Poll

US Poll...who are you voting for?

Biden
119 (73%)
Trump
13 (8%)
Third party
23 (14.1%)
Not voting
8 (4.9%)

Total Members Voted: 163

Author Topic: US Poll....who are you voting for?  (Read 13892 times)

SmashYourSmartPhone

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 242
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #50 on: January 25, 2024, 11:25:56 AM »
Not paying attention and still having an opinion about whatever one has not paid attention to pretty much summarizes what intentional ignorance is all about.

How directly must one pay attention?  I've read opinions from people who follow this stuff more closely who argue "the cases are almost entirely legal stretches and nonsense," but I've not read the actual filings, as I've got more important things to pay attention to that are locally relevant.

Yep.  We continue a long track record here of the 2 worst possible candidates ending up being the ones we have to choose between.  Sigh.  I can't rule out Trump entirely, but with how little support he has in the middle this time around I anticipate a Biden win.  I won't get into all the things that are so terribly wrong with both of them...  :D

I expect a Trump landslide, helped along by the fact that every dirty trick that can be used against him, will be, which will get him no small number of votes from people who don't like him, but dislike the "thumbs on the scales" behaviors even more.  The stuff like trying to get Trump removed from primary ballots (and presumably those involved won't stop trying there) doesn't sit well with a lot of people.

What is the deal with America and it's interest in who goes to which bathroom???  :P

Think of it more in the context of "school locker rooms" and it makes more sense.

MarcherLady

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6048
  • Age: 10
  • Location: North of the Wall, UK
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #51 on: January 25, 2024, 11:29:04 AM »
We identify as America Lite.

That's cool.  Just don't try to use our bathrooms.
What is the deal with America and it's interest in who goes to which bathroom???  :P

I mean... have you used a public bathroom in the US? If they could just build toilet stalls that didn't have great big gaps between the doors and the walls maybe they would be less worried about seeing and being seen? The rest of the world seems to have managed this feat...

PeteD01

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1392
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #52 on: January 25, 2024, 12:09:41 PM »
Not paying attention and still having an opinion about whatever one has not paid attention to pretty much summarizes what intentional ignorance is all about.

How directly must one pay attention?  I've read opinions from people who follow this stuff more closely who argue "the cases are almost entirely legal stretches and nonsense," but I've not read the actual filings, as I've got more important things to pay attention to that are locally relevant.

...
Maybe start here:

Tracking the Trump criminal cases
A definitive guide to the key players and legal risks in the four criminal probes of Donald Trump.
By POLITICO STAFF | 6/13/2023 4 AM EDT | Updated 12/6/2023 10:25 AM EST

For the first 234 years of the nation’s history, no American president or former president had ever been indicted. That changed this year. Over a five-month span, former President Donald Trump was charged in four criminal cases. In Washington, D.C., he faces four felony counts for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. In Georgia, he faces 13 felony counts for his election interference in that state. In New York, he faces 34 felony counts in connection with hush money payments to a porn star. And in Florida, he faces 40 felony counts for hoarding classified documents after he left office and impeding the government’s efforts to retrieve them.

This is POLITICO’s up-to-the-minute guide to the four Trump criminal cases.


https://www.politico.com/interactives/2023/trump-criminal-investigations-cases-tracker-list/


And here his civil trials:

Trump civil fraud trial is over; judge aims for decision by Jan. 31
Updated Jan. 11, 2024, 5:41 PM EST
By NBC News

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/live-blog/trump-fraud-trial-live-updates-rcna131890


Trump was also found by the judge in the Carroll defamation trial to be a rapist.
He was only able to escape criminal conviction because of the statute of limitations:

A Federal Judge Has Gone to Great Lengths to Make Clear Trump Really Did Rape E. Jean Carroll
Why state-level legal minutiae impacts what words are used to describe the former president’s criminal conduct.
KATIE HERCHENROEDER

District Judge Lewis Kaplan has said it multiple times: Donald Trump raped E. Jean Carroll in 1996. Kaplan wrote it in May 2023, when he presided over one of the trials against Trump. And he reminded jurors of the rape this week, during the latest proceedings in the multi-layered, winding rape and defamation cases brought against Trump by Carroll. 

Last spring, author and journalist Carroll sued Trump, testifying that he had raped her decades ago and had defamed her since by denying the accusations. Carroll won that suit. The jury found Trump liable for sexual assault and said he must pay $5 million—but they came short of saying he had raped her due to the legal scope of New York State’s penal code.


https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/01/a-federal-judge-has-gone-to-great-lengths-to-make-clear-trump-really-did-rape-e-jean-carroll/

ATtiny85

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 957
  • Location: Midwest
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #53 on: January 25, 2024, 01:13:55 PM »
Should Obama test the 22nd amendment and run again?

If you happen to mess up and find yourself in a conversation with a diehard 2020 election denier, say "I agree, Trump is our true president". Then when they clap and smile hit them with "Now, you know that means he can't run again, right?"

sixwings

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 545
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #54 on: January 25, 2024, 01:40:05 PM »
Not paying attention and still having an opinion about whatever one has not paid attention to pretty much summarizes what intentional ignorance is all about.

How directly must one pay attention?  I've read opinions from people who follow this stuff more closely who argue "the cases are almost entirely legal stretches and nonsense," but I've not read the actual filings, as I've got more important things to pay attention to that are locally relevant.

...
Maybe start here:

Tracking the Trump criminal cases
A definitive guide to the key players and legal risks in the four criminal probes of Donald Trump.
By POLITICO STAFF | 6/13/2023 4 AM EDT | Updated 12/6/2023 10:25 AM EST

For the first 234 years of the nation’s history, no American president or former president had ever been indicted. That changed this year. Over a five-month span, former President Donald Trump was charged in four criminal cases. In Washington, D.C., he faces four felony counts for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. In Georgia, he faces 13 felony counts for his election interference in that state. In New York, he faces 34 felony counts in connection with hush money payments to a porn star. And in Florida, he faces 40 felony counts for hoarding classified documents after he left office and impeding the government’s efforts to retrieve them.

This is POLITICO’s up-to-the-minute guide to the four Trump criminal cases.


https://www.politico.com/interactives/2023/trump-criminal-investigations-cases-tracker-list/


And here his civil trials:

Trump civil fraud trial is over; judge aims for decision by Jan. 31
Updated Jan. 11, 2024, 5:41 PM EST
By NBC News

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/live-blog/trump-fraud-trial-live-updates-rcna131890


Trump was also found by the judge in the Carroll defamation trial to be a rapist.
He was only able to escape criminal conviction because of the statute of limitations:

A Federal Judge Has Gone to Great Lengths to Make Clear Trump Really Did Rape E. Jean Carroll
Why state-level legal minutiae impacts what words are used to describe the former president’s criminal conduct.
KATIE HERCHENROEDER

District Judge Lewis Kaplan has said it multiple times: Donald Trump raped E. Jean Carroll in 1996. Kaplan wrote it in May 2023, when he presided over one of the trials against Trump. And he reminded jurors of the rape this week, during the latest proceedings in the multi-layered, winding rape and defamation cases brought against Trump by Carroll. 

Last spring, author and journalist Carroll sued Trump, testifying that he had raped her decades ago and had defamed her since by denying the accusations. Carroll won that suit. The jury found Trump liable for sexual assault and said he must pay $5 million—but they came short of saying he had raped her due to the legal scope of New York State’s penal code.


https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/01/a-federal-judge-has-gone-to-great-lengths-to-make-clear-trump-really-did-rape-e-jean-carroll/

Someone referring to the trump lawsuits as nonsense is not going to read a motherjones article lol.

Courts are an impartial avenue to get these issues resolved, it's what they are set up to do. However the party of law and order will of course screech that the courts are biased against Trump and cannot possibly provide law and order.

If Obama did only 1 of hundreds of things Trump did they would have had literal heart attacks. Like imagine if there was a voice recording of Obama telling officials to ignore votes, or to find additional votes, or that Epstein is a terrific guy to hang out with. Their argument would definitely not be that it's part of his job as president and even if it's wrong that he should have immunity for life lol.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2024, 01:42:43 PM by sixwings »

FINate

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3149
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #55 on: January 25, 2024, 02:02:53 PM »
Third Party. I'm not in a swing state. I value my vote more as a protest against both major political parties.

seattlecyclone

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7262
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Seattle, WA
    • My blog
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #56 on: January 25, 2024, 02:18:47 PM »
If we can't have representation based on population at least somewhat evenly, then we should do away with the system.  I also don't like how it essentially discourages voting since so many states are firmly blue or red that voting for one or the other will not change anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College#/media/File:US_2020_Census_State_Population_Per_Electoral_Vote.png

That's just absurd and even ignores the omnipresent gerrymandering.  Don't get me started on faithless electors and the states that still count their vote as valid!  What a joke!

If you think the disparity in influence between Wyoming and California in the Electoral College is absurd, wait until you learn about how the EU Parliament allocates seats to different member states. Maltese citizens have nearly 10x the per-capita representation of German and French citizens! This is a relatively new organization too. It's not just our 18th-century Constitution where disproportionate representation was seen as a necessary tool to encourage smaller states to feel comfortable joining in the first place.

What's your stance on the very existence of states? What is the utility of having states (especially a bunch!) period?

I think that in a place with as much diversity between areas as the US has, there's definite value in having a sub-national level of government that has a fair amount of power to implement laws according to the priorities of its own residents, laws that are different than what its neighbors have chosen for themselves. If 75% of the population of State A is on one side of a given issue, and 75% of the population of State B is on the other side, and these states have similar population, whichever side the federal Congress chooses will make 50% of the people in these states unhappy. If you keep Congress out of it and let each state choose for themselves then 75% of the residents of each state are happy.

Obviously, the devil is in the details. We set up our Constitution a few hundred years ago because we realized that every state doing their own thing in all areas of government was not ideal, that we're stronger when we present a united front and unified policy in areas such as national defense and diplomacy and regulating interstate commerce/financial markets.

What items should be under federal vs. state control has been a persistent underlying factor in many of our internal political debates over our entire history.

I do think it should be easier to reorganize state boundaries. The same federal vs. state conflicts we have because different areas of our country have different opinions have analogues at a state level. Oftentimes these conflicts turn up in terms of differences of opinion between rural vs. urban vs. suburban areas. Some states have a higher percentage of urban citizens so the rural citizens often have their opinions overruled, and vice versa. I for one wouldn't mind forming "city-states" from our more populous cities.

Morning Glory

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4880
  • Location: The Garden Path
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #57 on: January 25, 2024, 02:32:20 PM »
We identify as America Lite.

That's cool.  Just don't try to use our bathrooms.
What is the deal with America and it's interest in who goes to which bathroom???  :P

I mean... have you used a public bathroom in the US? If they could just build toilet stalls that didn't have great big gaps between the doors and the walls maybe they would be less worried about seeing and being seen? The rest of the world seems to have managed this feat...

It is against social norms to suggest that other countries are doing better at something and we should try to copy them. It's why you see so many people throw their hands up and despairingly say they "just don't know what to do" besides thoughts and prayers every time there is a mass shooting.

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1927
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #58 on: January 25, 2024, 02:39:09 PM »
We identify as America Lite.

That's cool.  Just don't try to use our bathrooms.
What is the deal with America and it's interest in who goes to which bathroom???  :P

I mean... have you used a public bathroom in the US? If they could just build toilet stalls that didn't have great big gaps between the doors and the walls maybe they would be less worried about seeing and being seen? The rest of the world seems to have managed this feat...

It is against social norms to suggest that other countries are doing better at something and we should try to copy them. It's why you see so many people throw their hands up and despairingly say they "just don't know what to do" besides thoughts and prayers every time there is a mass shooting.

We couldn't even get the metric system in the US.

I think Americans just like to be anti-world. That's a big reason Trump will get re-elected. Ain't no Europeans tellin' us who to vote for!

SmashYourSmartPhone

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 242
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #59 on: January 25, 2024, 04:30:42 PM »
I've queued the articles, including the motherjones article, for reading.  I don't like Trump, I've never voted for him, I don't intend to, but I also live in something different from the Democrat bubble a lot of posters seem to exist in here.  "Politicians at a suitably high level are criminal shitbags who mostly won't face consequences for their actions" is not a controversial statement in my world.

I think Americans just like to be anti-world. That's a big reason Trump will get re-elected. Ain't no Europeans tellin' us who to vote for!

"People in a country should vote for their own interests, not the interests they're told they should have by people across an ocean" seems... reasonable?

This is also what’s wrong with the New York Times and other mass media that have made so much money off Trump. They quote insane Trump rally fans, giving air to the weirdest conspiracy theories, but fail to cover actual presidential platform and policy proposals and results. Like, what is Trump’s platform? Is there one?

As I think I linked earlier in this thread, there's very much an open debate (riot?) within what remains of newsrooms about what they ought be: Makers of what they think reality ought to be, or reporting reality as it actually is.  Not reporting on Trump's platform is the first side winning.

In related news, the legacy news outlets seem to be undergoing yet another crisis of "nobody wants to pay them for the opinion writing pretending to be news they do."  Funny, that.

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7430
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #60 on: January 25, 2024, 05:08:51 PM »
In related news, the legacy news outlets seem to be undergoing yet another crisis of "nobody wants to pay them for the opinion writing pretending to be news they do."  Funny, that.

Except the New York Times. Their revenue from circulation (online subscriptions plus anyone who still subscribes to the print edition) is up 76% in the eight years since Trump was elected.

I think a lot of other outlets may be getting into trouble in part because they see the way the NYtimes mixes news, opinion, and advocacy together as one mission and assume that if they do the same they'll also get the same giant surge of subscriber revenue to compensate for the advertising and classified dollars that left and are never coming back.

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1927
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #61 on: January 25, 2024, 05:31:02 PM »
I've queued the articles, including the motherjones article, for reading.  I don't like Trump, I've never voted for him, I don't intend to, but I also live in something different from the Democrat bubble a lot of posters seem to exist in here.  "Politicians at a suitably high level are criminal shitbags who mostly won't face consequences for their actions" is not a controversial statement in my world.

I think Americans just like to be anti-world. That's a big reason Trump will get re-elected. Ain't no Europeans tellin' us who to vote for!

"People in a country should vote for their own interests, not the interests they're told they should have by people across an ocean" seems... reasonable?


Yes... that is reasonable.

The rationale I presented is unreasonable. Voting the opposite of what your allies want because it's the opposite of what your allies want isn't a good thing.

Chris Pascale

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1356
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #62 on: January 25, 2024, 06:29:39 PM »
Imagine being so successful as president that the only argument against you is your age…

…while your only popular opponent is an insurrectionist and convicted criminal OF THE SAME AGE! Who is responsible for thousands over 1000 people going to prison between his cabinet and followers!

This is why I hate the media horse race reporting.

If you're going to keep making sense, no one's going to want to hang out with you.

Chris Pascale

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1356
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #63 on: January 25, 2024, 06:33:32 PM »
Bush/Obama/Trump

Thanks for this; I've frequently said that Bush and Obama were about the same [edited to clarify........on these big issues]- lowered taxes, raised spending, and expanded use of military. Trump is an animal all his own, though has some overlap with Clinton is that they are both gross.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2024, 08:37:35 PM by Chris Pascale »

Chris Pascale

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1356
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #64 on: January 25, 2024, 06:37:24 PM »
We identify as America Lite.

That's cool.  Just don't try to use our bathrooms.

What is the deal with America and it's interest in who goes to which bathroom???  :P

Spoken like someone who has to go!

aasdfadsf

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 205
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #65 on: January 28, 2024, 02:38:56 AM »
How is this a fucking choice? Of course it's Biden. You don't have to like it. But you do have to really, really not like the alternative.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23208
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #66 on: January 28, 2024, 01:58:47 PM »
It's crazy that Bill Clinton, 31 years after first taking office of the president . . . is still younger than both the presidential candidates running.

the_gastropod

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 470
  • Age: 37
  • Location: RVA
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #67 on: January 28, 2024, 03:53:59 PM »
If we can't have representation based on population at least somewhat evenly, then we should do away with the system.  I also don't like how it essentially discourages voting since so many states are firmly blue or red that voting for one or the other will not change anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College#/media/File:US_2020_Census_State_Population_Per_Electoral_Vote.png

That's just absurd and even ignores the omnipresent gerrymandering.  Don't get me started on faithless electors and the states that still count their vote as valid!  What a joke!

If you think the disparity in influence between Wyoming and California in the Electoral College is absurd, wait until you learn about how the EU Parliament allocates seats to different member states. Maltese citizens have nearly 10x the per-capita representation of German and French citizens! This is a relatively new organization too. It's not just our 18th-century Constitution where disproportionate representation was seen as a necessary tool to encourage smaller states to feel comfortable joining in the first place.

You think that's bad, wait til you hear about the U.S. Senate ;-) California's two senators represent more people than the lowest-populated 21 states' collective 42 senators. Wyoming residents get 67x the representation in the Senate that Californians get. Eat your heart out, European Parliament.

This is (among other things) what's so nuts about U.S. government to me. It's at every level of the government we overweight low-density-state voters.

Presidency (Executive Branch): The Electoral college significantly favors "small" states. George W. Bush is the only Republican to win an election with the popular vote in the past 32 years. And that was as an incumbent, after losing the popular vote from his initial election (which he "won" thanks to a conservative-majority Supreme Court decision, preventing the full counting of votes, which we later learned would have resulted in an electoral college loss for Bush as well)

Congress (Legislative Branch):
  The House: Favors "small" states. There aren't enough representatives to make Wyoming's 1 representative equivalently-weighted.
  The Senate: As mentioned above, ludicrous levels of small state advantage

Supreme Court (Judicial Branch): Judges selected by President (advantage small states), and approved by Senate (ludicrous advantage small states).

As the U.S. continues to urbanize, this skew is just going to continue getting more and more extreme. I feel like there's got to reach a tipping point where such egregious minority rule will will have to be dealt with. Hopefully this is resolved through peaceful, reasonable means.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2024, 04:38:53 PM by the_gastropod »

reeshau

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2570
  • Location: Houston, TX
  • Former locations: Detroit, Indianapolis, Dublin
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #68 on: January 28, 2024, 05:08:09 PM »
This is (among other things) what's so nuts about U.S. government to me. It's at every level of the government we overweight low-density-state voters.

This is countered in practice, if not formally, by the economic influence of large (highly populated) states.  California influences the nation in automotive fuel economy, (CARB regulations) textbook content, and most recently animal welfare for pork producers.

I don't really count anything of Texas' influence that has to do with population.  Unfortunately, they are so anti-regulation that the Executive branch feels they have time to meddle in matters of ethical/ national concern.  But they would do that even if Texas was smaller.

Log

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 670
  • Location: San Francisco
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #69 on: January 29, 2024, 05:03:32 AM »
If a few hundred thousand Democrats from a California strategically moved to the right states, then the Republican party would have to DRAMATICALLY realign itself to have a viable path to ever control the senate or the presidency again. But citizens of a developed democracy shouldn't have to live in places they don't want to live in order to get political representation.

ATtiny85

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 957
  • Location: Midwest
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #70 on: January 29, 2024, 06:58:54 AM »
If we can't have representation based on population at least somewhat evenly, then we should do away with the system.  I also don't like how it essentially discourages voting since so many states are firmly blue or red that voting for one or the other will not change anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College#/media/File:US_2020_Census_State_Population_Per_Electoral_Vote.png

That's just absurd and even ignores the omnipresent gerrymandering.  Don't get me started on faithless electors and the states that still count their vote as valid!  What a joke!

If you think the disparity in influence between Wyoming and California in the Electoral College is absurd, wait until you learn about how the EU Parliament allocates seats to different member states. Maltese citizens have nearly 10x the per-capita representation of German and French citizens! This is a relatively new organization too. It's not just our 18th-century Constitution where disproportionate representation was seen as a necessary tool to encourage smaller states to feel comfortable joining in the first place.

You think that's bad, wait til you hear about the U.S. Senate ;-) California's two senators represent more people than the lowest-populated 21 states' collective 42 senators. Wyoming residents get 67x the representation in the Senate that Californians get. Eat your heart out, European Parliament.

This is (among other things) what's so nuts about U.S. government to me. It's at every level of the government we overweight low-density-state voters.

Presidency (Executive Branch): The Electoral college significantly favors "small" states. George W. Bush is the only Republican to win an election with the popular vote in the past 32 years. And that was as an incumbent, after losing the popular vote from his initial election (which he "won" thanks to a conservative-majority Supreme Court decision, preventing the full counting of votes, which we later learned would have resulted in an electoral college loss for Bush as well)

Congress (Legislative Branch):
  The House: Favors "small" states. There aren't enough representatives to make Wyoming's 1 representative equivalently-weighted.
  The Senate: As mentioned above, ludicrous levels of small state advantage

Supreme Court (Judicial Branch): Judges selected by President (advantage small states), and approved by Senate (ludicrous advantage small states).

As the U.S. continues to urbanize, this skew is just going to continue getting more and more extreme. I feel like there's got to reach a tipping point where such egregious minority rule will will have to be dealt with. Hopefully this is resolved through peaceful, reasonable means.

I am glad the constitution protects the residents of those small states.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23208
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #71 on: January 29, 2024, 07:12:54 AM »
If we can't have representation based on population at least somewhat evenly, then we should do away with the system.  I also don't like how it essentially discourages voting since so many states are firmly blue or red that voting for one or the other will not change anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College#/media/File:US_2020_Census_State_Population_Per_Electoral_Vote.png

That's just absurd and even ignores the omnipresent gerrymandering.  Don't get me started on faithless electors and the states that still count their vote as valid!  What a joke!

If you think the disparity in influence between Wyoming and California in the Electoral College is absurd, wait until you learn about how the EU Parliament allocates seats to different member states. Maltese citizens have nearly 10x the per-capita representation of German and French citizens! This is a relatively new organization too. It's not just our 18th-century Constitution where disproportionate representation was seen as a necessary tool to encourage smaller states to feel comfortable joining in the first place.

You think that's bad, wait til you hear about the U.S. Senate ;-) California's two senators represent more people than the lowest-populated 21 states' collective 42 senators. Wyoming residents get 67x the representation in the Senate that Californians get. Eat your heart out, European Parliament.

This is (among other things) what's so nuts about U.S. government to me. It's at every level of the government we overweight low-density-state voters.

Presidency (Executive Branch): The Electoral college significantly favors "small" states. George W. Bush is the only Republican to win an election with the popular vote in the past 32 years. And that was as an incumbent, after losing the popular vote from his initial election (which he "won" thanks to a conservative-majority Supreme Court decision, preventing the full counting of votes, which we later learned would have resulted in an electoral college loss for Bush as well)

Congress (Legislative Branch):
  The House: Favors "small" states. There aren't enough representatives to make Wyoming's 1 representative equivalently-weighted.
  The Senate: As mentioned above, ludicrous levels of small state advantage

Supreme Court (Judicial Branch): Judges selected by President (advantage small states), and approved by Senate (ludicrous advantage small states).

As the U.S. continues to urbanize, this skew is just going to continue getting more and more extreme. I feel like there's got to reach a tipping point where such egregious minority rule will will have to be dealt with. Hopefully this is resolved through peaceful, reasonable means.

I am glad the constitution protects the residents of those small states.

What are they being protected from?

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7348
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #72 on: January 29, 2024, 07:36:37 AM »
If we can't have representation based on population at least somewhat evenly, then we should do away with the system.  I also don't like how it essentially discourages voting since so many states are firmly blue or red that voting for one or the other will not change anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College#/media/File:US_2020_Census_State_Population_Per_Electoral_Vote.png

That's just absurd and even ignores the omnipresent gerrymandering.  Don't get me started on faithless electors and the states that still count their vote as valid!  What a joke!

If you think the disparity in influence between Wyoming and California in the Electoral College is absurd, wait until you learn about how the EU Parliament allocates seats to different member states. Maltese citizens have nearly 10x the per-capita representation of German and French citizens! This is a relatively new organization too. It's not just our 18th-century Constitution where disproportionate representation was seen as a necessary tool to encourage smaller states to feel comfortable joining in the first place.

You think that's bad, wait til you hear about the U.S. Senate ;-) California's two senators represent more people than the lowest-populated 21 states' collective 42 senators. Wyoming residents get 67x the representation in the Senate that Californians get. Eat your heart out, European Parliament.

This is (among other things) what's so nuts about U.S. government to me. It's at every level of the government we overweight low-density-state voters.

Presidency (Executive Branch): The Electoral college significantly favors "small" states. George W. Bush is the only Republican to win an election with the popular vote in the past 32 years. And that was as an incumbent, after losing the popular vote from his initial election (which he "won" thanks to a conservative-majority Supreme Court decision, preventing the full counting of votes, which we later learned would have resulted in an electoral college loss for Bush as well)

Congress (Legislative Branch):
  The House: Favors "small" states. There aren't enough representatives to make Wyoming's 1 representative equivalently-weighted.
  The Senate: As mentioned above, ludicrous levels of small state advantage

Supreme Court (Judicial Branch): Judges selected by President (advantage small states), and approved by Senate (ludicrous advantage small states).

As the U.S. continues to urbanize, this skew is just going to continue getting more and more extreme. I feel like there's got to reach a tipping point where such egregious minority rule will will have to be dealt with. Hopefully this is resolved through peaceful, reasonable means.

I am glad the constitution protects the residents of those small states.

What are they being protected from?

The rights of other people, apparently.

sixwings

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 545
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #73 on: January 29, 2024, 09:45:08 AM »
lol yeah it's not about protection, it's about creating a minority rule and I don't know how much longer places like californa and NY will put up with it.

maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7430
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #74 on: January 29, 2024, 09:54:45 AM »
If the goal is to get the sort of broad consensus it takes to make any change to our system of government in the USA, might I recommend it makes sense to spend at least a much time talking about the disproportionate political power the current system hands to the voters of Vermont, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Hawaii as one does talking about the power of voters in Wyoming, Alaska and the Dakotas?

I frequently see this discussed by people who seem to think that Dems are synonymous with big states and Republicans are synonymous with small states issue. But if you look at the ten biggest or ten smallest states, it is pretty much an even split in terms of which way they've tended to vote in recent presidential elections.

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1927
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #75 on: January 29, 2024, 09:57:54 AM »
If the goal is to get the sort of broad consensus it takes to make any change to our system of government in the USA, might I recommend it makes sense to spend at least a much time talking about the disproportionate political power the current system hands to the voters of Vermont, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Hawaii as one does talking about the power of voters in Wyoming, Alaska and the Dakotas?

I frequently see this discussed by people who seem to think that Dems are synonymous with big states and Republicans are synonymous with small states issue. But if you look at the ten biggest or ten smallest states, it is pretty much an even split in terms of which way they've tended to vote in recent presidential elections.

I agree, it's not that far off. I think the better case scenario is just to really limit what the federal government does... but liberals seem to be against that too, I'm not sure why. It makes more sense to govern at the state and local level so people can have policies that more align with what they want.

Arbitrage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1411
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #76 on: January 29, 2024, 10:22:08 AM »
My vote doesn't count because I'm not in a swing state. 

Nevertheless, the current state of the Republican party does not align with my priorities, and is in several cases diametrically opposed.  Voting blue.

seattlecyclone

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7262
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Seattle, WA
    • My blog
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #77 on: January 29, 2024, 11:33:59 AM »
I am glad the constitution protects the residents of those small states.

What are they being protected from?

The Senate can only be explained by looking at the historical context. At the time the Constitution was written there were 13 states that had recently gained independence from the British. The term "state" is no accident: these 13 former colonies each viewed themselves as independent sovereign nation-states at this point.

For a time they experimented with a loose alliance (organized under the Articles of Confederation) that was largely toothless because the only way it was empowered to do anything was through unanimous consent of all the states. Calls to improve this system led to what became the constitutional convention of 1787. Although the representatives to that convention largely understood and agreed that a stronger national government would bring some definite benefits, they also needed to convince each state to sign onto the thing.

One big sticking point in that negotiation was that the small states didn't want a purely population-based Congress where the bigger states could easily boss the smaller states around, while the bigger states did understandably think their larger population should be worth something. Our bicameral Congress is the result of a compromise here: one half is based on population, and the other half gives each state equal weight. It was thought that this would protect big states from bossing around the small ones, and prevent small states from ganging up to boss around the big ones, by ensuring bills would only become law when they were acceptable to both houses of Congress.

Furthermore only the House of Representatives was originally elected directly by the voters; senators were chosen by state legislatures to represent the interests of the state governments. This was thought to protect the federal government from grabbing too much power from the states, since the senators had to answer to the state governments. This was changed by the 17th Amendment in 1913 to the current system where the people elect the senators directly. Incidentally the federal government is much more powerful now than it was in 1913. Coincidence?

All this is to say that the US would possibly never have formed a federal government at all if not for the assurance given to small states by the composition of the Senate that their sovereignty would be respected. Nowadays? I think the concern of bigger states overruling smaller ones is largely obsolete. As pointed out above, our smaller-population states aren't uniformly aligned with one political party or the other. The party divide is largely urban vs. rural at this point, and we have some small-population states that fall into each category. The result of this is that the Republican/Democrat percentages in the House of Representative really aren't all that much different from what we see in the Senate. What it does do is gives the voters of smaller states disproportionate say in most matters. Again, since there's not a whole lot of correlation between a state's population and its party preference we only see this make a difference in the Electoral College and such when the popular vote is extremely close anyway.

Still, it's perfectly fair to suggest that the concept of the Senate (and many of the other structures of our federal government) should be revisited from time to time to see whether they still represent what we want our government to look like. However with the Senate in particular there's a clause in the Constitution stating that "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." This is an exception to the general amendment procedure where consent of three-quarters of the states is sufficient. In the case of a reformation to the Senate to make it weighted by population, every state with a below-average population would need to agree to be "deprived" in this way. So...unless we throw out the Constitution and start over, the Senate is going to keep having two members per state.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7093
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #78 on: January 29, 2024, 11:41:27 AM »
I think the better case scenario is just to really limit what the federal government does... but liberals seem to be against that too, I'm not sure why. It makes more sense to govern at the state and local level so people can have policies that more align with what they want.

Liberals want limited government too. We differ on where to draw the line.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23208
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #79 on: January 29, 2024, 11:49:04 AM »
I think the better case scenario is just to really limit what the federal government does... but liberals seem to be against that too, I'm not sure why. It makes more sense to govern at the state and local level so people can have policies that more align with what they want.

Liberals want limited government too. We differ on where to draw the line.

The United States currently operates a limited government . . . clearly delineating checks and balances and separation of power through different branches of government.

Often times 'limited government' in these conversations seems to be code for 'I want anarchy in areas that will help me personally'.

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1927
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #80 on: January 29, 2024, 12:31:25 PM »
I think the better case scenario is just to really limit what the federal government does... but liberals seem to be against that too, I'm not sure why. It makes more sense to govern at the state and local level so people can have policies that more align with what they want.

Liberals want limited government too. We differ on where to draw the line.

The United States currently operates a limited government . . . clearly delineating checks and balances and separation of power through different branches of government.

Often times 'limited government' in these conversations seems to be code for 'I want anarchy in areas that will help me personally'.

Nah, I guess the last decade or two of federal politics has made me think, as I've said in other threads, "fuck it, give everything to the states except the military and borders". Why? Let the red states survive without federal handouts and let them have their shit programs or whatever else. Get rid of the federal income tax (or let it be very minimal to support the fewest functions) and let the states adopt their own (higher) taxes for the programs they want.

e.g. 34% of the West Virginia state budget is funded by federal dollars - and they hate that. So let's take it away (along with most federal taxes).

Let's see what happens.

edited for: yeah, it's crazy about California's representation in the Senate... but crazier still that California sends money to states that are way over-represented.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2024, 12:35:47 PM by dividendman »

ATtiny85

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 957
  • Location: Midwest
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #81 on: January 29, 2024, 12:33:31 PM »
If we can't have representation based on population at least somewhat evenly, then we should do away with the system.  I also don't like how it essentially discourages voting since so many states are firmly blue or red that voting for one or the other will not change anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College#/media/File:US_2020_Census_State_Population_Per_Electoral_Vote.png

That's just absurd and even ignores the omnipresent gerrymandering.  Don't get me started on faithless electors and the states that still count their vote as valid!  What a joke!

If you think the disparity in influence between Wyoming and California in the Electoral College is absurd, wait until you learn about how the EU Parliament allocates seats to different member states. Maltese citizens have nearly 10x the per-capita representation of German and French citizens! This is a relatively new organization too. It's not just our 18th-century Constitution where disproportionate representation was seen as a necessary tool to encourage smaller states to feel comfortable joining in the first place.

You think that's bad, wait til you hear about the U.S. Senate ;-) California's two senators represent more people than the lowest-populated 21 states' collective 42 senators. Wyoming residents get 67x the representation in the Senate that Californians get. Eat your heart out, European Parliament.

This is (among other things) what's so nuts about U.S. government to me. It's at every level of the government we overweight low-density-state voters.

Presidency (Executive Branch): The Electoral college significantly favors "small" states. George W. Bush is the only Republican to win an election with the popular vote in the past 32 years. And that was as an incumbent, after losing the popular vote from his initial election (which he "won" thanks to a conservative-majority Supreme Court decision, preventing the full counting of votes, which we later learned would have resulted in an electoral college loss for Bush as well)

Congress (Legislative Branch):
  The House: Favors "small" states. There aren't enough representatives to make Wyoming's 1 representative equivalently-weighted.
  The Senate: As mentioned above, ludicrous levels of small state advantage

Supreme Court (Judicial Branch): Judges selected by President (advantage small states), and approved by Senate (ludicrous advantage small states).

As the U.S. continues to urbanize, this skew is just going to continue getting more and more extreme. I feel like there's got to reach a tipping point where such egregious minority rule will will have to be dealt with. Hopefully this is resolved through peaceful, reasonable means.

I am glad the constitution protects the residents of those small states.

What are they being protected from?

From whatever the would-be-bully states would like to do that impacts folks in other states. Must be something, since I read right here how these small states are in the way because of their level of representation being based on state existence not state population.

I would fear the tenth amendment getting twisted beyond recognition.

There are strengths and there are weaknesses in the system as it stands for sure. Putting the power in the hands of population density doesn’t seem to automatically fix enough of the weakness.

simonsez

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1581
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Midwest
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #82 on: January 29, 2024, 01:06:11 PM »
I think the better case scenario is just to really limit what the federal government does... but liberals seem to be against that too, I'm not sure why. It makes more sense to govern at the state and local level so people can have policies that more align with what they want.
"Govern" is perhaps too strong of a verb but I'd say there are a fair number of Executive Branch federal employees that are collectively more efficient at what they're doing than say, 50+ versions of slightly different systems that don't talk to each other at the state level and don't roll up to anything.

E.g. I work in a branch of about 15 people and interact with another 50 or so stakeholders in various positions and collectively we design/create/collect/process/publish & ultimately produce some national statistics that most Americans are familiar with.  If the federal version of my job (and the ones I work alongside) were relegated to the state level, a) it would take MANY more than 15/65 people to replace since most states/regions would want to have something in place and b) with different methodologies national comparisons would be very difficult if not impossible.  So it'd be more expensive and less usable.  I won't sit here and say there aren't efficiencies to be gained and some positions could actually be better served at a more regional/state/local level, but 99% of federal employees do not get voted into their job, do not work on Capitol Hill, and do not set policy.  They're tax-paying citizens from all walks of life and if it was so obviously better in terms of $, relevance, and efficiency to the powers at be to have state or local level replacements for the federal version - I naively think that would tend to happen somewhat naturally. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23208
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #83 on: January 29, 2024, 01:36:47 PM »
I think the better case scenario is just to really limit what the federal government does... but liberals seem to be against that too, I'm not sure why. It makes more sense to govern at the state and local level so people can have policies that more align with what they want.

Liberals want limited government too. We differ on where to draw the line.

The United States currently operates a limited government . . . clearly delineating checks and balances and separation of power through different branches of government.

Often times 'limited government' in these conversations seems to be code for 'I want anarchy in areas that will help me personally'.

Nah, I guess the last decade or two of federal politics has made me think, as I've said in other threads, "fuck it, give everything to the states except the military and borders". Why? Let the red states survive without federal handouts and let them have their shit programs or whatever else. Get rid of the federal income tax (or let it be very minimal to support the fewest functions) and let the states adopt their own (higher) taxes for the programs they want.

e.g. 34% of the West Virginia state budget is funded by federal dollars - and they hate that. So let's take it away (along with most federal taxes).

Let's see what happens.

edited for: yeah, it's crazy about California's representation in the Senate... but crazier still that California sends money to states that are way over-represented.

Hmm.

Simple example.  One state upstream discovers that they can make a lot of money dumping toxic shit into a stream that gets washed away . . . and then three states downstream bear the brunt of the pollution.  Since federal government only deals with military and borders, there is no recourse for the three other states.  Stuff like that will be very common, as states that engage in the practice will be rewarded by large amounts of corporate income.

Or food safety.  If each state has to regulate and determine whether food is safe or not, this will naturally introduce significant overhead.  That overhead will directly translate into less oversight, which will make food less safe throughout the country.  Ditto for drugs.

You also run into issues regarding human rights.  Remember how after the 15th Amendment was passed and black people got the right to vote all the Southern States introduced "Black Codes" (https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/black-codes) and "Jim Crow" laws?  Without a federal civil rights act, these would still be in effect and black people would still be denied the right to vote.

It's intriguing, but I see an awful lot of problems coming out of this idea.  The federal government does a tremendous amount of good for citizens beyond borders and military.

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1927
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #84 on: January 29, 2024, 01:57:48 PM »
I think the better case scenario is just to really limit what the federal government does... but liberals seem to be against that too, I'm not sure why. It makes more sense to govern at the state and local level so people can have policies that more align with what they want.

Liberals want limited government too. We differ on where to draw the line.

The United States currently operates a limited government . . . clearly delineating checks and balances and separation of power through different branches of government.

Often times 'limited government' in these conversations seems to be code for 'I want anarchy in areas that will help me personally'.

Nah, I guess the last decade or two of federal politics has made me think, as I've said in other threads, "fuck it, give everything to the states except the military and borders". Why? Let the red states survive without federal handouts and let them have their shit programs or whatever else. Get rid of the federal income tax (or let it be very minimal to support the fewest functions) and let the states adopt their own (higher) taxes for the programs they want.

e.g. 34% of the West Virginia state budget is funded by federal dollars - and they hate that. So let's take it away (along with most federal taxes).

Let's see what happens.

edited for: yeah, it's crazy about California's representation in the Senate... but crazier still that California sends money to states that are way over-represented.

Hmm.

Simple example.  One state upstream discovers that they can make a lot of money dumping toxic shit into a stream that gets washed away . . . and then three states downstream bear the brunt of the pollution.  Since federal government only deals with military and borders, there is no recourse for the three other states.  Stuff like that will be very common, as states that engage in the practice will be rewarded by large amounts of corporate income.

Or food safety.  If each state has to regulate and determine whether food is safe or not, this will naturally introduce significant overhead.  That overhead will directly translate into less oversight, which will make food less safe throughout the country.  Ditto for drugs.

You also run into issues regarding human rights.  Remember how after the 15th Amendment was passed and black people got the right to vote all the Southern States introduced "Black Codes" (https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/black-codes) and "Jim Crow" laws?  Without a federal civil rights act, these would still be in effect and black people would still be denied the right to vote.

It's intriguing, but I see an awful lot of problems coming out of this idea.  The federal government does a tremendous amount of good for citizens beyond borders and military.

Yes, you are obviously right. I am just frustrated and I think people who actually want "way less government" need to feel the ramifications of that rather than being bailed out. How do we make that happen?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23208
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #85 on: January 29, 2024, 02:31:43 PM »
I think the better case scenario is just to really limit what the federal government does... but liberals seem to be against that too, I'm not sure why. It makes more sense to govern at the state and local level so people can have policies that more align with what they want.

Liberals want limited government too. We differ on where to draw the line.

The United States currently operates a limited government . . . clearly delineating checks and balances and separation of power through different branches of government.

Often times 'limited government' in these conversations seems to be code for 'I want anarchy in areas that will help me personally'.

Nah, I guess the last decade or two of federal politics has made me think, as I've said in other threads, "fuck it, give everything to the states except the military and borders". Why? Let the red states survive without federal handouts and let them have their shit programs or whatever else. Get rid of the federal income tax (or let it be very minimal to support the fewest functions) and let the states adopt their own (higher) taxes for the programs they want.

e.g. 34% of the West Virginia state budget is funded by federal dollars - and they hate that. So let's take it away (along with most federal taxes).

Let's see what happens.

edited for: yeah, it's crazy about California's representation in the Senate... but crazier still that California sends money to states that are way over-represented.

Hmm.

Simple example.  One state upstream discovers that they can make a lot of money dumping toxic shit into a stream that gets washed away . . . and then three states downstream bear the brunt of the pollution.  Since federal government only deals with military and borders, there is no recourse for the three other states.  Stuff like that will be very common, as states that engage in the practice will be rewarded by large amounts of corporate income.

Or food safety.  If each state has to regulate and determine whether food is safe or not, this will naturally introduce significant overhead.  That overhead will directly translate into less oversight, which will make food less safe throughout the country.  Ditto for drugs.

You also run into issues regarding human rights.  Remember how after the 15th Amendment was passed and black people got the right to vote all the Southern States introduced "Black Codes" (https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/black-codes) and "Jim Crow" laws?  Without a federal civil rights act, these would still be in effect and black people would still be denied the right to vote.

It's intriguing, but I see an awful lot of problems coming out of this idea.  The federal government does a tremendous amount of good for citizens beyond borders and military.

Yes, you are obviously right. I am just frustrated and I think people who actually want "way less government" need to feel the ramifications of that rather than being bailed out. How do we make that happen?

I don't think you can meaningfully make that happen.  It's the trap of being a good guy.  You have to try to use government to protect all the citizens - even those who are so stupid that they regularly vote against their best interests.  Without that you just end up evil.

sixwings

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 545
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #86 on: January 29, 2024, 02:47:00 PM »
I think the better case scenario is just to really limit what the federal government does... but liberals seem to be against that too, I'm not sure why. It makes more sense to govern at the state and local level so people can have policies that more align with what they want.

Liberals want limited government too. We differ on where to draw the line.

The United States currently operates a limited government . . . clearly delineating checks and balances and separation of power through different branches of government.

Often times 'limited government' in these conversations seems to be code for 'I want anarchy in areas that will help me personally'.

Nah, I guess the last decade or two of federal politics has made me think, as I've said in other threads, "fuck it, give everything to the states except the military and borders". Why? Let the red states survive without federal handouts and let them have their shit programs or whatever else. Get rid of the federal income tax (or let it be very minimal to support the fewest functions) and let the states adopt their own (higher) taxes for the programs they want.

e.g. 34% of the West Virginia state budget is funded by federal dollars - and they hate that. So let's take it away (along with most federal taxes).

Let's see what happens.

edited for: yeah, it's crazy about California's representation in the Senate... but crazier still that California sends money to states that are way over-represented.

Hmm.

Simple example.  One state upstream discovers that they can make a lot of money dumping toxic shit into a stream that gets washed away . . . and then three states downstream bear the brunt of the pollution.  Since federal government only deals with military and borders, there is no recourse for the three other states.  Stuff like that will be very common, as states that engage in the practice will be rewarded by large amounts of corporate income.

Or food safety.  If each state has to regulate and determine whether food is safe or not, this will naturally introduce significant overhead.  That overhead will directly translate into less oversight, which will make food less safe throughout the country.  Ditto for drugs.

You also run into issues regarding human rights.  Remember how after the 15th Amendment was passed and black people got the right to vote all the Southern States introduced "Black Codes" (https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/black-codes) and "Jim Crow" laws?  Without a federal civil rights act, these would still be in effect and black people would still be denied the right to vote.

It's intriguing, but I see an awful lot of problems coming out of this idea.  The federal government does a tremendous amount of good for citizens beyond borders and military.

Yes, you are obviously right. I am just frustrated and I think people who actually want "way less government" need to feel the ramifications of that rather than being bailed out. How do we make that happen?

Make them beg for it? Instead of just giving it to them make Florida legislators introduce bills to beg for it every time there's a hurricane. Although then it really gums up congress for important bills, which is why congress delegates these kinds of things to federal agencies.

However it is VERY VERY cruel to the actual people, while it's frustrating, it's better to be compassionate.

Omy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1738
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #87 on: January 29, 2024, 03:19:25 PM »
It was extremely aggravating when the Trump administration was withholding pandemic supplies and financial aid from blue states since they didn't vote for him. Running the government vindictively is not a great idea.

Just Joe

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6785
  • Location: In the middle....
  • Teach me something.
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #88 on: January 30, 2024, 12:15:22 PM »
I don't think you can meaningfully make that happen.  It's the trap of being a good guy.  You have to try to use government to protect all the citizens - even those who are so stupid that they regularly vote against their best interests.  Without that you just end up evil.

I rely on the federal government to prevent easily influenced people (some Trump voters) from allowing Civil Rights to backslide until we find ourselves facing old problems again. Death by a thousand cuts.

Obviously gay rights and women's rights remain under threat. I don't trust my state legislature to avoid becoming part of the problem. They are currently expending a great deal of worry about bathrooms, drag queens, and school libraries now. They aren't worrying enough about important topics.

NorCal

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1500
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #89 on: January 30, 2024, 09:30:14 PM »
I voted mostly for Republican for almost 20 years.  I went to war for my country twice and pledged a similar oath to uphold and defend the Constitution as our politicians do. 

I will never vote for any of the treasonous types that staged an attempted coup.  There's no way to sugarcoat that.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who has continued to back Trump or has even stayed silent on his attempt to overthrow the government of the United States does not have the moral character required to hold office. 

My politics had moved a bit left over the years anyways.  But I'll mostly be voting down-ballot for Democrats for the foreseeable future.

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3574
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #90 on: January 31, 2024, 12:58:26 AM »
I am glad the constitution protects the residents of those small states.

It is unfortunate that it doesn't protect the majority of the population.  Does that seem smart to you? 

ATtiny85

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 957
  • Location: Midwest
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #91 on: January 31, 2024, 05:54:01 AM »
I am glad the constitution protects the residents of those small states.

It is unfortunate that it doesn't protect the majority of the population.  Does that seem smart to you?

Not sure I understand. Each state is empowered to protect whomever the people of that state want to protect within limits of the 10th Amendment. I would like to assume if the majority of a state population wants/needs something, they are expected to, and are able to, deal with it at the state level. Now it of course breaks down in a lot of instances, but any other system would also break down, just in some different instances.

Here is Iowa, there will hopefully be some success with a new push to get an amendment on the ticket protecting reproductive rights. Need to try and counter the completely idiotic law the governor continues to push. Baffling how a woman can be so against women's rights. Anyway, hopefully it makes it to the ticket, and then hopefully this state's people vote that thing in. (This anecdote assumes the amendment it written in a way that actually protects. It's not a given, we have shown the ability to mess up all sorts of things.)

SmashYourSmartPhone

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 242
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #92 on: January 31, 2024, 12:19:42 PM »
Baffling how a woman can be so against women's rights.

Why is it "baffling"?  Have you actually talked with any anti-abortion women to find out their views on the matter, or are you in circles in which that sort of person simply doesn't exist?  I know quite a few very hardline anti-abortion women, most with daughters, many who are active in the foster system and several who have adopted children that they more or less got "at birth" from someone who wasn't able to take care of the child.  In some cases, the biological mother is in the picture again, in some cases not.  I'm sure there are other cases I just don't know of in my circles.

If you can't make sense of why someone would do something or believe something, you can either seek to understand it, or write them off as "baffling" or "duped" or "deluded" or whatever term you wish to apply to your "I think they are nonsensical and refuse to attempt to even understand their position" behaviors.  Unfortunately, that's not a place to start a constructive debate from - and if your view is that there is no debate to be had, so be it, but assuming your adversaries are insane is as bad a strategy in politics as it is in war.

ATtiny85

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 957
  • Location: Midwest
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #93 on: January 31, 2024, 01:38:46 PM »
Baffling how a woman can be so against women's rights.

Why is it "baffling"?  Have you actually talked with any anti-abortion women to find out their views on the matter, or are you in circles in which that sort of person simply doesn't exist?  I know quite a few very hardline anti-abortion women, most with daughters, many who are active in the foster system and several who have adopted children that they more or less got "at birth" from someone who wasn't able to take care of the child.  In some cases, the biological mother is in the picture again, in some cases not.  I'm sure there are other cases I just don't know of in my circles.

If you can't make sense of why someone would do something or believe something, you can either seek to understand it, or write them off as "baffling" or "duped" or "deluded" or whatever term you wish to apply to your "I think they are nonsensical and refuse to attempt to even understand their position" behaviors.  Unfortunately, that's not a place to start a constructive debate from - and if your view is that there is no debate to be had, so be it, but assuming your adversaries are insane is as bad a strategy in politics as it is in war.

It's baffling to me that someone would not want bodily autonomy. Nothing to do with assuming anyone is insane, or even that they are adversaries. (Now, if they come into my house wanting to control my body, or the body of a loved one, well, they will be adversaries, but only for a few seconds)

OK, so you know some women who are against women's rights and you seem to have a relationship with them. Any chance you want to share their reasons for being so? Them having daughters, fostering, or adopting is not a reason. I am for women's rights (and all human rights) because at the basic level of my brain, that's all I have: the ability to make very localized decisions that concern my body. When to stand, when to sit, when to swallow, when to turn my head, when to clip my fingernails (reminds me of a topic for the WFH thread...), whether to take any prescribed medicine, and so on. Then it is an easy path to thinking that work with a doctor should also leave the decision making to me.

Some of this comes from being a believer in the USA. While we stubbed our toes significantly in some areas of the Constitution without a doubt, the Preamble phrase "...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." puts freedom (blessings of liberty) right there on my individual lap.

SmashYourSmartPhone

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 242
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #94 on: January 31, 2024, 02:05:41 PM »
It's baffling to me that someone would not want bodily autonomy.

When does life begin and what is the moral point at which one ought protect it - legally and morally, which are obviously at different points for many people?

Quote
OK, so you know some women who are against women's rights and you seem to have a relationship with them. Any chance you want to share their reasons for being so?

They believe life begins at conception, and it's not up to [humans] to determine if that life has a chance to survive outside the womb or not, and that it's a woman's responsibility to bring that life to birth, if that's how the process will naturally go.  Would you like me to ask for some written statements from them?  Though it does stray a bit off topic for this thread.  I think I'd actually have a far harder time finding someone I know in person who isn't quite hard-line anti-abortion (in the sense that "Rape is a crime, but adding the crime of murder doesn't fix the first crime" - yes, abortion is absolutely viewed as murder).

... for that matter, I'm not sure I know many women who use hormonal birth control, either (interfering with the process of a fertilized egg implanting being viewed similarly to abortion).  I live in a rather different bubble from most people who post here.

Morning Glory

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4880
  • Location: The Garden Path
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #95 on: January 31, 2024, 02:13:07 PM »
It's baffling to me that someone would not want bodily autonomy.

When does life begin and what is the moral point at which one ought protect it - legally and morally, which are obviously at different points for many people?

Quote
OK, so you know some women who are against women's rights and you seem to have a relationship with them. Any chance you want to share their reasons for being so?

They believe life begins at conception, and it's not up to [humans] to determine if that life has a chance to survive outside the womb or not, and that it's a woman's responsibility to bring that life to birth, if that's how the process will naturally go.  Would you like me to ask for some written statements from them?  Though it does stray a bit off topic for this thread.  I think I'd actually have a far harder time finding someone I know in person who isn't quite hard-line anti-abortion (in the sense that "Rape is a crime, but adding the crime of murder doesn't fix the first crime" - yes, abortion is absolutely viewed as murder).

... for that matter, I'm not sure I know many women who use hormonal birth control, either (interfering with the process of a fertilized egg implanting being viewed similarly to abortion).  I live in a rather different bubble from most people who post here.

I suppose so. I do know quite a few people who are anti-abortion for religious reasons but they are not as extreme as what we are seeing in Texas and won't argue if you agree to disagree with them and change the subject. I only knew one person who kept bringing it up again and again until I felt very uncomfortable around her.

I could see how many women in that sort of environment would not talk about their birth control.

PeteD01

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1392
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #96 on: January 31, 2024, 02:25:00 PM »
It's baffling to me that someone would not want bodily autonomy.

When does life begin and what is the moral point at which one ought protect it - legally and morally, which are obviously at different points for many people?

Quote
OK, so you know some women who are against women's rights and you seem to have a relationship with them. Any chance you want to share their reasons for being so?

They believe life begins at conception, and it's not up to [humans] to determine if that life has a chance to survive outside the womb or not, and that it's a woman's responsibility to bring that life to birth, if that's how the process will naturally go.  Would you like me to ask for some written statements from them?  Though it does stray a bit off topic for this thread.  I think I'd actually have a far harder time finding someone I know in person who isn't quite hard-line anti-abortion (in the sense that "Rape is a crime, but adding the crime of murder doesn't fix the first crime" - yes, abortion is absolutely viewed as murder).

... for that matter, I'm not sure I know many women who use hormonal birth control, either (interfering with the process of a fertilized egg implanting being viewed similarly to abortion).  I live in a rather different bubble from most people who post here.

They can all think and act how they please as long as they are minding their own business.
Trouble is that they think imposing their ideas on others using the criminal justice system as a cudgel is a swell idea.
Their ideas are not the issue at all and nobody should have an issue with them following their beliefs - pushing their beliefs on others by inserting the criminal justice system into reproductive healthcare is the problem.
I have religious pro-life friends and what I am hearing is that they say that they are pro-life all the way but that the decision-making is between the doctor and the patient when it comes to reproductive healthcare.

Captain FIRE

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1186
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #97 on: January 31, 2024, 02:40:39 PM »
For the extreme anti-abortion folks…I am curious to understand in their opinion, what can one do to prevent a forced pregnancy due to rape if the following are not permitted: abortion, emergency birth control, regular birth control. A rapist is unlikely to kindly stop and put on a condom he just happens to have in his pocket if you ask nicely…. Is it just suffer, you wore the wrong clothing/wrong place and it’s your fault it’s God’s will approach, and oh yeah, even though your mental health is shit due to the rape/forced pregnancy, suicide is frowned on too?

I know I’m salty asking the question but I’m genuinely curious. Because while I violently disagree with their perspective I can at least understand how they got there, until you get to this part which just seems like a “punish the women” approach, with no solutions for a woman who has undergone shit no one should have to. And I know people that would choose suicide over that (resulting in their perspective two deaths, a greater harm).

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23208
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #98 on: January 31, 2024, 05:47:31 PM »
It's baffling to me that someone would not want bodily autonomy.

When does life begin and what is the moral point at which one ought protect it - legally and morally, which are obviously at different points for many people?

Quote
OK, so you know some women who are against women's rights and you seem to have a relationship with them. Any chance you want to share their reasons for being so?

They believe life begins at conception, and it's not up to [humans] to determine if that life has a chance to survive outside the womb or not, and that it's a woman's responsibility to bring that life to birth, if that's how the process will naturally go.  Would you like me to ask for some written statements from them?  Though it does stray a bit off topic for this thread.  I think I'd actually have a far harder time finding someone I know in person who isn't quite hard-line anti-abortion (in the sense that "Rape is a crime, but adding the crime of murder doesn't fix the first crime" - yes, abortion is absolutely viewed as murder).

... for that matter, I'm not sure I know many women who use hormonal birth control, either (interfering with the process of a fertilized egg implanting being viewed similarly to abortion).  I live in a rather different bubble from most people who post here.

That's a red herring.  Bodily autonomy neatly sidesteps this whole irrelevant issue of when life begins.

If you have compatible blood with someone who is dying in a hospital in need of a transfusion nobody requires that you go and give blood against your wishes.  Even if that would certainly save the dying guy's life, bodily autonomy is more important.

To be consistent, nobody should be required to donate their womb to a fetus against their will.  Even if doing so would certainly safe the life of the fetus.  Bodily autonomy is more important.

If the latter changes, then the former should also change to be logically consistent . . . and that's a dark path to go down.

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20785
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: US Poll....who are you voting for?
« Reply #99 on: January 31, 2024, 06:48:32 PM »
It's baffling to me that someone would not want bodily autonomy.

When does life begin and what is the moral point at which one ought protect it - legally and morally, which are obviously at different points for many people?

Quote
OK, so you know some women who are against women's rights and you seem to have a relationship with them. Any chance you want to share their reasons for being so?

They believe life begins at conception, and it's not up to [humans] to determine if that life has a chance to survive outside the womb or not, and that it's a woman's responsibility to bring that life to birth, if that's how the process will naturally go.  Would you like me to ask for some written statements from them?  Though it does stray a bit off topic for this thread.  I think I'd actually have a far harder time finding someone I know in person who isn't quite hard-line anti-abortion (in the sense that "Rape is a crime, but adding the crime of murder doesn't fix the first crime" - yes, abortion is absolutely viewed as murder).

... for that matter, I'm not sure I know many women who use hormonal birth control, either (interfering with the process of a fertilized egg implanting being viewed similarly to abortion).  I live in a rather different bubble from most people who post here.

That's a red herring.  Bodily autonomy neatly sidesteps this whole irrelevant issue of when life begins.

If you have compatible blood with someone who is dying in a hospital in need of a transfusion nobody requires that you go and give blood against your wishes.  Even if that would certainly save the dying guy's life, bodily autonomy is more important.

To be consistent, nobody should be required to donate their womb to a fetus against their will.  Even if doing so would certainly safe the life of the fetus.  Bodily autonomy is more important.

If the latter changes, then the former should also change to be logically consistent . . . and that's a dark path to go down.

It has been gone down in SF*, and rumour has it apparently affected legislation.  Don't you young people read the classics?

*Larry Niven, A Gift From Earth, 1968. 

I'm still waiting for uterine replicators myself (see the Vorkosiverse).

For those who believe life with a soul begins at conception, what happens to the souls of all the embryos that abort early, on their own?  It is estimated that about 1/3 of all pregnancies end in fairly early (less than 12 weeks) miscarriages, technically named spontaneous abortions.  And that doesn't count all the "late periods" that were actually really early pregnancies.

And given the complex activity that starts with a clump of barely differentiated cells and ends up with a fully formed baby, it is amazing that the error rate isn't higher.  So much can go wrong.

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!