Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 212 of 213 FirstFirst ... 112162202210211212213 LastLast
Results 3,166 to 3,180 of 3189

Thread: Ilhan Omar

  1. #3166
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The Boogie Down
    Posts
    102,941

    Ilhan Omar

    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    So, deliberately obtuse it is, then
    Nah, I just have a problem with a place that has more people than two states combined getting no proper representation in the senate, while another place gets far more just because land.

  2. #3167
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    6,174
    Isn't the two senators per state one of those annoying constitutional things????

    Like all those silly rights things.

    And guns.

  3. #3168
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    13,206
    Quote Originally Posted by Sick Of It All View Post
    Nah, I just have a problem with a place that has more people than two states combined getting no proper representation in the senate, while another place gets far more just because land.
    like I said, deliberately obtuse

    You want to cut representation down for the Dakotas while giving some to an area originally designed to be politically neutral. I have no problem agreeing that the DC area has long ago passed the parameters of the original intent of the district. I don't, however, follow your insistence to focus on 2 states that aren't even the least populated states......and grow all their potatoes in gardens just like most states.
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  4. #3169
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,712
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    like I said, deliberately obtuse

    You want to cut representation down for the Dakotas while giving some to an area originally designed to be politically neutral. I have no problem agreeing that the DC area has long ago passed the parameters of the original intent of the district. I don't, however, follow your insistence to focus on 2 states that aren't even the least populated states......and grow all their potatoes in gardens just like most states.
    Why does population matter now?

    I am not against a lot of what you say but if we weigh some votes more important than others that should be an all around discussion


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #3170
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The Boogie Down
    Posts
    102,941
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    like I said, deliberately obtuse

    You want to cut representation down for the Dakotas while giving some to an area originally designed to be politically neutral. I have no problem agreeing that the DC area has long ago passed the parameters of the original intent of the district. I don't, however, follow your insistence to focus on 2 states that aren't even the least populated states......and grow all their potatoes in gardens just like most states.
    Make Idaho and SD and ND all one state, shut another 8 people live in Idaho.

  6. #3171
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    13,206
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    Why does population matter now?

    I am not against a lot of what you say but if we weigh some votes more important than others that should be an all around discussion


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    This wasn't even an electoral college conversation...he's just yammering on about turning the Dakotas into a single state, a ridiculous idea for a large number of reasons. And now being further ridiculous by suggesting Idaho be included as well...not even connected to the Dakotas.

    How 'bout we just eliminate states altogether and just elect 100 senators from a national pool. That should work, right?
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  7. #3172
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,712
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    This wasn't even an electoral college conversation...he's just yammering on about turning the Dakotas into a single state, a ridiculous idea for a large number of reasons. And now being further ridiculous by suggesting Idaho be included as well...not even connected to the Dakotas.

    How 'bout we just eliminate states altogether and just elect 100 senators from a national pool. That should work, right?
    I don't think it's any more ridiculous than telling some people their votes matter less than others due to rural or urban. If we want to fight about how to weight individuals why not also start doing so with states? Maybe they don't need that many senators for lower population or as much representation. It is related given the current ec is not individually based but weighted and done vie electors. What we decide is a state and the congressional delegation within decides electors.

    I think that misses the point of senators/senate. If we wanna change it as a whole I would be open to it though. Why do we need a senate at all if it's just another popular vote type/house already exists?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #3173
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    13,206
    There's already states with their own disparities in fair representation....look at Illinois, for example....75% of the state's population is in the Chicago metro area so how much pull does the rest of the state have?

    And I'm not the one that's looking for change...a lot of you think abolishing the electoral college is the way to go, now this 'why 2 Dakotas' bull ****. You may not think it's any more ridiculous, my opinion differs.

    Plus, by and large SDans don't much like NDans, so there's that, too...Canada can have 'em, they already talk like 'em, eh?
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  9. #3174
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,712
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    There's already states with their own disparities in fair representation....look at Illinois, for example....75% of the state's population is in the Chicago metro area so how much pull does the rest of the state have?

    And I'm not the one that's looking for change...a lot of you think abolishing the electoral college is the way to go, now this 'why 2 Dakotas' bull ****. You may not think it's any more ridiculous, my opinion differs.

    Plus, by and large SDans don't much like NDans, so there's that, too...Canada can have 'em, they already talk like 'em, eh?
    If the only way for fair representation os equality of outcome we need massive changes based on race/sex for starters but many others as well.

    You continue to focus on one identity and complaining "unfair" while ignoring all others and within the approach much of the population is then negatively impacted as you prop this one group up.

    I am looking for changes all around that would improve this country. I agree on not needing to mess with the Dakotas and in order to avoid that being a logical move/argument we should fix the way we vote to not make representation different individual to individual based on rural/urban/which state you live in now.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #3175
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    13,206
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    If the only way for fair representation os equality of outcome we need massive changes based on race/sex for starters but many others as well.

    You continue to focus on one identity and complaining "unfair" while ignoring all others and within the approach much of the population is then negatively impacted as you prop this one group up.

    I am looking for changes all around that would improve this country. I agree on not needing to mess with the Dakotas and in order to avoid that being a logical move/argument we should fix the way we vote to not make representation different individual to individual based on rural/urban/which state you live in now.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    How on earth am I complaining unfair on any of this? I didn't START any of this, only commented on it. Point to a single complaint...even just one. I shared my opinion that, while I could see tweaks to the electoral college I disagree with its elimination...opinion, not complaint. I shared my opinion that areas like the ag industry would be poorly represented if elections were strictly by popular vote....opinion, not complaint.

    Fair representation, then, involves a lot of various opinions. The fact that some of them don't involve the massive changes you apparently think is needed doesn't negate those opinions or mean they're complaints. In fact, isn't pushing for changes to the status quo more of a complaint than the opinion massive changes are unneeded? Meaning, I'm not the one complaining here.
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  11. #3176
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    6,174
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    There's already states with their own disparities in fair representation....look at Illinois, for example....75% of the state's population is in the Chicago metro area so how much pull does the rest of the state have?

    And I'm not the one that's looking for change...a lot of you think abolishing the electoral college is the way to go, now this 'why 2 Dakotas' bull ****. You may not think it's any more ridiculous, my opinion differs.

    Plus, by and large SDans don't much like NDans, so there's that, too...Canada can have 'em, they already talk like 'em, eh?
    Just curious, and this has nothing to do with the discussion, but……

    Why don't South Dakotans like North Dakotans???

  12. #3177
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,712
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    How on earth am I complaining unfair on any of this? I didn't START any of this, only commented on it. Point to a single complaint...even just one. I shared my opinion that, while I could see tweaks to the electoral college I disagree with its elimination...opinion, not complaint. I shared my opinion that areas like the ag industry would be poorly represented if elections were strictly by popular vote....opinion, not complaint.

    Fair representation, then, involves a lot of various opinions. The fact that some of them don't involve the massive changes you apparently think is needed doesn't negate those opinions or mean they're complaints. In fact, isn't pushing for changes to the status quo more of a complaint than the opinion massive changes are unneeded? Meaning, I'm not the one complaining here.
    I didn't mean that offensive at all and take back using complaint there. You just often have commented on "fairness". I quoted "unfair" there to highlight that and just meant all the talk about fairness in general.

    You basically have yet to respond logically though. You never actually address me pointing out the unfair aspects or what is currently happening. You have stated opinions, I have countered with some facts/clear issues and pretty much no response to that actual aspect. This is what I am most focused on is the most logical aspect forward, I apologize if what I said offended you but let's focus on this aspect.

    Pushing for change could be argued as complaining. Sometimes if something is bad you could argue you should complain too then right? Like the logical option is to complain. I didn't mean it nearly as negative as you seem to take it.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  13. #3178
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    13,206
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    Just curious, and this has nothing to do with the discussion, but……

    Why don't South Dakotans like North Dakotans???
    oh, it's not like it's any real deep seated dislike...more like a sports rivalry kind of dislike (which we have as well)
    I mean there are some fundamental differences, too. I'm not joking when I say North Dakota may as well be Canada because they think and talk like one far more than any South Dakotan would...but then the same can be true for people in northern Minnesota. The movie Fargo was quite exaggerated, of course...but in some ways not all that much.

    And in my case, I grew up near the North Dakota border and we sometimes feuded with guys from there hitting our bars, etc......and I started my college career at SDSU which has been NDSU's largest rival in sports for years (USD and UND have always been, too, but to a lesser extent).
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  14. #3179
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    13,206
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    I didn't mean that offensive at all and take back using complaint there. You just often have commented on "fairness". I quoted "unfair" there to highlight that and just meant all the talk about fairness in general.

    You basically have yet to respond logically though. You never actually address me pointing out the unfair aspects or what is currently happening. You have stated opinions, I have countered with some facts/clear issues and pretty much no response to that actual aspect. This is what I am most focused on is the most logical aspect forward, I apologize if what I said offended you but let's focus on this aspect.

    Pushing for change could be argued as complaining. Sometimes if something is bad you could argue you should complain too then right? Like the logical option is to complain. I didn't mean it nearly as negative as you seem to take it.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Oh I don't offend easily, that wasn't it...I'm just not quite sure what I haven't responded logically to. In my opinion the electoral college in some fashion is needed to balance things...and the founding fathers obviously understood that as well. Now, they couldn't have foreseen cities with millions of people in them, the great disparities in wealth distribution, and all that back then. What have you asked that I've not answered (even if you've disagreed with my answer)?
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  15. #3180
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,712
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    Oh I don't offend easily, that wasn't it...I'm just not quite sure what I haven't responded logically to. In my opinion the electoral college in some fashion is needed to balance things...and the founding fathers obviously understood that as well. Now, they couldn't have foreseen cities with millions of people in them, the great disparities in wealth distribution, and all that back then. What have you asked that I've not answered (even if you've disagreed with my answer)?
    It was just not responding to the counter points made. To put it in question form...

    Why are people who live closer together supposed to be worth less in voting?

    You mention what couldn't be seen and its more than wealth inequality. What about all the groups that might be more concentrated in urban than rural? Why should race/religion/sex or whatever you may use to group people potentially be lesser? Why aren't these groups focused on in the same way as rural and why might some even be "lesser" as a group in voting due to it (for example if black people love more in urban areas the black vote is lesser weighted due to urban being lesser weighted)?

    Why should we have an election where less than 30% of the vote can win the ec? Another person could drastically be favored by the public but catering to the right spots is more important.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posting Permissions

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