Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Edge-]

Yeah a handful of farmers who own an empire of dirt should have just as much say than millions of people.

Land matters more than people!

In the Senate, which seems to be the topic, yeah. That's what it's designed for. House just needs to get rid of the cap on Representatives so that small states aren't overrepresented and big states aren't underrepresented in the chamber they're supposed to be proportionally represented in.

[Themius]

Again, you're completely ignoring the fact that the House of Representatives exists to represent the people's interests.

The Senate exists to represent the states' interests. It's not supposed to represent the people directly. Arguing that it wrong because it doesn't is just being ignorant of its purpose.

That's why there are two chambers, designed to balance each other in a system of checks and balances.

The point is retarded the idea that all states are equal regardless of people is retarded and to give sooooo much power to that chamber... again retarded. "checks and balances two systems to make sure" yes and how the fuck is that working out?

The idea that we need a separate chamber to represent states as if fucking states are people is stupid. PEOPLE SHOULD MATTER MORE THAN LAND.

By the way... the founders were more for one house... and the original first amendment was to be that each representative will represent no more than 50k people. This like many things was a compromise to appease certain states you know the ones..

[Machismo]

Culture is a construct that one is not bound to.

- - - Updated - - -



In one chamber? No its not.

- - - Updated - - -



No, I did not enjoy it at all, you were (and still are) too narrow minded to understand what I was saying.

You spent hours defending racism.

It's all right there.

[PhaelixWW]

In the Senate, which seems to be the topic, yeah. That's what it's designed for. House just needs to get rid of the cap on Representatives so that small states aren't overrepresented and big states aren't underrepresented in the chamber they're supposed to be proportionally represented in.

That and gerrymandering needs to be done away with... permanently.

[Themius]

Whoa.

/10 char

- - - Updated - - -



You're making the right point, with the wrong political body. The Senate is there for the states.

Your argument is for the EC, where land does indeed vote because of how Electoral College votes are constructed. And I could not agree more with you - it's an entirely retarded principle.

My argument isn't about EC but the senate indeed.

The senate is stupid... states shouldn't get special votes worth tons more simply because they're a state. What makes this system all the more fucking stupid is the fact states like NY will send hundreds of billions more than they get back as it goes to other states... you know the red smaller states who also have 2 reps for a couple million people...

Why in the world should states be represented equally when the money is being shared all around, mostly by blue states that are huge and populous? "Kentucky wants to cut everything and therefore will vote against anything you want, also please give me 160 billion because we're too poor to do shit."

Like no... the senate shouldn't exist. I rather the system the founders wanted before the retarded ass compromises with slavers. One house. 50k reps per person (though perhaps now that should be 200k or so) proportional representation.

People prattle on and on about "this is what the founders intended" not the fuck it isn't.... this is part of the compromise the founders made to appease slaver states. Horrible stance to die on for the people who go "but muh founders" as if they ever fucking read any treatisies by them and their opponents.

[Edge-]

That and gerrymandering needs to be done away with... permanently.

Agreed, non/bi-partisan commissions should set up districting. It should never be left up to partisans on any side.

[DarkTZeratul]

People prattle on and on about "this is what the founders intended" not the fuck it isn't.... this is part of the compromise the founders made to appease slaver states. Horrible stance to die on for the people who go "but muh founders" as if they ever fucking read any treatisies by them and their opponents.

Everything was about appeasing slaver states to you, even things that had nothing to do with slavery but were decided by people who practiced it. This argument gets weary and tiresome when you trot it out about every fucking complaint you have.

[Themius]

In the Senate, which seems to be the topic, yeah. That's what it's designed for. House just needs to get rid of the cap on Representatives so that small states aren't overrepresented and big states aren't underrepresented in the chamber they're supposed to be proportionally represented in.

But the question is "why" the design "checks and balances" yet over years the function of the senate and its power changed and changed... with changes due to compromises... "small states" are the ones who pushed for this system, and at this time there were already writings about the issues of how those evil big states will have too much control, with some worrying "dear oh dear but what about my slaves?"

[Edge-]

But the question is "why" the design "checks and balances" yet over years the function of the senate and its power changed and changed... with changes due to compromises... "small states" are the ones who pushed for this system, and at this time there were already writings about the issues of how those evil big states will have too much control, with some worrying "dear oh dear but what about my slaves?"

Sure, there's connections to slavery that can't be ignored.

But that was also the agreement at the time the nation was founded, and the way to get those small colonies on-board. I'm not entirely opposed to a serious, critical look at the Legislative branch and updating it to better reflect the current state of the country and world. But I remain supportive of the Senate as a body in theory, the problem comes when Senators are elected and engage in their duties in bad faith. Because of the outsized influence the Senate wields, it's not designed to withstand such bad faith governance.

[Themius]

Everything was about appeasing slaver states to you, even things that had nothing to do with slavery but were decided by people who practiced it. This argument gets weary and tiresome when you trot it out about every fucking complaint you have.

I love it when people who don't know shit about American history try to turn it around on me to say "you just make it about slavery"

Oh I guess you expect me to ignore the text? To ignore the very words and arguments written AT THE TIME these decisions were being made? It is utterly pathetic how you think this like many things has nothing to do with slavery.

Hell, I had people bitching at me when I noted that if a tie happens and the house votes it goes in a way that is beneficial to small states which is due to a compromise made to slave states.

Do you know what shut up those people real quick? Me just citing the fucking constitutional amendment, the year, and the purpose of it... which was... well what do you know.. part of a compromise with slave states. Along with historians take on it but hey! You're probably one of those "history is just the past leave it there" folks.

Why do you think laws made around the time the country built itself solely on SLAVERY AS AN INDUSTRY have anything to do with slavery? What a fucking obtuse statement.

[PhaelixWW]

The point is retarded the idea that all states are equal regardless of people is retarded and to give sooooo much power to that chamber... again retarded. "checks and balances two systems to make sure" yes and how the fuck is that working out?

The problem isn't the representative method of the Senate. The problem is the fact that something approaching 50% of the population are too selfish, racist, xenophobic, stupid, or any combination of these traits.

The idea that we need a separate chamber to represent states as if fucking states are people is stupid. PEOPLE SHOULD MATTER MORE THAN LAND.

States are not just land, no matter how much you and others might repeat it. States are not people either, and nobody's making that claim here.

You're also forgetting that SENATORS ARE VOTED IN BY THE PEOPLE. It's just ludicrous to imply that the Senate is strictly voting for "land".

Regardless, the presidency should not be voted in by the Electoral College. After all, in each state, each citizen has an equal voice in voting for their Senators. But each citizen of the US does not have equal voice in voting for their President.

[Zardoz541]

Site is offline for "technical difficulties" now.

Mystery Solved:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...nding-employee

[DarkTZeratul]

I love it when people who don't know shit about American history try to turn it around on me to say "you just make it about slavery"

Fuck off with that bullshit. I know American history. I also know about goddamn fucking CONTEXT, which is what allows me to tell you that drilling everything down to "slavery existed, therefore everything was about slavery, therefore it's all bad" is not just a bad take, but an extraordinary oversimplification.

[Themius]

Sure, there's connections to slavery that can't be ignored.

But that was also the agreement at the time the nation was founded, and the way to get those small colonies on-board. I'm not entirely opposed to a serious, critical look at the Legislative branch and updating it to better reflect the current state of the country and world. But I remain supportive of the Senate as a body in theory, the problem comes when Senators are elected and engage in their duties in bad faith. Because of the outsized influence the Senate wields, it's not designed to withstand such bad faith governance.

The god damn constitution according to the founders was supposed to be a living document updated every generation yet... what happened? Not much of anything.

I don't support the Senate, it makes no sense to me to have a separate larger entity as though we aren't a country but instead a collective of nations like the EU.

There's an issue when you end up with 4 senators representing 18% of the nation...why not have a single house to represent everything? This was the preferred system but a hard one to argue back then due to well... slavery. Why much USA make everything about individual states first, and then people secondary? Like... oh we need to consider environmental destroying oil industry interests because like 30 senators who represent less than 18% of the nation have an interest there and therefore the entire country must just deal with it? It is a silly system.

- - - Updated - - -

Fuck off with that bullshit. I know American history. I also know about goddamn fucking CONTEXT, which is what allows me to tell you that drilling everything down to "slavery existed, therefore everything was about slavery, therefore it's all bad" is not just a bad take, but an extraordinary oversimplification.

Evidential not. Many laws were made with the "context" of slavery.

It's a bad take to say

"Hey, maybe we should change these rules made specifically to garner favour with slave states, which gave them tremendous power compared to their representation. The founders originally leaned towards a single house with equal representation for all, but yeah slave state compromises killed that."

What a bad take

- - - Updated - - -

The problem isn't the representative method of the Senate. The problem is the fact that something approaching 50% of the population are too selfish, racist, xenophobic, stupid, or any combination of these traits.



States are not just land, no matter how much you and others might repeat it. States are not people either, and nobody's making that claim here.

You're also forgetting that SENATORS ARE VOTED IN BY THE PEOPLE. It's just ludicrous to imply that the Senate is strictly voting for "land".

Regardless, the presidency should not be voted in by the Electoral College. After all, in each state, each citizen has an equal voice in voting for their Senators. But each citizen of the US does not have equal voice in voting for their President.

When you are saying that Wyoming should have equal senate power to California because it is a "state" the argument isn't about "people" but land.

"but 300k people voted in their senators!" so the fuck what? That's a small neighbourhood in NYC yet they have just as much power as the entire 19 million people the two senators from NY represent?

[DarkTZeratul]

The god damn constitution according to the founders was supposed to be a living document updated every generation yet... what happened? Not much of anything.

I don't support the Senate, it makes no sense to me to have a separate larger entity as though we aren't a country but instead a collective of nations like the EU.

There's an issue when you end up with 4 senators representing 18% of the nation...why not have a single house to represent everything? This was the preferred system but a hard one to argue back then due to well... slavery. Why much USA make everything about individual states first, and then people secondary? Like... oh we need to consider environmental destroying oil industry interests because like 30 senators who represent less than 18% of the nation have an interest there and therefore the entire country must just deal with it? It is a silly system.

- - - Updated - - -



Evidential not. Many laws were made with the "context" of slavery.

It's a bad take to say

"Hey, maybe we should change these rules made specifically to garner favour with slave states, which gave them tremendous power compared to their representation. The founders originally leaned towards a single house with equal representation for all, but yeah slave state compromises killed that."

What a bad take

It's a bad take to relate everything back to slavery, which while terrible is also not directly relevant today, instead of looking at these systems in the context of how they apply now, because it taints your perspective on everything. If you're coming at something from the perspective of "this was a compromise to appease slavers," then you're never going to even come close to objectively examining the value of a system.

Especially if you're prone to ignoring that there were any other arguments at all in favor of these systems that weren't about slavery.

[Edge-]

The god damn constitution according to the founders was supposed to be a living document updated every generation yet... what happened? Not much of anything.

I don't support the Senate, it makes no sense to me to have a separate larger entity as though we aren't a country but instead a collective of nations like the EU.

There's an issue when you end up with 4 senators representing 18% of the nation...why not have a single house to represent everything? This was the preferred system but a hard one to argue back then due to well... slavery. Why much USA make everything about individual states first, and then people secondary? Like... oh we need to consider environmental destroying oil industry interests because like 30 senators who represent less than 18% of the nation have an interest there and therefore the entire country must just deal with it? It is a silly system.

- - - Updated - - -



Evidential not. Many laws were made with the "context" of slavery.

It's a bad take to say

"Hey, maybe we should change these rules made specifically to garner favour with slave states, which gave them tremendous power compared to their representation. The founders originally leaned towards a single house with equal representation for all, but yeah slave state compromises killed that."

What a bad take

Yep, the lack of updates is a problem, but a different problem.

We're a collection of states, each with their own governments. Hence why the federal government has authorities over states that the EU does not have over its member countries. The Senate simply exists to provide equal say to each state, as the nation exists as said collection of states. It's not "land" as you repeatedly assert that's being represented, it's the people residing within the state.

4 Senators may represent 18% of the people, but they represent 2 of the states. That's it. The House is where proportional representation is supposed to be.

Why not have a single House? Again, it was designed as a protection against the "tyranny of the majority" and was a compromise necessary to bring in the smaller colonies.

Yes, slavery existed at the time. Yes, it was a consideration at the time. No, not everything is purely about slavery without further meaning or significance.

As to your last issue, that's a campaign finance issue more than a government issue.

[Themius]

It's a bad take to relate everything back to slavery, which while terrible is also not directly relevant today, instead of looking at these systems in the context of how they apply now, because it taints your perspective on everything. If you're coming at something from the perspective of "this was a compromise to appease slavers," then you're never going to even come close to objectively examining the value of a system.

Especially if you're prone to ignoring that there were any other arguments at all in favor of these systems that weren't about slavery.

What folly.

"It's a bad take to relate laws created due to slavery, back to slavery since it isn't relevant today"

I mean I can easily disprove that.... I think the supreme court did a wonderful job of that under Obama when they struck down voting rights.

Hey someone wanna tell me why that isn't like just a permanent law in this country?????????

[PhaelixWW]

What makes this system all the more fucking stupid is the fact states like NY will send hundreds of billions more than they get back as it goes to other states... you know the red smaller states who also have 2 reps for a couple million people...

And I, for one, would much rather have a system that sometimes allows smaller states to leech off of larger states, rather than a system in which there's no protection should the larger states decide to block equal funding to the smaller states.

You know... checks and balances.

[DarkTZeratul]

What folly.

"It's a bad take to relate laws created due to slavery, back to slavery since it isn't relevant today"

I mean I can easily disprove that.... I think the supreme court did a wonderful job of that under Obama when they struck down voting rights.

Hey someone wanna tell me why that isn't like just a permanent law in this country?????????

See, this is precisely the kind of bullshit I mean about oversimplification. There are a whole host of reasons that decision was bad that have nothing to do with slavery, which ended a century before the Voting Rights Act even existed.

But no, every fucking problem is about slavery to you. And here I thought "this doctor who pioneered a then-revolutionary surgery that saved lives shouldn't be celebrated for it because he operated on slaves" was a bad take from you...

[Themius]

Yep, the lack of updates is a problem, but a different problem.

We're a collection of states, each with their own governments. Hence why the federal government has authorities over states that the EU does not have over its member countries. The Senate simply exists to provide equal say to each state, as the nation exists as said collection of states. It's not "land" as you repeatedly assert that's being represented, it's the people residing within the state.

4 Senators may represent 18% of the people, but they represent 2 of the states. That's it. The House is where proportional representation is supposed to be.

Why not have a single House? Again, it was designed as a protection against the "tyranny of the majority" and was a compromise necessary to bring in the smaller colonies.

Yes, slavery existed at the time. Yes, it was a consideration at the time. No, not everything is purely about slavery without further meaning or significance.

As to your last issue, that's a campaign finance issue more than a government issue.

The idea that "tyranny of the majority" is something to be protected against inherently meant that tyranny of the minority is the preferred method. Which is categorically anti-democratic.

The compromise was necessary to bring in smaller states, clearly something that should be struck down now. Consider that these laws and many others were made at a time when slave states won more seats due to a compromise due to slavery and the 3/5ths compromise. This giving them extra power, extra seats, and thereby allowing them to pass laws that are in their interests due to... a slavery-based compromise. So while you can say "not everything was due to slavery", when votes of slave states sway the vote in such a way that benefits them and "small" states all due to them having over-represented power due to a compromise from slavery.... you can see why I link it back to slavery.

We have so many treatises from the time and it really is amazing just how much is either directly related to slavery, or slightly removed (slave states voting in their favour due to overrepresented power due to a slavery based compromise)

Other meaning other significance? Sure that's not untrue, but the main driver of the entire economy was slavery for a number of states that had a lot of power. So when 4 states argue about small state rights and the tyranny of the majority... we should consider why they're saying it. are they truly for small states or just for souther aristocracy?

- - - Updated - - -

See, this is precisely the kind of bullshit I mean about oversimplification. There are a whole host of reasons that decision was bad that have nothing to do with slavery, which ended a century before the Voting Rights Act even existed.

But no, every fucking problem is about slavery to you. And here I thought "this doctor who pioneered a then-revolutionary surgery that saved lives shouldn't be celebrated for it because he operated on slaves" was a bad take from you...

Interesting thing here is that you're skipping over the reconstruction era, where blacks did vote and indeed voted in a lot of black people. What happened there and why? Why did it take a hundred years for voting rights act to pass after blacks were already given voting rights?

What did politicians from the south say about the end of slavery? Consider for instance that southern politicians wrote about how they could de-facto continue slavery and objectification of black people even after slavery ended. So when we then look to a host of laws and acts that happened after slavery ended would you dare argue that the crux of the issue for those laws isn't related to slavery in spite of the very lawmakers making arguments for how they could continue to exploit blacks as slaves after slavery ends?

There always seems to be this weird obsession by Americans to try to pretend slavery had a much smaller role to play in the legal landscape of this country... even benign things that seem aren't related to slavery often enough have a politician behind them who literally wrote an opinion on the law that id directly tied to slavery.

It's surely dry and difficult to dig through opinions by dead politicians a hundred years ago... but it isn't as though it doesn't exist.