LOL...you keep trotting out that example...over and over, ad naseum. Does Estonia get a voice in electing France's leaders? Their parliament? Their president? Unless the answer is yes, you can take that "analogy" and...well, you know.
What Pro-Democracy Changes Would You Like to See for America?
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
Why don't you want to vote? Why do you not want farmers to vote? Does this mean people working for corporation getting subsidized can't vote? Lots of rich people will be upset with this line of thinking since they get a much larger slice than anyone else.
It seems you fail to grasp the analogy.
Do people in South Dakota get to elect Florida’s leaders?
Where Florida and South Dakota leaders work together they have equal representation.
Where French and Estonian leaders work together they have equal representation.
I wonder if you’ll ever stop deflecting long enough to reflect on why that is the case.
As of 2016, the wealthiest 1% of American households owned about $27tn in total, an average of about $23m per household.
A tax that took about 1% of that wealth each year would yield about $4tn over the next decade. To put that amount in perspective, $4tn is more than the federal government will spend over the next decade on foster care, school lunch, school breakfast, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, food stamps, unemployment compensation, supplemental security income for the elderly, blind people and those with disabilities, and all the tax credits for working families combined.
www.schwartzreport.net
A tax that took about 1% of that wealth each year would yield about $4tn over the next decade. To put that amount in perspective, $4tn is more than the federal government will spend over the next decade on foster care, school lunch, school breakfast, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, food stamps, unemployment compensation, supplemental security income for the elderly, blind people and those with disabilities, and all the tax credits for working families combined.
What could the US afford if it raised billionaires' taxes? We do the math - Schwartzreport
If the richest 1% of American households paid at the same rates they did in the 40s and 50s, the change could be transformative. “Every billionaire is a
www.schwartzreport.net
Since you won’t answer me on the question about equal representation in the EU between Estonia and France, could you at least tell us if you registered for Mr. Schwartz’s seminar?As of 2016, the wealthiest 1% of American households owned about $27tn in total, an average of about $23m per household.
A tax that took about 1% of that wealth each year would yield about $4tn over the next decade. To put that amount in perspective, $4tn is more than the federal government will spend over the next decade on foster care, school lunch, school breakfast, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, food stamps, unemployment compensation, supplemental security income for the elderly, blind people and those with disabilities, and all the tax credits for working families combined.
What could the US afford if it raised billionaires' taxes? We do the math - Schwartzreport
If the richest 1% of American households paid at the same rates they did in the 40s and 50s, the change could be transformative. “Every billionaire is a
‘The art and science of remote viewing and non-local consciousness’ sounds like a steal at $349.
I'm sorry did I hit a nerve, if you're worried, I'm told there still are a lot of fast food jobs even in Biden's economy if you're still looking.
No. Just wondering why you don't want slags like yourself to vote. And if you are being told about jobs, why aren't you working? And of course, you didn't really answer any questions I asked, but I assume it's because you have no idea.
[1] Don't care. If you have a point other than deflection, make your point and maybe I'll care enough to engage on this seemingly irrelevant matter.
[2] SMH
Then why start these threads?
It’s one thing to say, My critical reasoning skills are such that I can’t think of a reason Estonia would seek equal representation to France in the EU, but quite another to start a thread like this and then say you ‘don’t care’.
I think you don’t want to confront gaps in your reasoning, so you ignore them and look for confirmation - from guys that sell ‘The art and science of remote viewing and non-local consciousness’ seminars for $349 a seat.
LOL...where the US and Russia work together they have "equal representation". Your EU claims cover ANY interaction between two countries that are cooperating toward a common goal. They are separate, completely independent of each other countries. You're conflating that with two areas of the same country. It's idiotic.
LOL - Florida and South Dakota do not have equal representation. They both have 2 Senators but SD has 1 Representative and Florida has 27.
You are so wrong so often.
Correct, both carry a veto on the Security Council. Do you think we’d agree to participate in the UN if Russia and China had a veto and we did not?
Should China have 4x the voting power of the US in the UN?
Can you think of reasons the US would not agree to such an arrangement in place of what we have now?
It’s a critical thinking exercise, are you capable of it, or do you just have no clue why we prefer the present arrangement over one based on simple population?
No, they cover the specific voting power arrangement that the EU constitution stipulates for members. You’re trying to draw into generalities and avoid the specific case before you.
They are members of a governing union. They have power sharing agreements stipulated in the constitution of that union that binds them together legally and politically.
You want to pretend it isn’t what it is so you can continue to evade the simple exercise of explaining why Estonia would seek, and likely only join if provided, an equal voice to France in the Union.
Dissemble, prevaricate, and evade some more, or answer the question why Estonia seeks an equal vote to France in the EU when they have but 1/49th the population of France.
How does a law pass without going through the Senate, where FL and SD have equal representation?
It’s irrelevant that Florida has 27 reps to SD’s 1 when the measure reaches the Senate.
It’s akin to proposing that winning a baseball game 27-1 yesterday and tying 2-2 today means you really won both games. It doesn’t carry over.
There is a body that all measures must pass through, that also confirms appointments, where representation is equal. Whether you can understand how and why, or not.
Such a fool. How does a law pass going through the House where FL and SD have unequal representation? JFC.
Here is one….
no more net takers from the federal government. If your state is getting its funding from other states for three years, you lose all federal funding till you have paid your fair share.
as a resident of NJ I am disgusted that I have to pay for Kentucky’s residents while they get to decide the laws.
Let’s see how red america celebrates when it’s their welfare taken away.
no more net takers from the federal government. If your state is getting its funding from other states for three years, you lose all federal funding till you have paid your fair share.
as a resident of NJ I am disgusted that I have to pay for Kentucky’s residents while they get to decide the laws.
Let’s see how red america celebrates when it’s their welfare taken away.
Ranked choice voting is a really interesting thing and I like its incentives toward moderation. That said, given that we're very much split into two teams these days, I fear that it positive effects would be pretty limited in national/federal general elections. I sorta do like it in primaries, but that of course is up to the parties.
I support the electoral college as an important mechanism for a large republic for this reason. That said, what might go a long way - though I'm not sure how you could possibly incent it -- is more independent thinking by the electors themselves rather than party slates.
Signed,
Somewhat distant descendant of first faithless elector.
+1 for Cincinnatus reference. I no longer buy the argument against term limits, inasmuch as no one is really suggesting draconian limits. Most I've seen is in the 12 year range. There are very few hill staffers that hang around that long.
I think that it would move us towards moderation but it's not something that would happen overnight.
If you are looking for an overnight fix that isn't going to happen. Seeing more names on the ballot then just 2 or maybe 3 would eventually start to make people realize there are more than 2 options but it could take a couple decades.
Proportional representation would be more helpful in the short run. It would eliminate the effects of gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is why the extremists win because they can't lose in the general election they can only lose in the primary. So this naturally causes people who only play to the base to win.
+ a gazillion re: no overnight fixes. Not that we have the patience for that any more...
I'm avoiding not one thing. There's no dissembling, prevaricating, or evading other than on your part. You are simply ignoring it. They are separate...wait for it ...say it with me...c-o-u-n-t-r-i-e-s. That's it. Period. Your "analogy" fails immediately in that you are comparing two entirely different entities. You will, of course, continue to flail.
Majority vote.
But passing through the House doesn’t make a bill a law.
Does a bill become law without going through the Senate where there is equal representation?
Yes, you’re avoiding offering any reason why Estonia seeks a political and economic union with France and other, significantly larger, nations where they would have an equal layer of representation.
I don’t know why you’re so cowardly in this regard, but you are consistent.
what state do you live in?
see my state pays more to the federal government than it takes back. Your state likely takes more money than it pays.
Let’s end that little game, and see how quick your side stops the social wars.
Virginia. We "take" in a different way than you do, but somebody actually has to be in charge of defending the country. Yet, federal funding as a percentage of state revenue here is the lowest in the country.
It doesn't pass if it doesn't go through the House either. SD has 3 representatives in Congress. FL has 29.
A bill can be proposed by either the House or the Senate. It then goes through committee and then, potentially, up for a vote. The Senate can pass it and send to the House for approval or the other way around.
You're wrong.
Good thing no one asserted otherwise, but thanks for keeping anyone that might have straight
I noticed you dodged the simple question:
Does a bill become law without going through the Senate where there is equal representation?
No, they have 1 representative in the House and two representatives in the Senate.
All parties to the union (aka The United States) have equal representation in the Senate.
You don’t sum up the Senate votes with the House votes.
You plumb new depths.
That isn’t what I asked, weasel.
Does a bill become law without going through the Senate where there is equal representation?
Your question, as usual, is stupid but I will answer. No.
Now answer mine. Does a bill become a law without going through the House of Representatives where representation is unequal?
You're so freaking bad at this.
If the Senate rejects a measure by 1 vote, does it matter if it passed the House by 20 votes?
Some clown mentioned the total number of representatives from both houses of Congress as if you could sum their combined result and that mattered.
Can you explain to that person that doesn’t actually matter?
Only if it also passes the Senate where representation is equal and is signed by the President.
Ummmm.... apparently I gave you too much credit for knowing how bills become laws. A bill can be authored by the Senate and then has to pass the House to get to the President. It doesn't have to go through the Senate as the final arbiter. JFC
Why do Canada, Mexico, and the US get an equal say in the USMCA? The US should get 11 votes to Canada's single vote. You keep thinking you've made a clever point when all you're doing is continually demonstrating that you don't have a f'n idea what you're talking about. Were you smart enough to realize it, you'd be embarrassed.
Maybe you can actually quote where you think I said that. I’m curious what specifically generated the confusion you are experiencing. Especially the ‘final arbiter’ part. Who said that, besides you?
You take strawman to a new level.
Because a smaller sovereign like Canada doesn’t want to be dictated to by a larger population sovereign.
You may get the point despite your best efforts!
Yes, that’s @What Would Jesus Do? logic, but you can understand why sovereigns would refuse to enter unions under those auspices, right?
I’ve gotten you to argue my point, what more do you want?
Virginia is one of the few states that makes my argument go poof, but I do have a problem that the nations economic epicenter is off taxes and not production.
that being said Camden, Paterson and Trenton are rebounding . If you were gonna crap on NJ today,
I never missed the point. But you have. I've stated very clearly that it works that way. Always. Between c-o-u-n-t-r-i-e-s. That you keep harking back to the EU demonstrates very clearly that you still don't understand. The EU's sovereign nations have not one thing to do with the various states in the US. They're. Not. The. Same.
Your sole focus on the Senate, because they have equal representation, and their need to approve a bill indicated your ignorance. I'm glad the School House Rock helped educate you.
I recommend that you watch the rest of them. Could help you prevent future embarrassment.
More evasion.
You can’t provide the quote because you invented the thing to argue against yourself.
A strawman.
Maybe you can actually quote where you think I said that. I’m curious what specifically generated the confusion you are experiencing. Especially the ‘final arbiter’ part. Who said that, besides you?
could I call a time out here? I seem to have lost track of who's advocating what in this pissing match.
