Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes. Because that’s what the Constitution says. If you want that extra horsepower (ha! Horse power! Get it?), feel free to move to a low population state.
Which is starting to happen as people get priced out of more desirable areas. But yes I’m aware of the constitution , that was just a counterpoint statement. CA isn’t running the country and in some ways those in less populated states have more power.
Care to give a few examples of this tyranny? It's difficult to understand where you are coming from without understanding what you define as tyranny.
From Websters:
Tyranny (noun) --
1 : oppressive power exerted by government.
2 : a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force
If you cannot see such a condition in our nation, you are blinded by a lifetime's worth of conditioning and normalcy bias.
A question for you: how many hours of your life are you willing to sell to the government and the dependency class?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakformonday
BTW, the country cannot get a divorce. We're not a married couple. Take some civics courses and learn the process. I'll humor you and ask what your low population, no revenue generating state will do without the support of the coasts?
Since you seem incapable of understanding allusion, let me state it more plainly: It is time the individual states within the United States split into more meaningful and like-minded confederations. You take your socialism, we take our liberty, the rest chose their side(s)... and go our separate ways.
As for what we would do without your authoritarian collectivism? Don't worry, we would survive. That's quite a healthy ego you have, isn't it? Besides, even if we didn't survive, I'd rather die a free man than live as a slave (in your modern way of seeing things, that would be termed as a "revenue generation device").
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakformonday
I agree with the other poster that the Senate gives some of these states too much power. Why should my state of 40 million have the same representation of states with populations under a million??? Plus, I think it is time to get rid of the Electoral College. Our progress is slowed otherwise...
Then what you agree with is mob rule and the castration of the minority. In my opinion, that is not progress. In fact it is the exact thing the founders of this nation were trying to avoid.
You see authoritarian collectivism as progress; I see it as regression. And the reason for that is that we are two different people with wildly differing opinions, needs, goals, wants, and lifestyles. You wish to eliminate those differences, but worse yet, you wish to eliminate them AND centralize the collective consciousness around your own philosophy. You wish to control the entire populace because you are just so certain that your way of seeing things is the "right" way (beings that you are from the big city and all).
I, on the other hand, desire for you to do as you wish and live as you wish, but not at my expense and the expense of my liberty. I don't claim that my philosophy is *the* right way of doing things. I do not wish to control you or anyone else. Only myself. That's the way an individualist, as opposed to a collectivist, thinks. And no matter how hard you as a collectivist wish to force an individualist to do things your way, it ain't happening. You may as well be trying to herd cats. That's why I said that we needed a divorce (see above for explanation).
2 : a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force
If you cannot see such a condition in our nation, you are blinded by a lifetime's worth of conditioning and normalcy bias.
A question for you: how many hours of your life are you willing to sell to the government and the dependency class?
Since you seem incapable of understanding allusion, let me state it more plainly: It is time the individual states within the United States split into more meaningful and like-minded confederations. You take your socialism, we take our liberty, the rest chose their side(s)... and go our separate ways.
As for what we would do without your authoritarian collectivism? Don't worry, we would survive. That's quite a healthy ego you have, isn't it? Besides, even if we didn't survive, I'd rather die a free man than live as a slave (in your modern way of seeing things, that would be termed as a "revenue generation device").
Then what you agree with is mob rule and the castration of the minority. In my opinion, that is not progress. In fact it is the exact thing the founders of this nation were trying to avoid.
You see authoritarian collectivism as progress; I see it as regression. And the reason for that is that we are two different people with wildly differing opinions, needs, goals, wants, and lifestyles. You wish to eliminate those differences, but worse yet, you wish to eliminate them AND centralize the collective consciousness around your own philosophy. You wish to control the entire populace because you are just so certain that your way of seeing things is the "right" way (beings that you are from the big city and all).
I, on the other hand, desire for you to do as you wish and live as you wish, but not at my expense and the expense of my liberty. I don't claim that my philosophy is *the* right way of doing things. I do not wish to control you or anyone else. Only myself. That's the way an individualist, as opposed to a collectivist, thinks. And no matter how hard you as a collectivist wish to force an individualist to do things your way, it ain't happening. You may as well be trying to herd cats. That's why I said that we needed a divorce (see above for explanation).
I am able to look up dictionary definitions. Most posters on here do not understand the words they use so that is why I asked. Further, I have no idea what you are talking about when you write 'authoritarian collectivism' or that I am a socialist. The coasts are capitalist economies and very successful ones. Finally, I have no idea what your personal philosophy is because you have not explained it. Good luck with whatever it is you believe. Cheers.
And the crime, drug abuse, constantly increasing homeless problem, rampant income inequality, overpriced housing all reflect the spreading liberal cancer.
Well, there goes Arizona! Truly amazing that Trump can't hold a place where many are very wealthy and vast numbers walk around with exposed holsters and handguns.
It's not just the left coast that's going liberal. Other than Utah (which is not "conservative" in the traditional sense anyway), it doesn't look good for much of the West for the GOP (long term) unless they moderate greatly.
That's tough to do with the current POTUS and even with the whole philosophy of the party. To keep things together they would have to be completely different (politically) in the various parts of the country. That's getting harder to do with instant communication.
Barry Goldwater, I'm sure, would like the Dems in AZ better than todays GOP. After all, he even warned against mixing religion and politics and said nasty thing about those evangelists.
Oh, hopefully it's become clear to some who kept blinders on that Trump Nation is not approved of by most Americans. Join us. The water is fine!
Well, there goes Arizona! Truly amazing that Trump can't hold a place where many are very wealthy and vast numbers walk around with exposed holsters and handguns.
It's not just the left coast that's going liberal. Other than Utah (which is not "conservative" in the traditional sense anyway), it doesn't look good for much of the West for the GOP (long term) unless they moderate greatly.
That's tough to do with the current POTUS and even with the whole philosophy of the party. To keep things together they would have to be completely different (politically) in the various parts of the country. That's getting harder to do with instant communication.
Barry Goldwater, I'm sure, would like the Dems in AZ better than todays GOP. After all, he even warned against mixing religion and politics and said nasty thing about those evangelists.
Oh, hopefully it's become clear to some who kept blinders on that Trump Nation is not approved of by most Americans. Join us. The water is fine!
So the sparsely populated areas should rule the urban areas? Are you serious? The urban areas are driving the economy and pay more taxes, yet cannot even attempt to keep the environment clean because....manufacturing and mining. This does not make sense at all. It is illogical.
As far as semantics regarding Trump "running away with the electoral college," -- then he should not have. He won due to under 100k votes in three different states.
Those are razor thin margins--Trump has no mandate--never did. There was not 'landslide' big win. In a country this size, Trump won (the Electoral College) with about 85,000 votes. And Hillary did receive over 3,000,000 more.
There is something wrong with this picture.
Electoral votes needed to win: 270
hillary got: 232.
Trump got: 306. IMO, that qualifies as a run-away!
Care to give a few examples of this tyranny? It's difficult to understand where you are coming from without understanding what you define as tyranny.
BTW, the country cannot get a divorce. We're not a married couple. Take some civics courses and learn the process. I'll humor you and ask what your low population, no revenue generating state will do without the support of the coasts?
I agree with the other poster that the Senate gives some of these states too much power. Why should my state of 40 million have the same representation of states with populations under a million??? Plus, I think it is time to get rid of the Electoral College. Our progress is slowed otherwise...
If the blue states formed their own union and left the red states behind, they'd have to build high walls and staff the borders with an army of guards, to try to keep the red-staters from illegally coming in by the millions. The red states would be abandoned in their poverty and the blue states would be inundated with rednecks. Everyone would lose.
If the blue states formed their own union and left the red states behind, they'd have to build high walls and staff the borders with an army of guards, to try to keep the red-staters from illegally coming in by the millions. The red states would be abandoned in their poverty and the blue states would be inundated with rednecks. Everyone would lose.
You cannot really be that stupid, your own state is blue and it’s full to the brim with some of the trashiest redenecks in the nation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
