The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[Ulty]

3 minutes ago, commando said:

i can think of a couple politicians i wouldn't mind seeing them fired.

 

 

More than a couple! But then they need to be replaced.

[Redux]

10 minutes ago, Ulty said:

More than a couple! But then they need to be replaced.

 

Why though?  A lot of these politicians main job is to argue with eachother.  Am I wrong?  Sure theybmay have a specific title or duty, but several of them argue and block eachother from doing anything.

 

There's a reason states don't go from a Bicameral to a Unicameral, these poor suits would be out of work.

[Ulty]

1 minute ago, Redux said:

 

Why though?  A lot of these politicians main job is to argue with eachother.  Am I wrong?  Sure theybmay have a specific title or duty, but several of them argue and block eachother from doing anything.

 

There's a reason states don't go from a Bicameral to a Unicameral, these poor suits would be out of work.

It seems like what you really mean is not the number of folks in elected positions, but rather the effectiveness, competence, and collegiality of them. If that is the case, then I wholeheartedly agree. 

[ActualCornHusker]

23 minutes ago, commando said:

i can think of a couple politicians i wouldn't mind seeing them fired.

 

 

 

I could think of a few departments that could be eliminated entirely and we'd all be better off

[Redux]

16 minutes ago, Ulty said:

It seems like what you really mean is not the number of folks in elected positions, but rather the effectiveness, competence, and collegiality of them. If that is the case, then I wholeheartedly agree. 

 

Perhaps number isn't the best way to portray this, but yes I feel many positions are useless.

[Ulty]

1 minute ago, Redux said:

 

Perhaps number isn't the best way to portray this, but yes I feel many positions are useless.

Which ones?

[knapplc]

59 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Maybe you should reconsider your claim if you can't defend it.

 

Man, that could be copy/pasted into about every other reply to some posters here.

[Redux]

8 minutes ago, Ulty said:

Which ones?

 

Well I alluded to it before, but why do we need a bicameral in so many states if the same effectiveness can be achieved with a unicameral?  I believe we are still the only state here in Nebraska that has one.

 

Do we need over 500 in congress?

[RedDenver]

15 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Man, that could be copy/pasted into about every other reply to some posters here.

True, but I think it's more universal. We could all benefit from reconsidering our opinions, especially when we struggle to defend them.

[Redux]

3 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

True, but I think it's more universal. We could all benefit from reconsidering our opinions, especially when we struggle to defend them.

 

And that's why I come here, for the record.  I like getting differing perspectives from different thinking people because believing only one perspective is dangerous.

[knapplc]

12 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

True, but I think it's more universal. We could all benefit from reconsidering our opinions, especially when we struggle to defend them.

 

Exactly. And you do that by letting facts form opinion.

 

Facts matter.

[NM11046]

31 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Man, that could be copy/pasted into about every other reply to some posters here.

The posters I respect most here are those that Ive gone back and forth with or seen go back and forth with others and end up saying “I was wrong/thank you enlightened me/I can see why you feel that way/etc”

[Moiraine]

42 minutes ago, Redux said:

Do we need over 500 in congress?

 

 

Mathematically, it’s the closest way we can come to getting equal representation for each person in the U.S. by using state lines. We could do it by region instead in order to reduce #s. Split into 7 regions, as close to each other in population as you can get, and vote for 15 from each. But I don’t think people would like that. People generally identify strongly with their state. 

 

Would it be fair for Wyoming to get 1 vote and Texas to get 3 if Texas has 30x as many people? We already have the Senate for that argument.

 

[knapplc]

19 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

The posters I respect most here are those that Ive gone back and forth with or seen go back and forth with others and end up saying “I was wrong/thank you enlightened me/I can see why you feel that way/etc”

 

About 100 years ago, when the internet was young, I went back and forth with @Husker_x over religion (I was pro at that time) for years.

 

The mea culpa I gave him when I saw his point of view was not nearly what I owed him. But it was heartfelt, and I sincerely apologized.

[Redux]

10 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

Mathematically, it’s the closest way we can come to getting equal representation for each person in the U.S. by using state lines. We could do it by region instead in order to reduce #s. Split into 7 regions, as close to each other in population as you can get, and vote for 15 from each. But I don’t think people would like that. People generally identify strongly with their state. 

 

Would it be fair for Wyoming to get 1 vote and Texas to get 3 if Texas has 30x as many people? We already have the Senate for that argument.

 

That's a good point.  Region is an interesting idea, but culture is such a tricky thing people would never go for it.  Would take a long time to sort that out.