Y2HH
-
Posts
10,680 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Y2HH
-
-
1 minute ago, GoSox05 said:
America will be over! What did it in? Affordable college and higher wages.
America has a hard time evolving because people treat the founding fathers like gods. Nothing they did can ever be changed, even when it is archaic.
The founding fathers themselves weren't sure what was going to happen and they knew that things would need to change over time, that is why they made it so things could be added and changed. Also, they were far from perfect people.
Affordable college doesn't mean dick if you don't educate yourself in something economically useful. I know plenty of people that graduated from college, and they make far less than a few of my friends from high school because I got them involved in my industry.
If you want to make a higher wage, do something useful.
-
1 minute ago, Iwritecode said:
And in an interesting twist of irony...one of the democrats she endorsed is a Kavanaugh backer.
-
1 minute ago, Soxbadger said:
Do you really believe that the people in congress arent equally misinformed?
Lets be realistic, if you looked at votes by education, one party would win a lot more often.
Right now we have a less educated minority imposing its will on a more educated majority.
How does that work for you at all?
Oh, I never said that ... keep in mind these "elected officials" are just people from that same pool of misinformed or even willfully ignorant people I'm talking about. The government is just made up of ordinary people. Some are very intelligent, but others are quite dumb -- I mean, I guess they're motivated enough to put themselves out there and get that job, but motivation and drive is not the same as intelligence in most cases.
Unfortunately for the population, a lot of educated people -- such as quite a few of you here -- would never even consider putting yourselves on the line to get elected to these positions because you know what it'd put your families through.
Tell you what, Soxbadger, if you run for office, I'll vote for you, because I'm confident enough -- even if I don't agree with your politics necessarily -- that you're at least educated and informed enough to do the job.
-
2 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:
But to be fair, the Democrats did not change the Supreme Court, which is a much more important position than regular federal judges.
That was really damaging to the system and most Republicans are very happy they didnt need to compromise, and are soing everything in their power to tilt the balance to the extreme.
That is why change is necessary because the legislation eroded the checks, so now they cant be trusted. Hence why people should get more of a direct say.
Depends on the people, sadly. Until we get a far more educated, informed and not misinformed public, I don't want the stupidest amongst us being given such control, and that's exactly what will happen.
Yes, whatever, I'm an elitist.
I'll throw this back to those old -- and often hilarious "despair posters" -- the one about meetings: "Because none of us is as dumb as all of us..."
-
1 minute ago, Soxbadger said:
Which party do you think changed it to simple majority for Supreme Court?
The republicans first used it for the supreme court, but the precedent was set by Harry Reid for non-supreme justices. Point is, changing things that short-term benefit your own party (currently) does not mean they always will in the future. It's dangerous, especially when 20/20 future sight doesn't exist.
The system was set up to gridlock government when neither side was willing to come to the middle -- and sadly, they're undoing those protections piece by piece so nobody ever has to come to the middle again, and we end up with a far-right or far-left government, of which I cannot agree with either.
-
8 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:
Just mentioned a couple other states with larger populations that's all.
How much time on a presidential campaign as it is right now is spent campaigning in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, North and South Dakota? Did Trump or Clinton go to any of those states in the campaign? Were they even mentioned?
The systems we have in place now doesn't give them equal time and representation, it gives them over representation.
As I said, a discussion should be had that finds a way to alleviate this issue without giving total control over to a couple of major metropolitan areas. Once again, this devolves into another us vs them argument, where one side says, "the current system is perfect because it benefits us, versus the other side saying we should change it to the popular vote because that would benefit us!"
This is just more party line bullshit.
It's like neither can see the potential danger in just doing things that benefit their own party in the short term. They *just* did this same thing when they changed to a simple majority for appointing justices, and then it backfired when the other side used it. Somewhere down the road, I don't know when, but at some point -- something will happen -- an a populous rise will occur that shifts extreme to the other direction in a drastic and potentially dangerous way that uses the popular vote against the very people that advocate for it now.
Most of the people in this country are too misinformed or downright stupid to be electing presidents, let alone local officials. They search for the D or R and punch it, knowing NOTHING about the candidate.
No, I have very little faith in people.
-
11 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:
I like that people think you could just go to California and New York to campaign and that's it, you win. As if Ohio, Georgia and Pennsylvania don't have massive populations.
Also,
California - 55 EC votes - 39,536,653 people
Wyoming - 3 EC votes - 579,315 people
California should have like 200 EC Votes.
Awesome, your argument is you can't win by going to 2 states, but you can by going to ~5.
Out of 50.
Okay...
-
2 minutes ago, whitesoxfan99 said:
That is exactly what is happening in our presidential elections anyways and people from smaller states are already ridiculously over represented in the Senate anyways.
That was done by design.
Like I said, I think it's a conversation to be had when it comes to the electoral college, but I wouldn't agree with strictly popular vote for the reasons cited.
-
Perhaps the current electoral college system can be tweaked to better fit our modern makeup, and such a debate should be had to bring up new ideas. That being said, I'm in favor of having an electoral college over popular vote, as the latter sways extreme control into a handful of states, and I find this dangerous and short sighted. We are supposed to be a union of states represented equally, not a union of states represented by New York, California and Illinois, which is exactly what would happen -- and let's be honest, this is exactly why the Democrats want it that way. There are just too many potential dangers and pitfalls (including ones we haven't even thought of yet) in giving such control to too few areas of the country.
I think every vote should count the same *IN THE STATE THE VOTE IS CAST*, however, I do NOT feel that every vote should count the same outside those boundaries for the reasons stated above. What's good for the coastal elites is not good for the middle American, and visa versa. I personally don't want to see a couple of major metropolitan areas controlling the will of 45 other states most voters have likely never even visited.
While this is anecdotal, I find most voters to be either uninformed or misinformed, and tend to simply punch whatever name is sitting next to the D or R they're looking for on the ballot. So yes, this goes both ways. Unless we get a much more informed and non-party affiliated electorate in this country, I'll never be for the popular vote, because the population is largely stupid.
-
2 hours ago, StrangeSox said:
I'm assuming that at least some of the sentences will be run concurrently. So maybe it's 3 years per charge, but they run at the same time, something like that.
If this is the case, what was the point of convicting him on 16 separate counts? This seems like some sort of insane loophole purposefully written into the law. I think 1 count of agg battery is like 4-40 years or something?
-
8 hours ago, Soxbadger said:
I dont think most Democrats wallow in self pity.
The Republican rule benefits most of the elite in the metropolitan areas. You think lower taxes hurt me? You think stocks going gangbusters didn't help my 401k?
The reason im a Democrat is because i hope for other people to have the same access and chance as me. Because i don't want govt legislating religion, i want more personal freedom etc.
The Kavanaughs of the world are who i grew up with, same as the Trumps. They are just going to rig the game more for people like me.
Id rather the world was better, but tomorrow i wake up fine. Its the good people in the red states i worry about. They can't see the snake oil is poison.
Yes, but even in largely democratic areas this just isn’t the reality, just look at the difference between the haves and have nots in Chicago.
When Democrats were in majority control almost nothing like this occurred.
-
10 hours ago, Soxbadger said:
Both sides benefit from the relationship.
That being said if the minority keeps ignoring the majority then the relationship isnt as beneficial. Id have to go through the agricultural output, but California and Illinois are nothing to scoff at. And im not sure where Wisconsin would go.
The main crux of my point is that map doesnt mean much. There are more people in the blue than the red.
I dont think the US will split, but i think the blue may start to get fed up with a govt that isnt in synch with the majority.
Not to mention are Trump Republicans even Republicans? The Republican party of the past was for free trade, less govt etc.
The new Republican seem to be against all of that, and they want a big govt to restrict your freedoms.
Who really supports that?
At least you seem rational in your thoughts. It’s often hard to converse when one side takes a very hard right or left stance and it becomes an all-or-nothing argument, which I don’t find grounded in reality.
-
5 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:
Not really. The blue states could just buy soybeans from Brazil, dairy from Canada, etc.
How do you think Japan survives despite limited amounts of farmland?
The irony is the overall costs to consumers would actually be less if you take away the government farm subsidies and protectionist tariffs on food imports.
And the majority of those farms are not run by the middle class, they’re run by huge agribusiness corporations. Individuals in the farm economy only represent 2-4% of those Red States.
Yes, really.
The US agriculture industry is integral to the world, whether you know that or not is irrelevant.
This is just a stupid argument now.
You can’t just add 350 million more people to the worlds food needs while removing the US red state agricultural industry from the equation. That’s insanity and famine in the making, and it’s actually kind of hilarious you’re oblivious to this.
Who owns the farms is irrelevant, the people farming them live in those “red states” we apparently don’t need.
This is just ... wow.
Okay, I’m out, there is no sane discussion to be had here. This is why I stopped posting here in the first place.
-
1 hour ago, Soxbadger said:
The red parts cant exist without the blue paying for them. The blue can exist without the red.
Look at which states have positive balances with the federal govt and which states survive on govt handouts.
Counties are arbitrary lines, same with states. More people voted Democrat in the last 3 elections, time will catch up to Republicans, its inevitable.
And the blue states would starve to death without the red ones.
So no, they can’t exist without the red ones.
They kind of need each other.
-
I thought the Kavanagh vote wasn’t until 5pm eastern, did they already confirm him?
I’m seeing reports they did.
-
4 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:
Yeah because the Republicans would have totally followed that rule if the Democrats hadn't changed it. I mean, following tradition and rules, fairness, that's totally an accurate and apt way of describing how they've treated the Supreme Court seats and it's clearly only the Democrats who are unfair. Now that's the kind of honest commentary I expect from an average Republican.
Likely true, but they didn’t have to because the dems changed that rule for them.
So I see, when your party does it, it’s okay because it’s for the greater good, but if the other party does it, it’s underhanded and cheating and evil!
Again, this is b****ing about rules your own party employed or knew about before the process began.
-
2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:
And that's the abuser talking point.
Let’s be real, after the dems crushed Sanders for the chosen one, she thought Donald Trump was a joke opponent so she didn’t even try ... she made the worst rookie mistake possible in underestimating her opponent, so she phoned it in and lost ... and this is the result for the Democratic constituents.
That election should have been a slam dunk, so crying about the electoral rules after the fact is silly when the party undid itself.
Also, the simple majority to appoint judges is also a Democratic folly that’s now biting them in the ass, unless Kavanagh somehow doesn’t get appointed today.
-
59 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:
Got outplayed = the Electoral College and an angry minority that is ok with people's votes counting less than their as long as they're black/mexican/not currently being raped.
This is like complaining home runs shouldn’t count after you enter a game knowing the rules and you lose by a home run.
It’s a crybaby talking point.
Maybe campaign harder in “states that don’t really matter, because we always win them anyway” next time.
-
8 hours ago, Harry Chappas said:
Yes but all 16 counts are in essence one charge. Also can only be sentenced for 2nd degree murder or aggravated assault. He'll spend about 3 years in prison.
My understanding is it’s 16 separate counts of aggravated battery, so he’s getting life+.
-
46 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:
But we can't be upset when republican leaning justices legislate from the bench. That ire is reserved only for "liberal activist justices".
Or ... we can be equally upset when either side does it and stop pretending it’s just those evil republican leaning justices that do it.
Hence my ultra sarcastic eye roll.
-
44 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:
But we can't be upset when republican leaning justices legislate from the bench. That ire is reserved only for "liberal activist justices".
🙄
-
19 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:
The SC doesn't pass laws. At least not yet.
One of the things I really hope a conservative SC does is it passes the buck more to congress they are supposed to make the laws and the public should demand they do their damn jobs instead putting it in the hands of unelected judges to do it for them,
Also applies to upholding and interpreting. Sorry I wasn’t more clear. I know what the Supreme Court does.
-
Just now, wrathofhahn said:
I disagree with idea vehemently for the reasons I already outlined. I don't think it will ever happen either as likely it couldn't be done retroactively and the people making the law would be giving up a tremendous amount of power.
“This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No. 78
I never said I agree with such a short term limit, I was simply speaking to his idea/point.
I do believe such an important and highly respected appointment requires a longer limit, but I’d be more keen on an age limitation than a term limitation.
Keep in mind, progress doesn’t stop, and the idea that we have potential 90 year olds passing laws about “that internets thing”, bothers the fuck out of me.
-
1 minute ago, BigSqwert said:
I kind of wanted to negate the 2 rapist Justices with 2 non-rapist ones.
What happens if you end up with even more rapist justices?!
Your new Supreme Court nominee is....
in The Filibuster
Posted · Edited by Y2HH
I don't quite see it that way, but that's just me.
If you follow that "do what you love" mindset, you should also understand the reality of what that passion pays. You may be passionate about Irish Dance Theory, and if you love it, by all means, if that's what you want to do, then pursue that dream, but do so with the understanding that it also means you're not going to make a lot of money.
My opinion on this? I don't "do what I love", I mean ... I like my job. But it's a job. I don't love it. I do it because they pay me. You know how much I charge to hang out with my friends or family? 0$. Why? Because I actually love doing that. My job, however? The day they stop paying me is the day I stop showing up ... regardless of how much I claim to like or love it...
I do my job to get paid a lot of money so I can take that money and do the things I actually love...