The Republican Utopia

[Moiraine]

zoogs has done that a lot already.

 

 

People should have no issues whatsoever with backing up their claims. When it comes to something as important as voting on or judging who is leading our country, it shouldn't be gut feeling that makes your decision. You should have concrete reasons. Especially when you're trying to convince someone else that you're correct.

[Landlord]

 

Obama is not the hero people think he is.

 

Nor is he the villain he's often made out to be.

Not picking on you specifically, but I feel like if I were to say something along those same lines about Trump, at least half a dozen other posters would ask me to verify my claims with proof of some sort... Which I think is the basis for most of the complaints from many people's within the p&r/ostracize thread.

 

 

Trump is not the hero his biggest supporters make him out to be.

 

Nor is he the villain his opponents make him out to be.

 

 

 

 

So then ask zoogs to verify that claim and provide evidence. I am sure he would be happy to oblige - that's the exact kind of 'iron sharpening iron' we're looking for in these discussions. Having our convictions and beliefs challenged and poked and prodded to make sure we know where we stand.

[Oade]

zoogs has done that a lot already.

People should have no issues whatsoever with backing up their claims. When it comes to something as important as voting on or judging who is leading our country, it shouldn't be gut feeling that makes your decision. You should have concrete reasons. Especially when you're trying to convince someone else that you're correct.

Trying to convince somebody else that your opinion is the correct opinion would be to suggest that this is a "debate" forum, not a "Conversational" forum.... Basis of the concerns expressed in the other thread.

[knapplc]

We debate plenty here. Stick around, you'll see.

 

And frankly, if someone wants to spout off their opinion and provide no basis, nobody's stopping them. There are people doing that every day in P&R. They are not banned, they are not told to stop... I don't get the criticism of being "jumped on," either. If you have the conviction of your belief, 1,000 people "jumping on you" won't stop you.

[zoogs]

 

Obama is not the hero people think he is.

 

Nor is he the villain he's often made out to be.

Not picking on you specifically, but I feel like if I were to say something along those same lines about Trump, at least half a dozen other posters would ask me to verify my claims with proof of some sort... Which I think is the basis for most of the complaints from many people's within the p&r/ostracize thread.

 

 

Trump is not the hero his biggest supporters make him out to be.

 

Nor is he the villain his opponents make him out to be.

 

 

Yes, Obama is nothing like Trump. It would be outrageous to make such a comparison.

 

Obama is a highly competent, qualified, ultimately establishment and centrist president. He did a lot of good things, and he failed in a few areas. There are valid critiques of his presidency from the left and from the right.

 

Trump is not par for the course, although many other Republican presidents would have been.

[Lil' Red]

 

Obama is not the hero people think he is.

 

Nor is he the villain he's often made out to be.

Not picking on you specifically, but I feel like if I were to say something along those same lines about Trump, at least half a dozen other posters would ask me to verify my claims with proof of some sort... Which I think is the basis for most of the complaints from many people's within the p&r/ostracize thread.

 

 

Trump is not the hero his biggest supporters make him out to be.

 

Nor is he the villain his opponents make him out to be.

 

Perhaps. I think part of his problem is that he is clueless on how to be an effective President so he does what people tell him to do. Right now the person that he appears to listen to the most is Steve Bannon who I believe is the villain that his opponents make him out to be.

[Oade]

We debate plenty here. Stick around, you'll see.And frankly, if someone wants to spout off their opinion and provide no basis, nobody's stopping them. There are people doing that every day in P&R. They are not banned, they are not told to stop... I don't get the criticism of being "jumped on," either. If you have the conviction of your belief, 1,000 people "jumping on you" won't stop you.

I disagree, just because someone has convictions in a particular topic, or further more if they just have a simple observation they'd like to share, that doesn't mean they want to debate it ad nauseam.

 

It might just be that a particular view or topic is worth commenting on..... And as a few in that thread have pointed out, they stopped doing so because of the general culture in this forum.... That doesn't mean they are any less convicted or justified for their views. But it does limit conversations and topics.

[knapplc]

 

We debate plenty here. Stick around, you'll see.And frankly, if someone wants to spout off their opinion and provide no basis, nobody's stopping them. There are people doing that every day in P&R. They are not banned, they are not told to stop... I don't get the criticism of being "jumped on," either. If you have the conviction of your belief, 1,000 people "jumping on you" won't stop you.

I disagree, just because someone has convictions in a particular topic, or further more if they just have a simple observation they'd like to share, that doesn't mean they want to debate it ad nauseam.

 

It might just be that a particular view or topic is worth commenting on..... And as a few in that thread have pointed out, they stopped doing so because of the general culture in this forum.... That doesn't mean they are any less convicted or justified for their views. But it does limit conversations and topics.

 

Then don't debate it ad nauseum. Nobody is forcing them to do that. Post your piece and walk away if you want. Stick around and debate. It's all fine.

 

Again, if anyone stops posting here because of words on a screen, that's on them. Nobody else.

[Moiraine]

Converse all you want. If you have no facts to back up what you say, people are going to ask for them. Refuse to provide them if you want, but don't act like it's an unreasonable request.

[knapplc]

Because the game isn't rigged enough.

 

 

 

 

The main takeaway: In an Electoral College in which every state awards its votes by congressional district, Hillary Clinton could have won the national popular vote by 5 percentage points and still lost the White House.

 

Simply put, the way the country’s congressional districts are drawn maximizes Republican votes. Clinton won the national popular vote by 2 percentage points, but she won only 205 congressional districts, compared to 230 for Trump.¹ The median electoral vote (or tipping point state) in the current system was in Wisconsin, which Trump won by less than a percentage point. Trump won the median congressional district, meanwhile, by 3.4 percentage points.

 

[Moiraine]

This is why voting in local/state elections is so important.

[mrandyk]

Awarding electoral votes based on congressional districts makes more sense to me than either winning or losing a state outright.

[Lil' Red]

Awarding electoral votes based on congressional districts makes more sense to me than either winning or losing a state outright.

In the absence of gerrymandering, yes.

[Moiraine]

Awarding electoral votes based on congressional districts makes more sense to me than either winning or losing a state outright.

 

It shouldn't. Either things should stay the way they are or move to a popular vote. Districts would be awful. The reason counting states whole is better than using congressional districts is because they cannot be redrawn to disenfranchise voters. Gerrymandering is impossible with winner take all states.

[Making Chimichangas]

 

Republicans to kill U.S. rules on corruption, environment, labor and guns next week

 

Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress can use simple majority votes to stop recent regulations in their tracks. The timing in the law means that any rules that became final after May 31 could go on the chopping block.

 

House of Representatives Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, the second-most powerful Republican in the chamber, had said he would start using that law quickly after President Donald Trump was inaugurated to help roll back regulations the party considers abusive. House Republicans have been on a blitz of regulatory reform, passing bills to drive down regulations' costs and create more congressional oversight.

 

 

tl;dr: The Republicans want to make it:

 

Easier to get guns

Harder to report government ethics violations

Easier for companies to pollute and harder to report it or get information about it

Harder to understand the relationships between businesses and government officials vis a vis the fees they pay to get mineral exploration rights

 

In short, the Republicans are using simple majority measures to expand corruption, pollution and malfeasance and at the same time make it much harder for the citizens to learn what they're doing.

 

An excellent summation.

 

It is so incredibly disturbing that Republicans are so eager to let companies pollute the environment, put employees at risk, and cut every corner.