Confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court

[Zan15]

I think Trump is foul mouthed, unpresidential president.

I don't drool over anything he says. I like that he is actually trying to do things though.

I wish he wouldn't be such an abrasive fuck head at times. I would probably have voted for Tulsi Gabbard if given the choice and I'm fairly libertarian.

That being said, I cannot in good faith vote for Biden literally ever. He has Alzheimer's and it's so obvious and sad. I know Democrats hate Trump, and I can understand many of the reasons why, but voting in a man in Biden's mental state is not a good plan.

So, let's not try to assume too much.

you mean the things he SAYS he is trying to do....while not actually trying to do it at all right?

i would love to know what he is actually trying to do because to me it looks like he is winging it with absolutly no plan whatsoever, very evident by his "healthcare" plan last week (3 peices of paper that orders people to come up with a plan basically)

[Gestopft]

Why should the 80% rule the 20% if the 20% would prefer to rule themselves?

"If we can't win with democracy, we'll abandon it"

Also, if the 20% are, for example, pumping toxic crap into the air that the 80% are breathing, you bet they're going to want to have a say.

[Kellhound]

Technically wrong since again the vast majority of cement manufacturing is owned by foreign companies which would not be controlled by your "rural" area's

there is not even a US owned manufacturing company in the top 25 in the US.

Also china outranks the US by a factor of almost 80-90x.



we already disproved this bull in the gun thread.
Again the water and power is more than likley either state owned or corporate owned, not "rural owned". Powerplants are not un rural area's they are in the outskirts of urban area's and the bigger plans are corporate owned and is easly obtained through capital.

Rural area's whom have their power, water and sewers subsidized by the rest of the states population would suffer way more.

Food is also in the same bucket. While they do produce most food, most of the property and production have nothing to do with rural vs urban.

You really should just do a simple google map search of powerplans, water treatment, pumping area's, etc etc.

Four words: "You have been nationalized." Ownership is always at the discretion of the government.

You do understand that most powerplants require fuel, yes? And most of that fuel comes from rural areas? Same with large city water.

How are private wells and septic systems subsidized by city water and sewer?

[Zan15]

Most grain travels by train, which are privately owned.

Wrong. Those trains are mostly corporate owned. Which again like most other business is not majority owned or even close by rural members of this country...sorry.

[Endus]

You do understand that most powerplants require fuel, yes? And most of that fuel comes from rural areas? Same with large city water.

The rural population does not own those resources, and literally never did. I'm not sure you even understand the basic principles at play, here.

[Kellhound]

Didn't say that.

Said that if you make up 20% of the population, expecting more than 20% of the government's focus is an exaggerated sense of self-entitlement.



They aren't "losers" in the first place.

And they can't "divorce", because they're part of the same society and can't survive without each other. It's like suggesting your left foot and right foot are gonna go their separate ways.

Winner/loser, all depends on perspective.

Actually, if done peacefully, they could survive in separate houses. They would have to cooperate in some areas, but not in others.

The average New Yorker has less in common with the average small town Idahoan then "Americans" and "Canadians" do, but they are quite capable of surviving as separate political entities.

- - - Updated - - -

"If we can't win with democracy, we'll abandon it"

Also, if the 20% are, for example, pumping toxic crap into the air that the 80% are breathing, you bet they're going to want to have a say.

So long as the pollution comes from somewhere else, its ok though.

[Endus]

Winner/loser, all depends on perspective.

Insisting on a winner/loser outlook is the issue. It's complete horsefucking bananas-cuckoo nonsense. Politics isn't a zero-sum game, where there must be winners and losers.

And yes; that's an issue of perspective. Specifically; that those pushing this winners-and-losers narrative have a far too restricted perspective which is significantly divorced from reality. Not all perspectives are valid and reasonable, and this particular one you're insisting upon is neither.

[Zan15]

Four words: "You have been nationalized." Ownership is always at the discretion of the government.

hahahah, rural population is going to "nationalize" something owed by the bigger more powerful population.
How are they going to afford maintence, lol.

You do understand that most powerplants require fuel, yes? And most of that fuel comes from rural areas? Same with large city water.

How are private wells and septic systems subsidized by city water and sewer?

Again location matters not. Who owns those sources? you think 20% or less of a given states population is going to "nationalize" ownership of the things??


Funny how you left out electric, its quite obvious how subsidized that is and even you realized it.

As for private wells and septic most new housing since the last couple census are not being equipped with those. the number nationally has been dropping for decades thanks to subsidies that paid for systems to go further out into rural area's.

- - - Updated - - -

The rural population does not own those resources, and literally never did. I'm not sure you even understand the basic principles at play, here.

sigh, at least someone gets it. thank you

[Kellhound]

Wrong. Those trains are mostly corporate owned. Which again like most other business is not majority owned or even close by rural members of this country...sorry.

Private in this case as oppose to public (government) owned. Publicly owned railroads don't tend to do very well at all.

- - - Updated - - -

The rural population does not own those resources, and literally never did. I'm not sure you even understand the basic principles at play, here.

As I said before, ownership is at the discretion of the government.

[Endus]

As I said before, ownership is at the discretion of the government.

That's . . . tautological.

Without the government, ownership as a concept does not exist, beyond what you currently have in your own hands and can resist others taking from you. Without a government, you cannot own land or property (the concept of "property" cannot even exist). And you've got no recourse if anyone takes stuff that you thought was "yours", absent a government; they have it, it's theirs now.

[Kellhound]

Insisting on a winner/loser outlook is the issue. It's complete horsefucking bananas-cuckoo nonsense. Politics isn't a zero-sum game, where there must be winners and losers.

And yes; that's an issue of perspective. Specifically; that those pushing this winners-and-losers narrative have a far too restricted perspective which is significantly divorced from reality. Not all perspectives are valid and reasonable, and this particular one you're insisting upon is neither.

Even in a compromise, most times there is a winner and a loser. Politics is absolutely a winner-loser proposition, it is the very heart of what it is.

[Endus]

Even in a compromise, most times there is a winner and a loser. Politics is absolutely a winner-loser proposition, it is the very heart of what it is.

This is so bafflingly baseless and incorrect I don't really know where to even start.

Take basic trade concepts. Those who have a supply of goods want to exchange those goods for other things they need (or money, by which to purchase said things). People who need their goods will trade with them for those goods. Through that exchange, both seller and buyer "win", and are better off than they were before the exchange.

Your position doesn't account for even the basic concept of trade. Where the hell did you dig up this particular nugget?

[Kellhound]

hahahah, rural population is going to "nationalize" something owed by the bigger more powerful population.
How are they going to afford maintence, lol.





Again location matters not. Who owns those sources? you think 20% or less of a given states population is going to "nationalize" ownership of the things??


Funny how you left out electric, its quite obvious how subsidized that is and even you realized it.

As for private wells and septic most new housing since the last couple census are not being equipped with those. the number nationally has been dropping for decades thanks to subsidies that paid for systems to go further out into rural area's.

- - - Updated - - -



sigh, at least someone gets it. thank you

You afford maintenance by charging the customer for it, duh....

Location matters, if for no other reason than the people who control the area control the existence of it.

I left out electric because I have no numbers off the top of my head.

Most new housing in "rural" areas is for invading city slickers who cant afford to live in the city anymore.

- - - Updated - - -

That's . . . tautological.

Without the government, ownership as a concept does not exist, beyond what you currently have in your own hands and can resist others taking from you. Without a government, you cannot own land or property (the concept of "property" cannot even exist). And you've got no recourse if anyone takes stuff that you thought was "yours", absent a government; they have it, it's theirs now.

If the government that controls the land changes, ownership can as well.

[Adam Jensen]

Republicans aren't exactly known for following the teachings of Jesus. Doesn't matter what sect they belong to. Barrett will likely make most of her decisions based on personal belief. Unfortunately, that personal belief won't involve anything Jesus had to say.

If Jesus came back and started preaching, Republicans would take on the role of the modern day Pharisees.

[Kellhound]

This is so bafflingly baseless and incorrect I don't really know where to even start.

Take basic trade concepts. Those who have a supply of goods want to exchange those goods for other things they need (or money, by which to purchase said things). People who need their goods will trade with them for those goods. Through that exchange, both seller and buyer "win", and are better off than they were before the exchange.

Your position doesn't account for even the basic concept of trade. Where the hell did you dig up this particular nugget?

Because opportunity cost is rarely equal for both sides.

[jonnysensible]

city slickers

what year do you think this is?

[Endus]

If the government that controls the land changes, ownership can as well.

What, exactly, are you trying to say? Because you keep expressing tautological statements as if they're meaningful, and they aren't.

Nobody said rural states couldn't be a country unto themselves. They could. They'd become an impoverished nation and economically collapse, in the process, because it's a terrible idea. But it's possible.

If you think they can just do so by fiat, though, you're wrong. That's sedition.

- - - Updated - - -

Because opportunity cost is rarely equal for both sides.

Look at those goalposts absolutely fly.

[Kellhound]

what year do you think this is?

Depends on which calendar you are using.

- - - Updated - - -

What, exactly, are you trying to say? Because you keep expressing tautological statements as if they're meaningful, and they aren't.

Nobody said rural states couldn't be a country unto themselves. They could. They'd become an impoverished nation and economically collapse, in the process, because it's a terrible idea. But it's possible.

If you think they can just do so by fiat, though, you're wrong. That's sedition.

- - - Updated - - -



Look at those goalposts absolutely fly.

If you bothered to look at what I have posted all along, I did not call for unilateral separation, as a civil war is what I prefer not to see.

Why is an economic collapse inevitable?


What in the hell are you talking about, opportunity costs ALWAYS play into win/lose.

[Themius]

Why should the 80% rule the 20% if the 20% would prefer to rule themselves?

But the 20 don’t rule themselves. Instead they rule others while being welfare queens.

[Endus]

Why is an economic collapse inevitable?

How many successful wholly-rural developed countries do you see in the world? It's a model that simply can't work. You're lacking so many necessary components of a functional modern society. Agriculture and resource extraction aren't going to keep the rural nation going, economically. And there's little else to be had without realizing you've fucked up and rebuilding a new urban population.

What in the hell are you talking about, opportunity costs ALWAYS play into win/lose.

You went from declaring that all policy interplays between two or more groups always resulted in a winner and a loser.

You then tried to argue that opportunity costs might not be equal. Which isn't the same as one group "losing".

If both/all parties gain, then they're all "winners" by that interplay, and it doesn't matter if one party is "winning more" or not.