MAGAThread XIV: All persons born or naturalized ...

[Greater Cesnica]

Oh God no. Please. It would make prosecution of crimes a fucking nightmare.

ELECTIONS MUST BE ABSOLUTELY FAIR AND REPRESENTATIVE.

Alright, so when the next Elliot Rodger decides to go on a shooting and stabbing rampage across county lines, and somehow survives, then we should deal with the years of legal troubles to follow because the municipalities have different laws.

I see what you mean, I do, but it would be a bureaucratic nightmare, with the issues of zoning, by-laws, taxation, etc.

[Proctopeo]

If you're going to come in with that attitude, I don't see a point.

Seriously? Are you surprised that someone thinks it's silly to say that the US government (the one that is allied with Saudi Arabia and led by a man with a fetish for dictators) not being in a human rights organisation removes it's legitimacy? If anything a republican led America being out of the organisation makes everybody else better off.

yes, better off with more countries just known for their spectacular human rights, like China and Qatar, definitely...
The thing is: America has power. Many different kinds of power. Without American power present at all, the UNHRC is more or less castrated, and delegated to being an embarrassment due to the remaining membership being, you know, largely abysmal in terms of rights. C'mon, the UN, even with extensive US funding (compared to everyone else's contributions) isn't capable of much more than flailing its dick around at countries, and sometimes sending peacekeeping forces if it's especially seedy, but only sometimes.

Seriously? Are you surprised that someone thinks it's silly to say that the US government (the one that is allied with Saudi Arabia and led by a man with a fetish for dictators) not being in a human rights organisation removes it's legitimacy? If anything a republican led America being out of the organisation makes everybody else better off.

It's laughable to boot that a country routinely separating children from families, even ones that play by imposed rules for seeking asylum- especially to profit private prisons- would be sneering that a human rights committee is filled with abusive countries.

As we know, having some stains on your record discredits any and all criticisms of other countries who are substantially worse in every regard and makes you literally equivalent to them. Of course.
This does mean, however, that almost no part of the world can criticize anyone else, except for maybe, I don't know, San Marino? And the rest of the irrelevant tiny European countries ('cept the Vatican)?

It's laughable to boot that a country routinely separating children from families, even ones that play by imposed rules for seeking asylum- especially to profit private prisons- would be sneering that a human rights committee is filled with abusive countries.

I could even understand that by some people justified Trumps decision by saying that the group is nonsense because Saudi Arabia is in it which makes sense until you remember Trump basically dancing with Saudi leaders.

laughs in realpolitik

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Trump continues to be shit?

[Petrasylvania]

It's laughable to boot that a country routinely separating children from families, even ones that play by imposed rules for seeking asylum- especially to profit private prisons- would be sneering that a human rights committee is filled with abusive countries.

As we know, having some stains on your record discredits any and all criticisms of other countries who are substantially worse in every regard and makes you literally equivalent to them. Of course.
This does mean, however, that almost no part of the world can criticize anyone else, except for maybe, I don't know, San Marino? And the rest of the irrelevant tiny European countries ('cept the Vatican)?

"Some stains". I love how you're downplaying the even now ongoing forced separation of children from families which in many cases lead to sexual abuse or outright disappearances as something no more serious than spilling soda on a Persian rug.

[Givienci]

Besides, it's pretty fucking reductive to assume that the only reason someone could possibly be criticising the Electoral College is because their side lost because of it, and not because, you know, it's a massive betrayal of basic democratic principles.

And yes, I know, America is not a Democracy, blah blah blah. The fact that dodge keeps coming out suggests y'all know that and want to deflect attention away from it. Especially when you go on about defending Democracy overseas in the same sentence.

The electoral college doesn't "betray democratic principles." It's a mechanism to protect minority interests and to prevent democracy from devolving into the tyranny of the majority, resulting in the democratic oppression of minority groups or the 'vote bribing' of majority groups (generally at the expense of minority groups). It's about getting the plurality of the vote rather than majority of the vote.

[Fartsniffage]

Besides, it's pretty fucking reductive to assume that the only reason someone could possibly be criticising the Electoral College is because their side lost because of it, and not because, you know, it's a massive betrayal of basic democratic principles.

And yes, I know, America is not a Democracy, blah blah blah. The fact that dodge keeps coming out suggests y'all know that and want to deflect attention away from it. Especially when you go on about defending Democracy overseas in the same sentence.

The electoral college doesn't "betray democratic principles." It's a mechanism to protect minority interests and to prevent democracy from devolving into the tyranny of the majority, resulting in the democratic oppression of minority groups or the 'vote bribing' of majority groups (generally at the expense of minority groups). It's about getting the plurality of the vote rather than majority of the vote.

What minority is it protecting?

[Uiiop]

Besides, it's pretty fucking reductive to assume that the only reason someone could possibly be criticising the Electoral College is because their side lost because of it, and not because, you know, it's a massive betrayal of basic democratic principles.

And yes, I know, America is not a Democracy, blah blah blah. The fact that dodge keeps coming out suggests y'all know that and want to deflect attention away from it. Especially when you go on about defending Democracy overseas in the same sentence.

The electoral college doesn't "betray democratic principles." It's a mechanism to protect minority interests and to prevent democracy from devolving into the tyranny of the majority, resulting in the democratic oppression of minority groups or the 'vote bribing' of majority groups (generally at the expense of minority groups). It's about getting the plurality of the vote rather than majority of the vote.

How the hell does a winner take all system help minority groups?
All it literally does is handover that oppression to the states.

[Fartsniffage]

The electoral college doesn't "betray democratic principles." It's a mechanism to protect minority interests and to prevent democracy from devolving into the tyranny of the majority, resulting in the democratic oppression of minority groups or the 'vote bribing' of majority groups (generally at the expense of minority groups). It's about getting the plurality of the vote rather than majority of the vote.

How the hell does a winner take all system help minority groups?
All it literally does is handover that oppression to the states.

What minority groups are you worried about?

[Givienci]

The electoral college doesn't "betray democratic principles." It's a mechanism to protect minority interests and to prevent democracy from devolving into the tyranny of the majority, resulting in the democratic oppression of minority groups or the 'vote bribing' of majority groups (generally at the expense of minority groups). It's about getting the plurality of the vote rather than majority of the vote.

What minority is it protecting?

That would depend on the election and whatever issues are relevant at the time. I assumed that would be obvious. Attitudes, needs, and interests will invariably change with geography.

[Uiiop]

How the hell does a winner take all system help minority groups?
All it literally does is handover that oppression to the states.

What minority groups are you worried about?

Any one who loses the popular votes apparently.
Pity that the apparently solution is to treat like every voter in a state voted for the most popular person then.

[Fartsniffage]

What minority is it protecting?

That would depend on the election and whatever issues are relevant at the time. I assumed that would be obvious. Attitudes, needs, and interests will invariably change with geography.

Okay, in the last presidential election which were protected?

[Valrifell]

The electoral college doesn't "betray democratic principles." It's a mechanism to protect minority interests and to prevent democracy from devolving into the tyranny of the majority, resulting in the democratic oppression of minority groups or the 'vote bribing' of majority groups (generally at the expense of minority groups). It's about getting the plurality of the vote rather than majority of the vote.

How the hell does a winner take all system help minority groups?
All it literally does is handover that oppression to the states.

For some reason people are okay with oppression when it comes from a corporation or a state. As long as it's not the Federal government, its kosher.

[Givienci]

That would depend on the election and whatever issues are relevant at the time. I assumed that would be obvious. Attitudes, needs, and interests will invariably change with geography.

Okay, in the last presidential election which were protected?

Evidently, the tens of millions of people living outside of urban centers were protected from urbanites. As I've already said, Attitudes, needs, and interests will invariably change with geography. Which issues specifically resonated with each non-urban voter is hard to say--they're not a monolith. Some would be highly attracted to Trumps refreshingly non-market fundamentalist approach to trade and the economy, some would attracted to the fact that he wasn't a moralizing relic, some would be attracted to voting against an urbanite view on gun rights, some would be attracted to immigration reform/immigration reduction, some would be attracted to a reduction in international entanglements that we disproportionately pay in to, some would be attracted to a reduction in foreign free-riding on the US military, etc. or any combination thereof.

[Northern Davincia]

How the hell does a winner take all system help minority groups?
All it literally does is handover that oppression to the states.

For some reason people are okay with oppression when it comes from a corporation or a state. As long as it's not the Federal government, its kosher.

Corporate "oppression" is voluntary, and people within a state share cultural values that the federal government does not take into account.

[Givienci]

The electoral college doesn't "betray democratic principles." It's a mechanism to protect minority interests and to prevent democracy from devolving into the tyranny of the majority, resulting in the democratic oppression of minority groups or the 'vote bribing' of majority groups (generally at the expense of minority groups). It's about getting the plurality of the vote rather than majority of the vote.

How the hell does a winner take all system help minority groups?
All it literally does is handover that oppression to the states.

Because the electoral college isn't a monolithic winner take all system. It's winner take all divided by 48 states--each with their own regional attitudes, interests, and needs--and two non-winner take all states. There is no "oppression" involved; candidates actually have to canvas outside of a few urban centers and take into account the attitudes, needs, and interests of a wide plurality of people.

[Valrifell]

For some reason people are okay with oppression when it comes from a corporation or a state. As long as it's not the Federal government, its kosher.

Corporate "oppression" is voluntary.

Literally no.

[Uiiop]

Okay, in the last presidential election which were protected?

Evidently, the tens of millions of people living outside of urban centers were protected from urbanites. As I've already said, Attitudes, needs, and interests will invariably change with geography. Which issues specifically resonated with each non-urban voter is hard to say--they're not a monolith. Some would be highly attracted to Trumps refreshingly non-market fundamentalist approach to trade and the economy, some would attracted to the fact that he wasn't a moralizing relic, some would be attracted to voting against an urbanite view on gun rights, some would be attracted to immigration reform/immigration reduction, some would be attracted to a reduction in international entanglements that we disproportionately pay in to, some would be attracted to a reduction in foreign free-riding on the US military, etc. or any combination thereof.

The way the system works shows this to be bull. No matter the total the urbanites outweigh nons even on a state by state basis. This would give them the advantage not the other way around.

[The Dacian League]

Trump continues to be shit?

To be fair, Democrats don't do much to stop him considering they voted to increase the military budget to 700 billion dollars, and even more shocking, only Bernie Sanders voted against it from the Democratic side, with more Republicans voting against it overall. Funny considering the Democrats are also the same ones saying Trump is under the thumb of a foreign power. Would you increase the military under a president you think is under a foreign power? It's almost as if its a farce.

[Northern Davincia]

Corporate "oppression" is voluntary.

Literally no.

I suggest you quit your job if you feel oppressed.

[Valrifell]

Literally no.

I suggest you quit your job if you feel oppressed.

The system doesn't allow for someone to be unemployed and exist happily. If all corporations filed equally shitty conditions (which they are wont to do) then I'm fucked.

[Uiiop]

How the hell does a winner take all system help minority groups?
All it literally does is handover that oppression to the states.

Because the electoral college isn't a monolithic winner take all system. It's winner take all divided by 48 states--each with their own regional attitudes, interests, and needs--and two non-winner take all states. There is no "oppression" involved; candidates actually have to canvas outside of a few urban centers and take into account the attitudes, needs, and interests of a wide plurality of people.

https://www.icip.iastate.edu/tables/pop ... pct-states
So only 3 states were helped by this and since the states are given their numbers via population those states have little influence.

The EC is pretty useless under the merits you claim it has.

[Northern Davincia]

I suggest you quit your job if you feel oppressed.

The system doesn't allow for someone to be unemployed and exist happily. If all corporations filed equally shitty conditions (which they are wont to do) then I'm fucked.

Good.

[The Black Forrest]

The system doesn't allow for someone to be unemployed and exist happily. If all corporations filed equally shitty conditions (which they are wont to do) then I'm fucked.

Good.

So edgy I cut myself.

[Valrifell]

The system doesn't allow for someone to be unemployed and exist happily. If all corporations filed equally shitty conditions (which they are wont to do) then I'm fucked.

Good.

So I can't quit my job if I feel oppressed. Or unhappy. Or feel stuck. etc. etc.

This is why midlife crises are a thing.

[Northern Davincia]

Good.

So I can't quit my job if I feel oppressed. Or unhappy. Or feel stuck. etc. etc.

This is why midlife crises are a thing.

You can still quit your job if you feel oppressed because corporations will never be the same in condition.
And lazy people deserve to be unhappy.