ptatc

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 5, 2017 -> 12:17 PM) But we don't see that playing out now. Representatives from urban districts don't vote down farm subsidies or water/land/hunting rights. A lot of federal spending that goes to rural communities is more likely to be pushed by Democrats representing urban areas than conservative politicians representing rural ones. One notable example is the opposition to rural projects like TVA--they were proposed and planned and executed by 'coastal elites' like FDR and to this day are opposed by more rural conservative voters. I think at most you could say not that urban voters would vote against those things but that they wouldn't be a priority and maybe not receive the attention they're due. Alabama has major cities and is right at the median in terms of state populations, so that's not a great example. And like BS pointed out, we've already got the Senate. Two Senators for 500k residents in Wyoming, two Senators for 40 million people in California. Why give unequal representation beyond that? What should happen as more and more people move to cities? If we get to say 90% non-rural population, should rural voters still get 25-50% of the say in what our government does or doesn't do? It is not only a question of how people vote it's still about representation. I was not using Alabama as necessarily rural but more about everyone deserves representation. Yes the rural voters should still get that because they deserve to have their issues count. If they have a 1% vote, it won't count.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 5, 2017 -> 12:12 PM) Those are the rules of the game. But significantly more people wanted Clinton than Trump. So its not factually accurate to say the dislike of Clinton was more than Trump. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_pol..._50_states.html This map shows the problem, someones vote in Wyoming is far more powerful than someone in Illinois. If we want to be fair about elections than a vote in Wyoming shouldnt have 4-5x more impact than a vote in California. Now I understand the fear of just having it be a popular vote, but it should be more fair. Perhaps the rule should be that it is capped at 1.5-2 and therefore larger states would get more electoral votes. This is true. However, the voting power discussion is a poor comparison. They are basing it on how much a person dictates the decision of the state electoral college vote. This is true. A single person in Wyoming does influence the outcome for the state than a single person in California. However, California has 55 electoral votes and Wyoming has 3. So while a single person in Wyoming has more affect on the state vote, they have a far lesser affect on the election due to the vast difference in the electoral votes. The more populist states still have a greater affect on the election.

QUOTE (KagakuOtoko @ Dec 5, 2017 -> 12:03 PM) This is not cool. Rural areas need to be heard as well. They have different problems than urban folks and they are often hand-waved by urbanites. I don't have any solutions regarding that atm but it should be looked into to see how they can be better represented. Exactly.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 5, 2017 -> 12:01 PM) Not really? You can have a proportional representative democracy wherein rural Americans, who comprise 15% of the population, get roughly 15% of the total representation. You'd still have the Senate as well, which massively favors rural voters. I see no reason why some voters should get more or less voting power based on their proximity to their neighbors. People vote, not acreage. You could but that isn't the system we currently have. Here is why. How informed are most people on a topic such as farm subsidies? water, land and hunting rights? The people form the urban areas would always vote against these issues because it doesn't affect them. The people in the rural areas would never get anything from anyone because they would ALWAYS be voted against. These people need representation and would never get it under a straight population vote or the proportional vote you propose. The candidates that would support policies to benefit them wouldn't win. People in this forum have said Alabama is a backward state. Do they not have a right for representation?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 5, 2017 -> 11:55 AM) Technically more people voted for Clinton than Trump. Correct. but that's not how the voting works. More representative areas voted for Trump. Therefore the candidates need to concentrate their efforts in more areas other than urban, population centers to win.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 5, 2017 -> 11:18 AM) Look to Wisconsin. 60% control of the state house with only 48% of the vote and likely enough voter suppression to have swung the Presidential vote in that state last year. Pennsylvania, a fairly purple state, has 12 Republican and 5 Democratic representatives in the US House despite Democrats getting 52% of the overall House vote in the state. We're a "representative" democracy in name only. And some of that difference is inherent to the structure of our political system, as even with 100% neutral districting, voting coalitions that pack themselves into dense urban areas are going to be underrepresented compared to rural voters. This is the definition of a representative democracy. The idea is to not let the dense urban areas control everything by pure numbers. Otherwise the rural areas would not have any representation.

QUOTE (KagakuOtoko @ Dec 5, 2017 -> 10:59 AM) They will pay dearly for their mistake. Politicians before Trump was elected, were savvy and subtle in their ways to screw over people. They are trying to do it now too by saying bs like you will save 4k on your taxes which is false. With Trump, they are openly saying things like this tax plan benefits the rich, the estate tax repeal only benefits the rich, and if you didn't drink booze and buy hookers, you could be rich too. These politicians have never tasted what it means to be poor and they will absolutely get people out of their homes to vote in the upcoming elections. Generally, people are happy with some crumbs but when you take those crumbs away, they will become desperate. That's the whole idea of elections, if you don't like it, change it. The last election showed that. The dislike of the Clintons was more than the dislike of Trump. Unfortunately, I'm pessimistic there will be better options for the next election. As you said none of these poiliticians are in touch with people.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Dec 5, 2017 -> 10:45 AM) I felt when Trump was elected that Congress even the Republicans would be a nice check and balance. The partisanism of government has now ended the system of checks and balances and we get what we had in the tax bill where there really is little governing any longer. It is just taking what you want. I know I guess i was naive and a hopeless romantic. I understand it has been like this for a while but I felt there were some republicans that had a spine, I guess not. Again not really true while the tax bill progressed really nothing else has. They are doing a good job of the checks and balance.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 5, 2017 -> 10:25 AM) He was absolutely right when he said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and get away with it. I don't have a whole lot of hope of Congress doing anything to protect the integrity of Mueller's investigation, either. They'll say they're doing their own "investigations" which have largely been fruitless shams to this point and that's good enough. We'll know we're in a full-blown authoritarian state at that point. This isn't really true. For all of his talk he really hasn't been able to do 25% of the stuff he's tried to accomplish. congress is really serving as the check and balance to him.

QUOTE (KagakuOtoko @ Dec 5, 2017 -> 10:16 AM) Oh man, Trump really thinks he is a god or something? Was this ever in question?

QUOTE (Big Hurtin @ Dec 5, 2017 -> 08:50 AM) Really? Schutzstaffel They weren't spies. That was the Abwehr.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 4, 2017 -> 03:06 PM) I know, that’s what I was saying Got it. Read it wrong the first time.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 11, 2017 -> 09:47 AM) Yeah, ill be in the theater watching it like I did the last two that I loved. I cant wait. No doubt!

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 11, 2017 -> 08:32 AM) Could be, but I will still watch it lol. solo twins is a bit different in that they are opposing forces unlike Luke and Leia. In the books the Solo twins Jacen and Jaina are on opposite sides. Jaina winds up killing Jacen who became a dark side apprentice.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 4, 2017 -> 02:40 PM) Correct, and I don't think that rose to the level of an impeachable offense. We do not want this to become a Starr investigation, where it's all about people's interpretations of testimony to a prosecutor clearly out to get the guy and no underlying crime. Wasn't the charge obstruction of justice and lying to the FBI? They are pretty much the same charge.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 4, 2017 -> 10:04 AM) Any particular reason why? Holding the President accountable for distorting the justice system seems particularly worthy. Isn't this basically why Clinton was impeached.

QUOTE (KagakuOtoko @ Dec 4, 2017 -> 09:28 AM) On a serious note, I do believe a lot of Berners either stayed home, voted 3rd party, or held their nose and voted for HRC. I can't really picture any of them crossing partisan lines and voting for Trump. Hell, a lot of people on the forum were trash talking HRC before the election. She's not that liked. Obviously, she lost to Trump. That was really hard to do.

QUOTE (Whitesoxin2019 @ Dec 3, 2017 -> 09:54 PM) As an independent. I don’t see trump as perfect. But my problem is that most people who complain about Trump were pro Hillary. Naturally. However she was a bad candidate whether you wear red glasses , blue glasses or independent glasses. Most Bernie bros I have spoken with were more anti Hillary than trump. I could only take a Hillary voters opinion on trump with a tiny grain of salt. I do enjoy conversations with Bernie fans though. I could also respect those who are in the “they both suck” group. Ooo, Ooo (said in my best Arnold Horschack impersonation)

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Dec 4, 2017 -> 02:13 PM) He’s the top left-hander in our system and will start the year in AAA, why didn’t we protect him again? Because he really doesn't project to do much at the MLB level with his slow and slower stuff?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 4, 2017 -> 12:51 PM) This is now official, including comments from Chris Getz. https://twitter.com/JRFegan/status/937736780274642950 This can't be good. He is just another recycled ex-Sox person. Loyalty to a fault is one of the biggest problems for this organization. JR is screwing it up again!

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 4, 2017 -> 10:35 AM) I agree with you. This is a huge off-season for Pace...from finding the next head coach / coaching staff to building an offense around Trubiksy (while also continuing to build out the defense). If the arrow isn't pointing up at the end of next year, we are in trouble. Hopefully we get a pick that we can trade down for tons of picks (because one of the QB's is on the board with our pick). I don't think this is the best way. The Bears should have a high pick. They need difference makers. Pace has done a pretty good job of drafting/signing decent guys. Guys like Amukamara, Trevathen etc. They Bears need difference makers. Another pass rusher or premium left tackle would fit the bill.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 4, 2017 -> 09:23 AM) I think Pace is safe, that whole new facilities thing was spearheaded by him. But I think everyone should be very skeptical of him. I think he should at least get a new pro scouting director. He's entered into season each year with one position that was absolutely atrocious and then usually that position gets killed by injuries. The kicking situation is inexcusable. All in the name of keeping good salary cap, which has now been chipped away at with lower-tier signings that have turned out to be wastes and we eat the money anyway. The biggest issue was Glennon. Pace expected this year to be a fair year with Glennon throwing to Meredith and Smith. He wasn't expecting to really play Trubiskey much and was planning on him for 2018. This is his make it or break it off season.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 4, 2017 -> 08:16 AM) I'm okay knowing that he didn't choose the White Sox because he wanted to be with a team that had something we couldn't have -- like being on the West Coast, or having a better Japanese-American population. But it would really hurt knowing he was willing to choose Chicago despite all that, and that the Cubs simply beat us at pitching him. Because if he's considering the Padres, you know the contention window thing doesn't matter. Not all of the teams meet all of the criteria. Maybe SD had checked all of the other boxes. Maybe SD met all of the other ones but not contention. Whereas the Cubs met the contention one but not some of the others. Each of the teams mentions meet some of them. Now he needs to decide which are the most important. This is an interesting process where money truly isn't the over riding factor, although doesn't Seattle have one of the higher money pools available, due to the Sox help?

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Dec 4, 2017 -> 07:49 AM) I will admit I enjoy seeing NY all salty about this. The amount of entitlement that city has is beyond unbearable. In all aspects of life, not just sports.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Dec 4, 2017 -> 07:49 AM) I will admit I enjoy seeing NY all salty about this. The amount of entitlement that city has is beyond unbearable. In all aspects of life, not just sports.