of what there is to see. This isn't meant as an attack but to illustrate how damn difficult it is to attempt to communicate with you.

You repeat over and over and over a point, but don't want to dive into it beyond that repetition.

So, if you think the issue is cultural, why don't you, finally, get into it and provide what it is you are getting at or provide some examples of what you mean.


What’s the point?

You’ll dismiss it just like the rest of them.


The rest of them? You mean such as your point that we need to examine our culture and not bother with any gun reform--that you've made over and over, without any further input. Simple statements are less than a dime a dozen. Conversations require building on a thought and not mere repetition.

But this is on me because: "There's an old saying in TennesseeI know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again” — or something like that.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144432
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 4:27 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
ribeye wrote:
I have yet to hear an argument what is the harm if we eliminate the personal ownership of clips that hold over 10 rounds.


It would infringe the constitutional rights of millions of Americans and would make millions of existing firearms illegal. You may think that people don't need clips of over 10 rounds, but the gun owners in this country have a different viewpoint.


Some do, some don’t. I have hunted for decades and never had reason to wish I had 30 rounds. And I know like minded gun owners. But I agree with you 100%, the cry would be “they’re limiting my rounds, next they are going to take my guns”.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13811
Location: Boulder ;)

PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:02 pm    Post subject:

Freedoms have been taken away before, yes or no?

We have failed as a community to police the NRA and our Politicians.

They always seem to let their Ethics follow the Dollar.. Higher the dollar the lower the Ethics/Morals.. (Mitch selling Kentucky Aluminum to Russia.. $200,000,000)

Can someone tell me the value of a Nation giving Modified Assault Rifles to 18 year old children? Children who are not part of the Armed Forces and will never be required to be.

What is the Societal Value of all these Guns.. Sort of like those Southerners who realized their Racist Jokes weren't so valuable anymore they were forced to change (or vote for Trump)

We must fix this fascination

I grew up in rural Eugene, Oregon. My Father rode a lawn tractor to cut the back yard and side yard grass. We had 6 foot bull and rattlesnakes in the grass.. He carried a 22 pistol and capped their ass from the mower while rolling by.. Not so bright considering he could've hit a rock but there was a decent use of a gun

I grew up seeing reruns of The Rifleman and that dude kicked ass with an actual rifle

John Wayne used a pistol and rifle

Who got our society fixated on owning heavy machine guns?


Does Glorification of Assault Weapon Ownership help Military recruiting?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13811
Location: Boulder ;)

PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:14 pm    Post subject:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/06/us/el-paso-victim-daughter-afraid/index.html

"Is he going to come and shoot me?" Asked 5 year old Skylin after being told the shooter had killed both her Mother and Father. She is the oldest of 3 children now with no parents.

Do we need to train children at school to be martyrs and teach them to rush the gunman?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
The Juggernaut
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 Aug 2017
Posts: 4572

PostPosted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 12:32 pm    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
governator wrote:
ribeye wrote:
governator wrote:
Is there a good poll of US gun owners about tightening background checks, lowering clip rounds, allowing gun death study?


I didn't go through all the polls but here are many on the subject of gun control.

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm


So majority gun owners want more regulations according to this poll


Here is a discussion of the political reality. To some extent, the same forces apply to red and purple state Democrats. We all know that this country is a republic formed of states, rather than a democracy. This is one of the times when that principle comes into play. It doesn't matter whether a majority of Americans support some form of gun control. What matters is whether that majority of Americans can elect a majority of representatives who will enact gun control. The heavy concentration of gun control support in California and the northeast may create a numerical majority, but not a working majority in Congress.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gop-politicians-are-much-more-resistant-to-gun-control-than-gop-voters/


Ahhh, the status quo, or, what constitutes the tyranny of the minority.

We have an electoral system whereby 40 or so states are mostly ignored as they are not the swing states.

We have an electoral system whereby the last two Republican presidents did not receive a majority of the votes.

We have a Senate where the largest state has the same representation as a state with something like 1/70 the population.

We have a system that allows severe gerrymandering that benefits the minoirty.

As but one of the many results of this, we have a SCOTUS appointment that was not even considered.

All of this so this tyranny of the minority can elect politicians, who will serve the minority's culture war interests such as guns and abortion, while serving their moneyed masters whose only goal is to achieve wealth beyond reason, regardless the costs, even if it means neglect for our planet that will end up, at the very least, creating a severe burden, or at worst, pain, suffering, and death, for many of us or our offspring.

Hail the Republic!


Great (bleep) post!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 1:19 pm    Post subject:

^^^^

This gets into basic civics. The Constitution was expressly intended to protect the interests of the smaller states against the big states. This has never been a "majority rules" country. If anything has changed in recent times, it is simply that the GOP has weaponized the electoral map while the Democrats have fumbled around and whined about unfairness. The GOP had a plan that targeted all aspects of our government, from the White House to state and local elections to the judiciary. And they executed the plan ruthlessly.

As of January 2009, the Democrats controlled the White House, the House of Representatives, and sixty seats in the Senate. They used that overwhelming advantage to accomplish almost nothing, unless you count a healthcare reform bill that no one really wanted (though it was an improvement over the status quo). Meanwhile, the GOP got control in January 2017 and passed a massive (and in my opinion disastrous) tax cut for the rich, repealed huge number of regulations designed to protect the environment, workers, and ordinary people, and stacked the judiciary with Federalist Society lunatics to an extent that will take a generation or two to overcome. Clarence Thomas will probably retire next June, and Trump will replace him as the Democrats scream about Merritt Garland and hypocrisy. Once the election is done next year, regardless of result, Roe v. Wade is probably toast.

So people will complain about the way that the Constitution works, but really the issue is that one side has been a lot more ruthless and effective in operating within the system. Meanwhile, groups like the NRA have matched the GOP in ruthlessness, while opposing groups have relied on emotional appeals and intellectual arguments. The fact that the NRA is managing to block universal background checks even though support is 90%+ in the polls, and even though the Trumpster himself is pushing for change, is impressive. Impressive in a twisted way, for sure, but still damned impressive.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29150
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 1:40 pm    Post subject:

Quote:
McConnell continues blocking bill 90% of Americans want


https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/08/09/reality-check-dems-calling-mcconnell-bring-back-senate-gun-reform-avlon-newday-vpx.cnn


_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 11:46 pm    Post subject:

In fairness, the electoral college and senate system never really envisioned a country where one state has forty million people and another has 700k. It’s ok to accept that the founding fathers were brilliant but not infallible nor psychic. Nor that they intended for 41% of the senators making up a third of the representative population having the power to stop everything a president of the other party and the House of Representatives passed. Or that they intended that states could turn a minority or small majority of their in state votes into a prohibitive representative majority.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Sat Aug 10, 2019 5:50 am    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
In fairness, the electoral college and senate system never really envisioned a country where one state has forty million people and another has 700k. It’s ok to accept that the founding fathers were brilliant but not infallible nor psychic. Nor that they intended for 41% of the senators making up a third of the representative population having the power to stop everything a president of the other party and the House of Representatives passed. Or that they intended that states could turn a minority or small majority of their in state votes into a prohibitive representative majority.


The framers did envision significant population disparities, because they existed in 1789. The population disparities are greater today, but that is a quantitative difference, not a qualitative difference. Rhode Island had two senators in 1790. So did New York. The idea was that the big, populous states should not be able to jam their values and their agenda down the throats of the less populous states. That principle still applies today.

The filibuster rules are not in the Constitution. The GOP was ruthless enough to dump them when it suited their purposes. The Democrats weren't. That's the point. The GOP had a plan and executed it. The Democrats complained about it. For a brief time, the grass roots Democrats led the way by challenging the GOP at the town hall level. You know, crazy stuff like talking to voters and focusing on things that matter to people. Now we're back to the Russia investigation. The House is about to get sucked into impeaching Trump. Nancy Freaking Pelosi is the Admiral Ackbar of this story. Woo hoo.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12612

PostPosted: Sat Aug 10, 2019 7:58 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
^^^^

This gets into basic civics. The Constitution was expressly intended to protect the interests of the smaller states against the big states. This has never been a "majority rules" country. If anything has changed in recent times, it is simply that the GOP has weaponized the electoral map while the Democrats have fumbled around and whined about unfairness. The GOP had a plan that targeted all aspects of our government, from the White House to state and local elections to the judiciary. And they executed the plan ruthlessly.

As of January 2009, the Democrats controlled the White House, the House of Representatives, and sixty seats in the Senate. They used that overwhelming advantage to accomplish almost nothing, unless you count a healthcare reform bill that no one really wanted (though it was an improvement over the status quo). Meanwhile, the GOP got control in January 2017 and passed a massive (and in my opinion disastrous) tax cut for the rich, repealed huge number of regulations designed to protect the environment, workers, and ordinary people, and stacked the judiciary with Federalist Society lunatics to an extent that will take a generation or two to overcome. Clarence Thomas will probably retire next June, and Trump will replace him as the Democrats scream about Merritt Garland and hypocrisy. Once the election is done next year, regardless of result, Roe v. Wade is probably toast.

So people will complain about the way that the Constitution works, but really the issue is that one side has been a lot more ruthless and effective in operating within the system. Meanwhile, groups like the NRA have matched the GOP in ruthlessness, while opposing groups have relied on emotional appeals and intellectual arguments. The fact that the NRA is managing to block universal background checks even though support is 90%+ in the polls, and even though the Trumpster himself is pushing for change, is impressive. Impressive in a twisted way, for sure, but still damned impressive.


Indeed it is basic civics, a subject neglected and rarely taught anymore. But what we have is more than just Republican manipulation and ruthlessness. There were mistakes made by our framers, thinking that we could avoid political parties (which is unbelievably naive); that a Senate elected by party bosses was ideal; that every state should have equal representation in the Senate, no matter the disparity in size; that, typically, only people of some substance could vote; that women, of course, could not; and then there is that 3/5 thing.

At the time, there were 13 states and the framers needed to, effectively, bribe the smaller states, to join the new country, though I don't know why, as if they didn't join, they'd be toast, but I digress. Then, the smallest state was only about 1/13 the size compared to 1/70 today. This compromise, at least to the extent that every state was exactly equal in the Senate that confirms appointments, treaties and SCOTUS Justices, and will remain that way until perpetuity, as there is no way to get enough to votes for an amendment to change it, is but one of the mistakes made. Mitigating any tyranny of the majority was good insight, but not if it created something even worse.

To compound this, just as with the compromise with the Senate representation, the framers had to also compromise with (primarily) the South on slavery.

Though politics was as nasty then as now, with the political environment of the time (a sense of county first), these mistakes could be managed. But over time, as we have seen, the mistakes have resulted in the greatest of tragedy, and a system that would be unrecognizable to the founders and framers. All countries are run by the powerful, typically meaning the wealthy. It is how we are. But though this country has always been of and by the wealthy, then was not like today. It was a different country with a different mentality: With having just won a war to get away from the dictates of a King and his Parliament; with a sense respect for all due to the Enlightenment movement; with a fear of the traditional traditions associated with the aristocracy; with, unlike today, corporations of no, or extremely limited, power, and chartered with a short shelf life; with much of one's wealth in land and not liquid; with a costly revolution creating so much debt; and with many from wealth, fearing a loss of it should the revolution fail, remaining Tories, loyal to the King, returning to England, or leaving for Canada or elsewhere. The men of our revolution had many flawed ideas, but they, even the wealthy--especially the wealthy--understood what they were about to experience, something no generation would ever again experience: extreme sacrifice for county that meant it was either all (a new county) or nothing (losing everything).

This most progressive experiment of a constitutional democratic-republic, was followed by a progressive solution that began to correct the greatest of flaws of our constitution--that still troubles our country today. The resentment of the South losing their war against the United States and against African-Americans was exacerbated by something new to our country. With expansion westward, came wealth and corruption. With wealth (and usually the corruption associated with it), comes conservatism.

With conservatism came many changes. The founders did not envision a country where corporations were considered people, and could wield so much power, or that there would be advocates (lobbyists) for the corporations who would be assigned to govern the agencies designed to protect Americans against the corporations, or be involved in the revolving door of government and corporate leadership, or where dudes stroll about with an AK’s strapped around their back as they go to the coffee shop, or guns equipped with 100 round magazines that could be exhausted before a musket could be reloaded. They never considered outlawing abortion. They never considered that a Supreme Court nominee would not even be brought up for a vote. They never could have imagined the obscene amounts of money money involved directly and indirectly with elections. And of course, they never envisioned that a president could not be convicted of a crime in office, or able to thwart the legislative branch designed to provide oversight. They just got rid of a King. The last think they ever wanted was another.

*********
Also, I strongly disagree that passing Obamacare, though flawed, was not wanted, nor something inconsequential. First, it is a product that was a long time in coming. Second, it will not be the end product. I imagine it will be considered a significant accomplishment in the future, especially as it is built upon. Also, passing banking reform should not be considered a nothing either. The Democrats only had a filibusterer proof majority for about four months. What they accomplished in that short time is most impressive.

You are correct that what the GOP did was pass an unpopular tax bill. But I must question giving them so much credit for this singular "accomplishment," when all they needed were their majorities in congress--majorities they held for two years.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13811
Location: Boulder ;)

PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 1:07 am    Post subject:

https://thehill.com/homenews/457055-norway-shooting-suspect-reportedly-inspired-by-el-paso-shooting

Quote:
The suspected gunman in an attack on a mosque in Norway over the weekend was inspired by the Christchurch shooting in New Zealand and two recent mass shooting in the U.S., according to online posts analyzed by the Guardian.

White Male, 21, stormed a mosque in Baerum, a town near Oslo, on Saturday. He was restrained by worshippers and no one was killed.


Thanks Trump
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Buck32
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 30 Apr 2001
Posts: 7317

PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 4:16 am    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
Quote:
McConnell continues blocking bill 90% of Americans want


https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/08/09/reality-check-dems-calling-mcconnell-bring-back-senate-gun-reform-avlon-newday-vpx.cnn



Moscow Mitch doesn't care what the country wants as long as the Kentuckians keep voting for him.
_________________
“Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.”
― Isaac Asimov
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vanexelent
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081

PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:10 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
The idea was that the big, populous states should not be able to jam their values and their agenda down the throats of the less populous states. That principle still applies today.



What do state boundaries have to do with values or setting agendas?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:48 am    Post subject:

vanexelent wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
The idea was that the big, populous states should not be able to jam their values and their agenda down the throats of the less populous states. That principle still applies today.


What do state boundaries have to do with values or setting agendas?


Seriously? I mean, really? Do you actually think that the values and agendas of, say, California and New York match the values and agendas of, say, Kansas and Indiana? If this is not immediately apparent to you, then nothing I say is going to get through to you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vanexelent
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081

PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 6:34 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
The idea was that the big, populous states should not be able to jam their values and their agenda down the throats of the less populous states. That principle still applies today.


What do state boundaries have to do with values or setting agendas?


Seriously? I mean, really? Do you actually think that the values and agendas of, say, California and New York match the values and agendas of, say, Kansas and Indiana? If this is not immediately apparent to you, then nothing I say is going to get through to you.


But how exactly does a President from say Illinois encompass the values and agendas set forth by Californians?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:55 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
The idea was that the big, populous states should not be able to jam their values and their agenda down the throats of the less populous states. That principle still applies today.


What do state boundaries have to do with values or setting agendas?


Seriously? I mean, really? Do you actually think that the values and agendas of, say, California and New York match the values and agendas of, say, Kansas and Indiana? If this is not immediately apparent to you, then nothing I say is going to get through to you.


You are absolutely correct, which is exactly the problem in reverse now.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12612

PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:02 am    Post subject:

vanexelent wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
The idea was that the big, populous states should not be able to jam their values and their agenda down the throats of the less populous states. That principle still applies today.


What do state boundaries have to do with values or setting agendas?


Seriously? I mean, really? Do you actually think that the values and agendas of, say, California and New York match the values and agendas of, say, Kansas and Indiana? If this is not immediately apparent to you, then nothing I say is going to get through to you.


But how exactly does a President from say Illinois encompass the values and agendas set forth by Californians?


I don't think it works that way. We have a president from NY, who doesn't come close to representing the values of NY, but does represent the South and much of the Midwest.

A president runs on some sort of values, either their values, the values of those they want to represent, or those they think will get them elected. Boundaries and populations matter for apportionment and the electoral college.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Hector the Pup
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 35946
Location: L.A.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:10 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
The idea was that the big, populous states should not be able to jam their values and their agenda down the throats of the less populous states. That principle still applies today.


What do state boundaries have to do with values or setting agendas?


Seriously? I mean, really? Do you actually think that the values and agendas of, say, California and New York match the values and agendas of, say, Kansas and Indiana? If this is not immediately apparent to you, then nothing I say is going to get through to you.


I'd say that the people who foot the bill get to make the rules. You do of course realize that California and New York make up the biggest chunk of population and revenue for this country, right?

Ever heard the term California Emissions when buying a car? It's not used anymore because the entire automotive industry now adheres to it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12612

PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:58 am    Post subject:

Hector the Pup wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
The idea was that the big, populous states should not be able to jam their values and their agenda down the throats of the less populous states. That principle still applies today.


What do state boundaries have to do with values or setting agendas?


Seriously? I mean, really? Do you actually think that the values and agendas of, say, California and New York match the values and agendas of, say, Kansas and Indiana? If this is not immediately apparent to you, then nothing I say is going to get through to you.


I'd say that the people who foot the bill get to make the rules. You do of course realize that California and New York make up the biggest chunk of population and revenue for this country, right?

Ever heard the term California Emissions when buying a car? It's not used anymore because the entire automotive industry now adheres to it.


I thought I'd look it up, and Calif and NY tax revenue amounts to 24% of the total Federal tax revenue or about one in every four dollars of income comes from those two states. 24% to be disbursed among all 50 states (while at the same time the poor states receiving it tend (bleep) about the people and their representatives from Calif and NY) when they have 8% representation in the most powerful chamber.

https://www.money-rates.com/research-center/federal-income-taxes-by-state.htm
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67314
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:56 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Quote:
The idea was that the big, populous states should not be able to jam their values and their agenda down the throats of the less populous states. That principle still applies today.

I've been pondering. Large populous states have more than one vote. Why not gather a consensus and give it priority. Once the majority is determined cast 1 vote for all. Of course this is off the top of my head. It's a thought that needs much to perfect.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12612

PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:18 pm    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Quote:
The idea was that the big, populous states should not be able to jam their values and their agenda down the throats of the less populous states. That principle still applies today.

I've been pondering. Large populous states have more than one vote. Why not gather a consensus and give it priority. Once the majority is determined cast 1 vote for all. Of course this is off the top of my head. It's a thought that needs much to perfect.


Regarding the electoral college, there is a movement out there to neuter the electoral college system. Fifteen states, so far, have joined a pact to "promice" to pool all electoral votes together, with the popular vote winner taking all the electoral votes of the pact. So far, these states have a combined 195 electoral votes. The pact would take effect once enough states have joined to guarantee the national winner 270 electoral votes, ensuring election. I see some problems with this, but it is quite a clever tactic.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"


Last edited by ribeye on Mon Aug 12, 2019 1:06 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:37 pm    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:
Fifteen states, so far, have joined a pact to "promice" . . .


Does that mean the 35 other states are anti-mice?

(sorry . . . silly, I know . . . couldn't resist)
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:48 pm    Post subject:

vanexelent wrote:
But how exactly does a President from say Illinois encompass the values and agendas set forth by Californians?


The presidency is a national office. The president often does not encompass the values and agendas of a particular state.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:57 pm    Post subject:

Hector the Pup wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
The idea was that the big, populous states should not be able to jam their values and their agenda down the throats of the less populous states. That principle still applies today.


What do state boundaries have to do with values or setting agendas?


Seriously? I mean, really? Do you actually think that the values and agendas of, say, California and New York match the values and agendas of, say, Kansas and Indiana? If this is not immediately apparent to you, then nothing I say is going to get through to you.


I'd say that the people who foot the bill get to make the rules. You do of course realize that California and New York make up the biggest chunk of population and revenue for this country, right?

Ever heard the term California Emissions when buying a car? It's not used anymore because the entire automotive industry now adheres to it.


I don't agree with the perspective of GOPers like you who think that their vote should count more because they make more money and pay more taxes. Heck, I know that some of you still believe that only landowners should have the right to vote. I just can't support plutocracy. I believe everyone should have the right to vote, even if they don't like in mansions and drive fancy cars. Power to the people!

/snark off
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12612

PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 1:07 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
ribeye wrote:
Fifteen states, so far, have joined a pact to "promice" . . .


Does that mean the 35 other states are anti-mice?

(sorry . . . silly, I know . . . couldn't resist)


Actually, for the most part, I would say the 35 are are pro-rats.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 10, 11, 12  Next
Page 11 of 12
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB