2020 Election

[Au165]

(11-06-2020, 10:00 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: The smaller states wouldn't have a voice for president. You would be denying almost half the country a voice because the cities has more population. Almost everyone I know who moved to North Dakota that was formerly Democrats turned Republican because they didn't realize what it's like to live out in the country. Being in a federal republic every state has a voice, and the more population a state has the more electoral votes it has. That is a very fair way to elect a president, because city voters mostly have no idea what it's like out in the country. It wouldn't be fair for CA and NY to control the country, because that's what it would basically be.

They would all have one vote. Cities don't vote, people do and their location on a map doesn't change that. Again, your representation of your area is your legislative representative, your presidential vote shouldn't be artificially inflated because of where you live.

It's funny though when Puerto Rico gets statehood eventually and the electoral college math doesn't work out well for the Republican party anymore I bet we will start hearing a lot more about other voting methods.

[Brownshoe]

(11-06-2020, 10:01 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Wait, are you saying conservative indoctrination is a thing?

No. People just realize what it's like to live outside of a city and change their views. My girlfriend is from St. Paul, MN and was a lifelong Democrat and she voted Trump. She's been living out in ND for a little more than a year and she changed her views because of her experiences. Every democratic transplant I know has changed to a Republican because they get more of the view of the Republican side.

[*Nately120*]

(11-06-2020, 10:12 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: No. People just realize what it's like to live outside of a city and change their views. My girlfriend is from St. Paul, MN and was a lifelong Democrat and she voted Trump. She's been living out in ND for a little more than a year and she changed her views because of her experiences. Every democratic transplant I know has changed to a Republican because they get more of the view of the Republican side.

Right, so you are saying that people in cities are actually republicans, they just don't know it yet. But what if I told you I came from a small town and then went to college on long island and worked in NYC and became more liberal?

[Au165]

(11-06-2020, 10:13 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Right, so you are saying that people in cities are actually republicans, they just don't know it yet.  But what if I told you I came from a small town and then went to college on long island and worked in NYC and became more liberal?

"Liberal Indoctrination! All those liberal professors filled your mind with nonsense." 

[*Nately120*]

(11-06-2020, 10:15 AM)Au165 Wrote: "Liberal Indoctrination! All those liberal professors filled your mind with nonsense." 

I can only speak from myself but I've lived in rural PA, NY (worked in NYC), the suburbs of Chicago (worked in the city), and I've been living in ultra Trump country NW PA for 5 years now and not once did the space around me change my political outlook.

[Brownshoe]

(11-06-2020, 10:13 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Right, so you are saying that people in cities are actually republicans, they just don't know it yet.  But what if I told you I came from a small town and then went to college on long island and worked in NYC and became more liberal?

No, and it would be cool if you would stop putting words in my mouth.

What I'm saying is that most people don't know the experience and the views of other people and when they experience the other side their views CAN change. For example you became more democratic when you experienced what its like being in a big city. You seen their views more clearly because you had first person experience.

[Au165]

It's interesting that people here talked about how big a deal it was on election night that Biden didn't get the "Hispanic vote" in south Florida and how it was a big win for the Republicans going forward in the future of the party. I think it's a BIGGER deal that Georgia is looking like it could go to Biden when it hasn't been won by a nonsouthern democrat since Kennedy in 1960.

[*Nately120*]

(11-06-2020, 10:19 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: No, and it would be cool if you would stop putting words in my mouth.

What I'm saying is that most people don't know the experience and the views of other people and when they experience the other side their views CAN change. For example you became more democratic when you experienced what its like being in a big city. You seen their views more clearly because you had first person experience.

Ok well I don't want to put words in your mouth, and I didn't become a democrat when I moved to the city, I was just pointing out the "what if" of it.  But if you are saying that a person can move to the country and become a republican or move to the city and become a democrat then why is that an argument to use the EC and not just the popular vote?

If we accept the idea that people can change their mind based upon where they live then why not just treat every vote equally regardless of where the voter lives or has lived?  I can prove that I've lived and worked in cities and rural areas, therefore does my political opinion carry more weight because I've experienced both aspects of American life?  

[Au165]

(11-06-2020, 10:22 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Ok well I don't want to put words in your mouth, and I didn't become a democrat when I moved to the city, I was just pointing out the "what if" of it.  But if you are saying that a person can move to the country and become a republican or move to the city and become a democrat then why is that an argument to use the EC and not just the popular vote?

If we accept the idea that people can change their mind based upon where they live then why not just treat every vote equally regardless of where the voter lives or has lived?  I can prove that I've lived and worked in cities and rural areas, therefore does my political opinion carry more weight because I've experienced both aspects of American life?  

It's very simple, he knows that his views would land him in the minority and he doesn't want to not have a say. It's almost like how people in states that are politically dominated by one party don't like that their vote has little value because it is canceled out by others in their state who vote differently. It's not about being fair, it's about self-preservation. The difference here is that his position is he wants over-representation (electoral college votes to population) of his view whereas the other example is looking for equal representation (one person one vote).

[*Nately120*]

(11-06-2020, 10:25 AM)Au165 Wrote: It's very simple, he knows that his views would land him in the minority and he doesn't want to not have a say. It's almost like how people in states that are politically dominated by one party don't like that their vote has little value because it is canceled out by others in their state who vote differently. It's not about being fair, it's about self-preservation. The difference here is that his position is he wants over-representation of his view whereas the other example is looking for equal representation.

I always find the psychological aspect of politics to be the most intriguing, so it's interesting discussing his idea/notion without needing to go into a sort of "you just wanna win" direction.  Just discussing this in a Socraticic manner I'd say if Biden wins and harms jobs of rural republicans then maybe they can just get wind/green energy jobs and see if that makes them more liberal.

I won't deny that jobs and settings and surroundings can affect or alter a person's political views, though.

[Brownshoe]

(11-06-2020, 10:22 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Ok well I don't want to put words in your mouth, and I didn't become a democrat when I moved to the city, I was just pointing out the "what if" of it.  But if you are saying that a person can move to the country and become a republican or move to the city and become a democrat then why is that an argument to use the EC and not just the popular vote?

If we accept the idea that people can change their mind based upon where they live then why not just treat every vote equally regardless of where the voter lives or has lived?  I can prove that I've lived and worked in cities and rural areas, therefore does my political opinion carry more weight because I've experienced both aspects of American life?  

Because we live in a federal republic where every state has a voice, and that voice is based off of the population. So bigger states and cities can't just control the small ones by always controlling the executive branch. What's good for the city isnt always good for the country and vice versa.

[Au165]

(11-06-2020, 10:27 AM)Nately120 Wrote: I always find the psychological aspect of politics to be the most intriguing, so it's interesting discussing his idea/notion without needing to go into a sort of "you just wanna win" direction.  

That is the psychology of it though. It's mental self-preservation to disregard the obvious logic we use in every other voting situation in society that one person gets one vote with the majority winning. The only reason this system exists was a young country didn't know how to deal with the whole slavery issue and this was the path of least resistance.

[*Nately120*]

(11-06-2020, 10:29 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Because we live in a federal republic where every state has a voice, and that voice is based off of the population. So bigger states and cities can't just control the small ones by always controlling the executive branch. What's good for the city isnt always good for the country and vice versa.

The country doesn't always know what's best for the city but here we are looking at the possibility of the minority in the country deciding what is best for the city for the third time in 20 years?  Ida know, man.

Also, the notion that moving to the rural areas makes liberals more conservative is hard to agree with seeing as AZ is becoming very close to blue due to an increased population from blue states over the years.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-06-2020, 09:54 AM)GMDino Wrote: Also Steve Bannon

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/05/tech/steve-bannon-twitter-permanent-suspension/index.html



Damn..."the left" better pick up the pace if they want to keep the lead on violence like we've been told!

They are way ahead on actual violence this year.  I like how we keep pretending it just didn't happen.  

[*michaelsean*]

(11-06-2020, 10:33 AM)Nately120 Wrote: The country doesn't always know what's best for the city but here we are looking at the possibility of the minority in the country deciding what is best for the city for the third time in 20 years?  Ida know, man.

Also, the notion that moving to the rural areas makes liberals more conservative is hard to agree with seeing as AZ is becoming very close to blue due to an increased population from blue states over the years.

Well the previous two times it would have been a minority as well.  Both times with Clinton it was a minority. His first term he got a fairly smaller percentage than Trump has.

[*Nately120*]

(11-06-2020, 10:36 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Well the previous two times it would have been a minority as well.  

And you say us third party types don't affect things!  Well....at least it was 1st place in that sense.  That's a bit easier to rationalize, isn't it?


Also somewhat on topic...I've lived in Pittsburgh without becoming a Steeler fan.

[GMDino]

(11-06-2020, 10:35 AM)michaelsean Wrote: They are way ahead on actual violence this year.  I like how we keep pretending it just didn't happen.  

We're not "pretending it just didn't happen" we're poking fun at those who claimed they are the only ones making it happen.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-06-2020, 10:37 AM)Nately120 Wrote: And you say us third party types don't affect things!  Well....at least it was 1st place in that sense.  That's a bit easier to rationalize, isn't it?


Also somewhat on topic...I've lived in Pittsburgh without becoming a Steeler fan.

Well sure.  A plurality it certainly legit, but it is a minority.  

I knew you lived there, but were you born in Steeler country?  If so, that's just insane.

[GMDino]

(11-06-2020, 10:33 AM)Nately120 Wrote: The country doesn't always know what's best for the city but here we are looking at the possibility of the minority in the country deciding what is best for the city for the third time in 20 years?  Ida know, man.

Also, the notion that moving to the rural areas makes liberals more conservative is hard to agree with seeing as AZ is becoming very close to blue due to an increased population from blue states over the years.

Ah!  But I've been told on here those THOSE people are "idiots" who were just smart enough to move because they didn't like certain policies but just dumb enough to vote IN FAVOR of those same policies in their new home state!  So can we really trust their votes?  

[GMDino]

I posted this in the "minority rule" thread but it is appropriate here also.

Land does not vote.
People do.pic.twitter.com/lGK8gg9ZEn

— Lincoln's Bible (@LincolnsBible) November 5, 2020