What Pro-Democracy Changes Would You Like to See for America?

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
16,530
16,651
113
could I call a time out here? I seem to have lost track of who's advocating what in this pissing match.
Started with me asking WWJD why Estonia would seek the be party to an economic, legal and political union with France on something besides representation derived from population.
He demurred.

Tarheel then joined the fun, but got himself turned around and started arguing the point I was making regarding small population entities aggreeing to political union with larger entities on a power sharing basis beyond mere population.

Riley hopped in to ‘prove me wrong’, but had to do his usual of constructing strawman arguments to demolish. That’s why I asked him to quote what he thinks he is responding to, but he can’t, so he won’t.
 

Aardvark86

HR MVP
Jan 23, 2018
2,270
2,505
113
Started with me asking WWJD why Estonia would seek the be party to an economic, legal and political union with France on something besides representation derived from population.
He demurred.

Tarheel then joined the fun, but got himself turned around and started arguing the point I was making regarding small population entities aggreeing to political union with larger entities on a power sharing basis beyond mere population.

Riley hopped in to ‘prove me wrong’, but had to do his usual of constructing strawman arguments to demolish. That’s why I asked him to quote what he thinks he is responding to, but he can’t, so he won’t.
I'm still lost. Is your point that a small nation (or state, etc.) would never agree to a political union, etc. with a large one on terms other than something approaching "one entity, one vote"?
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
16,530
16,651
113
I'm still lost. Is your point that a small nation (or state, etc.) would never agree to a political union, etc. with a large one on terms other than something approaching "one entity, one vote"?
Yes. WWJD considered the senate a ‘vile’ compromise from an archaic time. I simply tried to get him examine why Estonia, in modern times and with no slavery to protect, still seeks a more equal footing for membership in an economic/legal/political union. Since that blew up both of his points he decided to not confront it and dipped on the discussion.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk

Aardvark86

HR MVP
Jan 23, 2018
2,270
2,505
113
Yes. WWJD considered the senate a ‘vile’ compromise from an archaic time. I simply tried to get him examine why Estonia, in modern times and with no slavery to protect, still seeks a more equal footing for membership in an economic/legal/political union. Since that blew up both of his points he decided to not confront it and dipped on the discussion.
Thx. I knew someone seemed to be arguing that, but just couldn't figure out who.

didn't someone counter with the less-than-compelling "but nations are different"?
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
16,530
16,651
113
Thx. I knew someone seemed to be arguing that, but just couldn't figure out who.

didn't someone counter with the less-than-compelling "but nations are different"?
That was Tarheel. Who then unintentionally pivoted to my point when he asked me why Canada would prefer to join the US-MEX-CAN agreement as an equal partner instead of wielding 1/11th the voting power of the US as mere population would indicate is proportionate and ‘proper’.
It’s been fun.
 

Aardvark86

HR MVP
Jan 23, 2018
2,270
2,505
113
That was Tarheel. Who then unintentionally pivoted to my point when he asked me why Canada would prefer to join the US-MEX-CAN agreement as an equal partner instead of wielding 1/11th the voting power of the US as mere population would indicate is proportionate and ‘proper’.
It’s been fun.
yeah, re: the 1/11th thing, at first I thought someone might be using GDP. But that's 1/12.8th.
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
34,159
19,467
113
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?
Lol at your desperation. There is no quote nor confusion - I understood the clear implication. I also understand that you're now scrambling to try to roll back your stupidity. Sorry, didn't work.

You continue to be terrible at this.
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
34,159
19,467
113
Started with me asking WWJD why Estonia would seek the be party to an economic, legal and political union with France on something besides representation derived from population.
He demurred.

Tarheel then joined the fun, but got himself turned around and started arguing the point I was making regarding small population entities aggreeing to political union with larger entities on a power sharing basis beyond mere population.

Riley hopped in to ‘prove me wrong’, but had to do his usual of constructing strawman arguments to demolish. That’s why I asked him to quote what he thinks he is responding to, but he can’t, so he won’t.
Or, more concisely, tarheel kicked seminole's ass in a debate. He started twisting it around, as usual, and made stupid implications that I called him out on. At least the cartoon seems to have educated him a bit.
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
16,530
16,651
113
There is no quote nor confusion - I understood the clear implication.

Hence, you were replying to a made up argument.
A strawman.

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] A common form of setting up such a straw man is by use of the notorious formula "so what you're saying is ... ?", converting the argument to be challenged into an obviously absurd distortion. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
34,159
19,467
113
Hence, you were replying to a made up argument.
A strawman.

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] A common form of setting up such a straw man is by use of the notorious formula "so what you're saying is ... ?", converting the argument to be challenged into an obviously absurd distortion. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
Nope. Wrong again.

Carry on with your hissy fit though. I'm done exposing you.
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
16,530
16,651
113
Nope. Wrong again.

Carry on with your hissy fit though. I'm done exposing you.
Can you describe how “understood the clear implication” differs from “so what you're saying is ... ?"


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.


No one is this thread discussed what types of bills originate in the Senate or House. This focus on origin and ‘final arbiter’ is an argument no one but you is having. Ergo, a strawman.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
16,530
16,651
113
That’s an interesting narrative.
But what is actually happening?

The top five states seeing a mass exodus are all Democrat-controlled. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, California, New York, New Jersey, Michigan and Illinois lost a combined 4 million residents between 2010 and 2019. Conversely, a recent study by U-Haul reported that the top five states to see the greatest influx of new residents include the Republican-led states of Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Ohio and Arizona. -Forbes 2021
 

littlez

HR Heisman
Jan 29, 2003
7,281
5,875
113
Authoritarian people such as yourself want to make things mandatory. This is a pretty twisted view. And your 30% doesn't add up.

Just because you and your ilk want to create a hive mind where the 10-20 largest cities essentially control who is president doesn't mean it should work that way.
So you’re saying the minority of people should control what the majority wants?
 

your_master5

HR All-American
Gold Member
Dec 15, 2002
4,356
1,541
113
So you’re saying the minority of people should control what the majority wants?
So, you're saying 10-20 cities should control what the countries direction should go, which all so happen to be controlled heavily for years by Democrats? Seems logical.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk

littlez

HR Heisman
Jan 29, 2003
7,281
5,875
113
So, you're saying 10-20 cities should control what the countries direction should go, which all so happen to be controlled heavily for years by Democrats? Seems logical.
Actually yes. Isn’t there a reason that the majority of people live in those places? Job opportunities, growth, etc.
 

DFSNOLE

HR Legend
Sep 25, 2002
18,306
40,006
113
Lower Alabama
More than four states but those states are middle of the road politically, but seems you like the idea of Dems having a monopoly on our political system.
And you oppose one voter, one vote in favor of minority rule. At least until the situation changes and it's Republicans actually winning the popular vote while losing the EC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: littlez

your_master5

HR All-American
Gold Member
Dec 15, 2002
4,356
1,541
113
And you oppose one voter, one vote in favor of minority rule. At least until the situation changes and it's Republicans actually winning the popular vote while losing the EC.
If everything was just by the (slight) majority rule the founders wouldn't have made the electoral college or the Senate. That's what this is a republic and states determine the winner not a count of every vote.