Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 211 of 213 FirstFirst ... 111161201209210211212213 LastLast
Results 3,151 to 3,165 of 3190

Thread: Ilhan Omar

  1. #3151
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    33,291
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    We don't have to accept them doing so and act like sheep when there are better options, we can speak up.

    It could be but in the specific rural one you mentioned it isn't or at least hasn't been explained (I agree on racial issues but they have a different history than this). Why is that needed and what about say racial issues if a certain demographic isn't as represented in rural areas? What about many other identities listed? Why are they now being disadvantaged to focus on rural? That isn't a push for racial equality to me...
    If our govt collects a tax collectively from its citizens, and uses it to collectively provide services to the citizens, then us vs them is always part of the equation, because allocation of funds to this area vs that area is always part of the equation. I dont see how that can be avoided.

    Well I cant explain it in its entirety, it's not like have this thing completely fleshed out in my mind, but I could see an explanation something along the lines of certain things will benefit city vs rural.

    For example in central california theres always these 2 opposing sides, farming vs development. Farmers want initial rights to water, developers want certain access across certain lands or waterways, etc etc. In theory, if 1 vote counted for 1 person, farmland would just eventually be eroded everywhere as metros just sprawl and sprawl.

    So I can understand the idea that it is in Americas best interest to tilt the field toward this natural disadvantaged (by numbers via low density) demographic or industry.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    RAIDERS, SHARKS, WARRIORS

    "i don't believe in mysteries but still i pray for my sister, when speaking to the higher power that listens, to the lifeless vision of freedom everytime we're imprisoned, to the righteous victims of people of a higher position" - planet asia, old timer thoughts

    "God is Universal he is the Ruler Universal" - gangstarr (rip guru), robbin hood theory

    "don't gain the world and lose your soul, wisdom is better than silver and gold" - bob marley, zion train

  2. #3152
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,779

    Ilhan Omar

    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    If our govt collects a tax collectively from its citizens, and uses it to collectively provide services to the citizens, then us vs them is always part of the equation, because allocation of funds to this area vs that area is always part of the equation. I dont see how that can be avoided.

    Well I cant explain it in its entirety, it's not like have this thing completely fleshed out in my mind, but I could see an explanation something along the lines of certain things will benefit city vs rural.

    For example in central california theres always these 2 opposing sides, farming vs development. Farmers want initial rights to water, developers want certain access across certain lands or waterways, etc etc. In theory, if 1 vote counted for 1 person, farmland would just eventually be eroded everywhere as metros just sprawl and sprawl.

    So I can understand the idea that it is in Americas best interest to tilt the field toward this natural disadvantaged (by numbers via low density) demographic or industry.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    You don't have to accept it when it is bad. You can point out when something doesn't make sense or isn't consistent.

    This in no way addresses the obvious issues that I (and another) have pointed to multiple times now.

    What about the identities this would under represent? You mentioned racial yourself when convenient but now won't address it. There are others as well after race but address that first.

    One issue is not enough to change everything. What about all the issues unrelated to urban or rural? Why do others get less representation now to favor rural? You refuse to answer this because the reality is that it isn't the fair approach it was made to be.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #3153
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    51,165

    PSD: where the moderators consistently cave to crybaby tattletales and it's a lot safer to be openly racist, hateful, and ignorant than to be a little rude to the racist, hateful, and ignorant

  4. #3154
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    33,291
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    You don't have to accept it when it is bad. You can point out when something doesn't make sense or isn't consistent.

    This in no way addresses the obvious issues that I (and another) have pointed to multiple times now.

    What about the identities this would under represent? You mentioned racial yourself when convenient but now won't address it. There are others as well after race but address that first.

    One issue is not enough to change everything. What about all the issues unrelated to urban or rural? Why do others get less representation now to favor rural? You refuse to answer this because the reality is that it isn't the fair approach it was made to be.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Sure you can point it out, still dont change the nature of the beast.

    Well if we are saying to apply some thought and reason to help boost an under represented demographic, that applies to any demographic, not just rural. So any time that comes up I'd expect it to be discussed.

    Any approach would be fair in some ways, unfair in some.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    RAIDERS, SHARKS, WARRIORS

    "i don't believe in mysteries but still i pray for my sister, when speaking to the higher power that listens, to the lifeless vision of freedom everytime we're imprisoned, to the righteous victims of people of a higher position" - planet asia, old timer thoughts

    "God is Universal he is the Ruler Universal" - gangstarr (rip guru), robbin hood theory

    "don't gain the world and lose your soul, wisdom is better than silver and gold" - bob marley, zion train

  5. #3155
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,779
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    Sure you can point it out, still dont change the nature of the beast.

    Well if we are saying to apply some thought and reason to help boost an under represented demographic, that applies to any demographic, not just rural. So any time that comes up I'd expect it to be discussed.

    Any approach would be fair in some ways, unfair in some.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    Whether or not it changes isn't the issue. The issue is you don't need to just accept something because that's the way it is now. You don't need to just "fit in" to the status quo.

    It would need to be done for every group to be consistent which is why singling out one like rural doesn't make sense. This has been the entire point is no one can give a clear reason to do so for an identity but want to single it out anyways as if it should.

    Of course and some approaches are more fair than others. The one that is most fair for the whole is one vote per person each vote weighted the same.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  6. #3156
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    13,359
    Quote Originally Posted by spliff(TONE) View Post
    So you're saying more people equals more voting power?!?
    I'm saying some here think rural areas already have more than they should...or would with no electoral college. Yet that's not exactly true.
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  7. #3157
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    13,359
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    Whether or not it changes isn't the issue. The issue is you don't need to just accept something because that's the way it is now. You don't need to just "fit in" to the status quo.

    It would need to be done for every group to be consistent which is why singling out one like rural doesn't make sense. This has been the entire point is no one can give a clear reason to do so for an identity but want to single it out anyways as if it should.

    Of course and some approaches are more fair than others. The one that is most fair for the whole is one vote per person each vote weighted the same.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Look at that map spliff posted and tell me you still say that's true. What is that, 10% of the country contains 50% of the population? We're back to the land doesn't vote people do idea, but there are people with far different needs ON that 90% of land with 50% of the population. This isn't a partisan thing, a racial thing, strictly an urban vs rural thing.

    Why is it some have such an issue with the electoral college but not with the 2 senators per state regardless of population thing?
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  8. #3158
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The Boogie Down
    Posts
    103,059
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    Look at that map spliff posted and tell me you still say that's true. What is that, 10% of the country contains 50% of the population? We're back to the land doesn't vote people do idea, but there are people with far different needs ON that 90% of land with 50% of the population. This isn't a partisan thing, a racial thing, strictly an urban vs rural thing.

    Why is it some have such an issue with the electoral college but not with the 2 senators per state regardless of population thing?
    I have an issue with both.

    I get the two senators thing, but for the love of God make the two Dakota’s one and add DC as a state. DC has more damn people than these two states combined.

  9. #3159
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    13,359
    Quote Originally Posted by Sick Of It All View Post
    I have an issue with both.

    I get the two senators thing, but for the love of God make the two Dakota’s one and add DC as a state. DC has more damn people than these two states combined.
    Why in the hell do you keep harping on SD? ...first you say there's nobody here (we do have 800,000 but we also need some elbow room to grow the food you bastids eat)....now you want us to combine with ND? Why? Just to stay at 50 states if DC becomes one? Combining West Virginia and Virginia would make more sense that way. Or let Hawaii have their sovereignty. Combining the Dakotas would make 'the state' larger than Montana with no logical population center to become the capital.
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  10. #3160
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    6,258
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    Why in the hell do you keep harping on SD? ...first you say there's nobody here (we do have 800,000 but we also need some elbow room to grow the food you bastids eat)....now you want us to combine with ND? Why? Just to stay at 50 states if DC becomes one? Combining West Virginia and Virginia would make more sense that way. Or let Hawaii have their sovereignty. Combining the Dakotas would make 'the state' larger than Montana with no logical population center to become the capital.
    None of the dems care about DC. Nor do they care about Puerto Rico. All they care about is getting two more dem senators.

    If the dems had control of the senate, you would not hear a word about this.

    The democrats have mastered the art of making it seem like they care about something when they actually don't give a damn.

    They don't care about minorities or POC (what have they done for them?) They only care about their vote. They don't give a dam'n about immigration or illegals, only their vote. To anyone with half a brain, they are pretty transparent.

    Remember Harry Reid's comment on lying about Romney's tax returns………"We won, didn't we." That's al the dems care about.

  11. #3161
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,779
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    Look at that map spliff posted and tell me you still say that's true. What is that, 10% of the country contains 50% of the population? We're back to the land doesn't vote people do idea, but there are people with far different needs ON that 90% of land with 50% of the population. This isn't a partisan thing, a racial thing, strictly an urban vs rural thing.

    Why is it some have such an issue with the electoral college but not with the 2 senators per state regardless of population thing?
    Yes and it highlights just how many people live close to each other not on rural land, imagine telling all of them they are worth less because of it.

    It has become partisan and I don't think we should focus on rural as more important than race or more important than other groups. It's possible to win the election with under 30% of the vote given this structure it is absolutely ridiculous to weight some more than others in this manner. Just because tons of people live close together doesn't mean they are worth less.

    I would be just fine if you want to remove the senate, I noted in the other thread how they are constantly holding us back (I can show how they acted during Obama too. One vote per person no individual is valued over another is a simpler argument than getting into the senate though (which only furthers this issue I agree).


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  12. #3162
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    15,110
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    None of the dems care about DC. Nor do they care about Puerto Rico. All they care about is getting two more dem senators.

    If the dems had control of the senate, you would not hear a word about this.

    The democrats have mastered the art of making it seem like they care about something when they actually don't give a damn.

    They don't care about minorities or POC (what have they done for them?) They only care about their vote. They don't give a dam'n about immigration or illegals, only their vote. To anyone with half a brain, they are pretty transparent.

    Remember Harry Reid's comment on lying about Romney's tax returns………"We won, didn't we." That's al the dems care about.
    Sluggo you have no ****ing clue what people care about. If by dem you are referring to dem posters here I know you are wrong because I care about those people.

    If you are referring to dem politicians... well I am sure you are right about some (I am sure some of them are like me, as I am certainly interested in making a run at some point)... but that's true on both sides of the isle. Someone in another thread brought up the deficit. The GOP cares about deficit spending when they are not in power... when they are in power they have a proven track record of not giving one **** about it.

    I think you have a fundamental view that people are, at their core, selfish and self-interested. Anything else is secondary. That makes me pity you.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  13. #3163
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    15,110
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    Look at that map spliff posted and tell me you still say that's true. What is that, 10% of the country contains 50% of the population? We're back to the land doesn't vote people do idea, but there are people with far different needs ON that 90% of land with 50% of the population. This isn't a partisan thing, a racial thing, strictly an urban vs rural thing.

    Why is it some have such an issue with the electoral college but not with the 2 senators per state regardless of population thing?
    I think it's an issue of representation. Senators represent states. So I am fine with that being equal. (DC and Puerto rico are being robbed of their representation IMO).

    The president is supposed to represent the whole of Americans. So it seems silly to have one persons vote worth near double someone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  14. #3164
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The Boogie Down
    Posts
    103,059
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    Why in the hell do you keep harping on SD? ...first you say there's nobody here (we do have 800,000 but we also need some elbow room to grow the food you bastids eat)....now you want us to combine with ND? Why? Just to stay at 50 states if DC becomes one? Combining West Virginia and Virginia would make more sense that way. Or let Hawaii have their sovereignty. Combining the Dakotas would make 'the state' larger than Montana with no logical population center to become the capital.
    Man, i don’t like potatoes from the Dakota’s. Make em one damn state, they have 5 people.

    DC should be a state.

    Puerto Rico is different imo, let the people decide if they want to become a sovereign country.

  15. #3165
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    13,359
    Quote Originally Posted by Sick Of It All View Post
    Man, i don’t like potatoes from the Dakota’s. Make em one damn state, they have 5 people.

    DC should be a state.

    Puerto Rico is different imo, let the people decide if they want to become a sovereign country.
    So, deliberately obtuse it is, then
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •