Trump is losing the debate acting like a raving lunatic

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Two houses in a neighbourhood.
-Bob, your neighbour has 12 people living in his house.
-You have 3 people living in yours.

If you want Bob's house to have more say than you about what's happens in the neighborhood, that's good for you.

I don't.

But if Bob severs his property so those 12 people are spread out across 3 small properties, you're good with Bob and his buddies getting 3 votes to your 1 vote for 3 people, right?

Cal 3 was a proposal to split the U.S. state of California into three states. It was launched in August 2017 by Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper, who led the effort to have it originally qualify on the November 2018 state ballot as Proposition 9, officially the Division of California into Three States initiative.[1] Proponents of the proposal argued that dividing California into three states would provide fairer and more responsive governance for large regions outside of California’s major cities.

Cal 3 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[We Never Know]

So you are recommending that houses have votes rather than persons and we should change to a democracy of houses.
I suppose we could do that if we could figure out how to get houses to vote.
\

You don't understand the concept of analogies very well do you? You showed that yesterday then when I explained to you, you then said nevermind.

You're on your own from now on.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

For some reason, you assume gratuitously that Harris supporters do not honestly believe that Trump is a racist and an existential threat to Democracy.

I do believe they believe those things. But they believe them without questioning it. That is the problem.

Apparently, you simply don't believe that about Trump yourself, and you cannot imagine how another person could sincerely disagree with your opinion. You further point out that, if you did believe those things about Trump, you would not vote for him.

No, I cannot believe why people would believe things without question.

I'm not going to question your honesty or sincerity, but I will question your understanding of what Harris supporters believe. There is ample evidence that Trump is both a racist and opposed to our system of democracy. His record of racist behavior goes back to at least the 1970s, when I was living in the same city that he was and it was reported on in the news. I also take his organized attempt to stop the Senate from ratifying election results as a blatant attempt to overthrow a valid election and install himself as President through a majority vote in the House. So that is enough to convince me that he is an existential threat to democracy. If you think I'm not sincere in my beliefs, you are wrong. And I don't need to question your honesty or sincerity to arrive at that conclusion. I know it firsthand.

I disagree with your assessment of Trump. I do believe you believe these things.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You don't understand the concept of analogies very well do you? You showed that yesterday then when I explained to you, you then said nevermind.

You're on your own from now on.

The analogy is fine. It's just that what you're arguing for is so anti-democratic that it's hard to believe that you're actually arguing for it.

 

[Pogo]

Two houses in a neighbourhood.
-Bob, your neighbour has 12 people living in his house.
-You have 3 people living in yours.

If you want Bob's house to have more say than you about what's happens in the neighborhood, that's good for you.

I don't.

Houses don't vote, people do and for this purpose we are all in the same neighborhood we call the USA.

 

[Copernicus]

In the US, we do have a few independent representatives that sort of operate this way--by "caucusing" with one of the two major parties in order to give that party a functional majority in the legislature. However, that is rare and usually involves just individual, or "Independent" candidates outside of a political party structure.

It doesn't need to, though. A small party with enough support in one region could still get seats in the House wildly disproportionate to their size. Maybe they even get a senate seat or two.

Look at the example in Canada of the Bloc Quebecois: they only run candidates in one province, but have managed to be official opposition in the past. They often play spoiler, pulling larger parties closer to their platform in exchange for support.

Elections of legislators are different from that of an executive. Legislators can, and do, form coalitions. Coalitions can be messy and unstable, but that is how legislatures tend to self-organize and get laws passed.

I have made clear my position on elections. I fundamentally oppose having elections in which a plurality vote can install a representative in power. Such a process fundamentally weakens the legitimacy of the elected official. Hence, I support reforms that require majorities to choose representatives, whether legislators or executives.

But, again, that kind of behavior only applies to voting for a legislator, not the executive.

But why's that bad? Most of the major decisions of the President still need to be ratified by the House or Senate.

I did not say it was bad. I was only saying that legislatures will tend to form coalitions when there is no major party that controls a majority of the legislature. At that point, it only needs to rely on a coalition block of votes when the majority party is split--e.g. Speaker Johnson relying on votes from Democrats to get legislation passed.

 

[Pogo]

You don't understand the concept of analogies very well do you? You showed that yesterday then when I explained to you, you then said nevermind.

You're on your own from now on.

I understand analogies just fine, you don't understand the concept of democracy and specifically how it is executed in this country.

We have a house of representatives that is proportional to population, in that branch Philadelphia has as much power as Wyoming.
We also have a Senate where power is granted by arbitrary assemblage and large populations are at significant disadvantage relative to small ones.
Wyoming has the same power as the entire state of Pennsylvania.
And then we have the presidency which is meant to be the representative of all the people equally, unfortunately while it usually works out close to the popular vote, it sometimes doesn't due the EC such as 2016 when Trump lost the popular vote but because some votes are more valuable than others still was elected.

Now explain why you think Liz Cheney's vote is worth that of the governor of PA, Josh Shapiro and two other people?


We are all waiting.

 

[We Never Know]

The analogy is fine. It's just that what you're arguing for is so anti-democratic that it's hard to believe that you're actually arguing for it.

I don't think Bob's house of 12 should have more say about putting a pig lot in their backyard than his neighbor Bill's house of 3 just because he has more people in his house.

By that Bob gets his pig lot and Bill is SOL and stuck with the stench.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It appears that people ignore his lies, as they prefer Republican policy, as it makes them more wealthy.

So they hope, but that happens for very few, and they never seem to notice.

I think that a larger part of MAGA are people who know they'll never be wealthy or even financially secure, and who have been convinced by conservative indoctrination media that that is not because of their choices, but because of immigrants, affirmative action, Democrats, and the like.

A bitter, angry, vengeful chip has been placed on their shoulder listening to such sources, which puts them into a state of perpetual grievance and responsibility avoidance that manifests somewhere between wanting to "own the libs" to scorching the earth. And so they vote against their own interests, which I don't mind, except that they drag their smarter neighbors with them.

Harris supporters have claimed Trump is a racist, will end democracy, is like Hitler, is a nazi, is a white supremacist, is a rapist, is going to put political opponents in jail without due process

And for good reason.

It shows poorly on them when they think these are true without good evidence and most just believe it because they have been told it is true my the media.

No, that's MAGA. That's you. Your beliefs are manufactured by the media and have been absorbed uncritically. The evidence is very clear regarding what Trump is for those who can properly evaluate evidence, and it comes from his words and deeds, not what others say about them.

Here's a nice summary of the things Trump has said and done that justify calling him fascistic:

There’s been some public conversation of late about Trump’s authoritarian-style vision — and for good reason. The former president is threatening perceived foes with prison sentences, endorsing a “strongman” leadership style, bragging about his support from dictators, raising the prospect of a temporary American “dictatorship,” talking about “terminating” parts of the Constitution that stand in the way of his ambitions, arguing that his rivals shouldn’t be “allowed” to run against him, targeting immigrants with Hitler-style rhetoric while promising to create militarized mass deportations and detention camps, and promising pardons to politically aligned criminals. Trump’s plan to crack down on the free press is a key and radical part of the same agenda. (source)

If one doesn't know that Trump is fascistic despite all of this evidence coming from Trump himself, it means that he is allowing others to decide for him what he will believe. The evidence supports only one of those two conclusions. Were you unaware of all of that, or just unfazed by it?

Yesterday Hillary said he is dangerous to the country and the world a day after he was almost assassinated for the second time.

You seem to think that she should be silent because somebody might shoot at Trump again if she calls him dangerous. I don't. He is dangerous. Getting that message out is more important than Trump's comfort. If people want to shoot at him, so be it.

Perhaps he should examine why they shoot at him.

Perhaps he should walk the violent rhetoric back to make his own life safer even if no other life matters to him, but he's not capable of that.

I will vote for Trump, you vote for Harris and when Trump wins you can thank me for being better off in 4 years.

The nation was much worse off after four years of Trump and a mismanaged pandemic in part due to him dismantling pandemic preparedness, selling off PPE stockpiles to the Chinese, and downplaying the significance of the pandemic and the need to mask, space out, wash hands, and avoid crowded or enclosed venues. I guess that you didn't notice that, either.

Nor did you notice how much better off America is today than four years ago. Biden hit the ground running to control the human and economic carnage Trump left in his wake, and he did that without the benefit of a transition period before assuming office. And he has done so much more for ordinary Americans, but it would be pointless to enumerate it to you. You lived through it yet didn't notice.

 

[Pogo]

The analogy is fine. It's just that what you're arguing for is so anti-democratic that it's hard to believe that you're actually arguing for it.

I don't think Bob's house of 12 should have more say about putting a pig lot in their backyard than his neighbor Bill's house of 3 just because he has more people in his house.

By that Bob gets his pig lot and Bill is SOL and stuck with the stench.

QED

 

[F1fan]

yeah Yeah. I explained it in post 947.

No you didn’t. You offer your beliefs about Harris supporters and your only complaint is that Trump is being criticized and judged. Guess what? That’s fair. Trump is disturbed and acts like a lunatic. He lies constantly. And not just typical political white lies, but outrageous nonsense that gets debunked. And he keeps repeating them.

Nothing about the economy. Nothing about how he will solve problems. Just insanity spewing from his mouth. You’re better off sticking to policy issues, which are avoiding. You won’t win the character contest.

And back to the point, you didn’t have anything to say about Harris’ policies and goals. It’s like you agree with her.

 

[F1fan]

Two houses in a neighbourhood.
-Bob, your neighbour has 12 people living in his house.
-You have 3 people living in yours.

If you want Bob's house to have more say than you about what's happens in the neighborhood, that's good for you.

I don't.

Who in each house gets to decide what the house’s position is? If the 12 people in the house are split 6-6 then it’s undecided. If there are 11 who want one thing but the owner wants another then he can assert his decision is what represents the house. Let’s say the owner of the other house feels the same way and he overrules the other two. So among 15 people only two want a certain policy and the other 13 are rendered irrelevant.

This illustrates why one person one vote is considered fair through the history of democracy. It better represents the aims of the majority.

 

[F1fan]

I do believe they believe those things. But they believe them without questioning it. That is the problem.

If we non-MAGAs are incorrect in our observations and criticisms of Trump then why aren’t you demonstrating the errors? If you use right wing disinformation media you will invite criticism on you. So feel free to explain how we are wrong.

No, I cannot believe why people would believe things without question.

Irony.

I disagree with your assessment of Trump. I do believe you believe these things.

Then defend him. Let’s see you explain how we are incorrect.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So they hope, but that happens for very few, and they never seem to notice.

I think that a larger part of MAGA are people who know they'll never be wealthy or even financially secure, and who have been convinced by conservative indoctrination media that that is not because of their choices, but because of immigrants, affirmative action, Democrats, and the like.

Well, that their plight (financial concerns) is blamed on immigration (and they believe it) is probably true.
I'm sure there are plenty of well-off Republicans, and overall, have greater wealth than Democrats.

 

[Pogo]

Well, that their plight (financial concerns) is blamed on immigration (and they believe it) is probably true.
I'm sure there are plenty of well-off Republicans, and overall, have greater wealth than Democrats.

Yes the very wealthy does skew Republican why shouldn't it considering it is Republican policies that maintain and increase their wealth at the expense of others?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It means that it can be ineffective (in the case of an accident) or negative (in the case of an unanticipated outcome).

The point about Job is that ignorant participation in blood rituals can have devastatingly bad unanticipated outcomes.

The same can be said of all religions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think Bob's house of 12 should have more say about putting a pig lot in their backyard than his neighbor Bill's house of 3 just because he has more people in his house.

By that Bob gets his pig lot and Bill is SOL and stuck with the stench.

Seems like your analogy has wandered from the electoral college to states' rights issues.

What we're talking about here is state populations voting at the federal level: i.e. what happens to the whole neighbourhood, not just what happens in your own backyard.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sorry, I disagree.

Yes, I'm aware that you disagree.
Reality is still what it is though.

 

[Kathryn]

Yes, I'm aware that you disagree.
Reality is still what it is though.

Big believer in reality here. I disagree with your assessment.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Seems like your analogy has wandered from the electoral college to states' rights issues.

What we're talking about here is state populations voting at the federal level: i.e. what happens to the whole neighbourhood, not just what happens in your own backyard.

When the EC system was established a central voting system would have been impractical.
The individual states were also extremely jealous of their individual rights and powers. They did not want any other state telling them what to do.
Today population movement between states happens all the time, people have far less loyalty to a particular state. They take their party loyalty and self interest with them.