NATION

PASSWORD

US Midterm Elections Megathread III: Hitting The Wall

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
San Lumen
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 98857
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby San Lumen » Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:26 pm

Dresderstan wrote:
San Lumen wrote:This so called reform movement isn’t coming from a genuine want for more democracy. It’s because the other side doesn’t always win

Says the man who won't support PR reform and calls our system """Free and fair"""

You only want it because your candidates don’t win. Try putting up better candidates

User avatar
Dresderstan
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7235
Founded: Jan 18, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Dresderstan » Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:27 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Dresderstan wrote:Says the man who won't support PR reform and calls our system """Free and fair"""

You only want it because your candidates don’t win. Try putting up better candidates

False.

Then don't put up candidates who only represent those who vote for them.

User avatar
San Lumen
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 98857
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby San Lumen » Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:28 pm

Dresderstan wrote:
San Lumen wrote:You only want it because your candidates don’t win. Try putting up better candidates

False.

Then don't put up candidates who only represent those who vote for them.

Prove this claim you keep making

User avatar
Corrian
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53465
Founded: Mar 19, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Corrian » Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:28 pm

Dresderstan wrote:
San Lumen wrote:You only want it because your candidates don’t win. Try putting up better candidates

False.

Then don't put up candidates who only represent those who vote for them.

Maybe Republicans should do the same :)
My Last.FM and RYM

Look on the bright side, one day you'll be dead~Street Sects

User avatar
Dresderstan
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7235
Founded: Jan 18, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Dresderstan » Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:29 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Dresderstan wrote:False.

Then don't put up candidates who only represent those who vote for them.

Prove this claim you keep making

Literally every single candidate who runs for office only represents those who voted for them and their agenda, they are not a representative of everyone.

User avatar
Ors Might
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9837
Founded: Nov 01, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Ors Might » Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:29 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Dresderstan wrote:False.

Then don't put up candidates who only represent those who vote for them.

Prove this claim you keep making

The claim that merely being voted into office doesn’t make you a good representative for those that opposed you?
https://youtu.be/gvjOG5gboFU Best diss track of all time

User avatar
San Lumen
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 98857
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby San Lumen » Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:30 pm

Dresderstan wrote:
San Lumen wrote:Prove this claim you keep making

Literally every single candidate who runs for office only represents those who voted for them and their agenda, they are not a representative of everyone.

Provide proof of your claim. That’s not proof that’s an opinion
Last edited by San Lumen on Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ors Might
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9837
Founded: Nov 01, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Ors Might » Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:32 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Dresderstan wrote:Literally every single candidate who runs for office only represents those who voted for them and their agenda, they are not a representative of everyone.

Provide proof of your claim. That’s not proof that’s an opinion

Demonstrate how being elected automatically makes you representative of everyone who opposed you.
https://youtu.be/gvjOG5gboFU Best diss track of all time

User avatar
Telconi
Post Czar
 
Posts: 34903
Founded: Oct 08, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Telconi » Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:32 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Dresderstan wrote:Literally every single candidate who runs for office only represents those who voted for them and their agenda, they are not a representative of everyone.

Provide proof of your claim. That’s not proof that’s an opinion


Your proposed explanation is impossible. Therefore it stands to reason that the absence of your proposed solution is true.
-2.25 LEFT
-3.23 LIBERTARIAN

PRO:
-Weapons Rights
-Gender Equality
-LGBTQ Rights
-Racial Equality
-Religious Freedom
-Freedom of Speech
-Freedom of Association
-Life
-Limited Government
-Non Interventionism
-Labor Unions
-Environmental Protections
ANTI:
-Racism
-Sexism
-Bigotry In All Forms
-Government Overreach
-Government Surveillance
-Freedom For Security Social Transactions
-Unnecessary Taxes
-Excessively Specific Government Programs
-Foreign Entanglements
-Religious Extremism
-Fascists Masquerading as "Social Justice Warriors"

"The Constitution is NOT an instrument for the government to restrain the people,it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government-- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." ~ Patrick Henry

User avatar
Dresderstan
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7235
Founded: Jan 18, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Dresderstan » Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:32 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Dresderstan wrote:Literally every single candidate who runs for office only represents those who voted for them and their agenda, they are not a representative of everyone.

Provide proof of your claim. That’s not proof that’s an opinion

No it's a fact, your representatives only represent their own agenda and interests and those who voted for them while the minority is ignored in our shit system. I say again PR is much better more free and fairere than FPTP.

User avatar
Thermodolia
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 79496
Founded: Oct 07, 2011
Anarchy

Postby Thermodolia » Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:34 pm

Corrian wrote:
Dresderstan wrote:False.

Then don't put up candidates who only represent those who vote for them.

Maybe Republicans should do the same :)

You know they won’t. The republicans have their base and the democrats have their base
Male, Jewish, lives somewhere in AZ, Disabled US Military Veteran, Oorah!, I'm GAY!
I'm agent #69 in the Gaystapo!
>The Sons of Adam: I'd crown myself monarch... cuz why not?
>>Dumb Ideologies: Why not turn yourself into a penguin and build an igloo at the centre of the Earth?
Click for Da Funies

RIP Dya

User avatar
Corrian
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53465
Founded: Mar 19, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Corrian » Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:39 pm

San Lumen wrote:Some good and bad news out of Michigan. Governor Synder vetoed the bill to limit the power of the incoming statewide officials but signed a bill that would make placing a referendum on the ballot much harder. The latter might be unconstitutional and will likely wind up before the State Supreme Court.

Is the referendum one in response to people having the audacity to want measures on the ballot that the state GOP fucked over?

Thermodolia wrote:
Corrian wrote:Maybe Republicans should do the same :)

You know they won’t. The republicans have their base and the democrats have their base

But they should since I see a lot of "They should represent everyone, not just the ones who voted for them" yet that doesn't seem to apply to Republicans who regularly don't seem to vote for anyone else that didn't vote for them either.
My Last.FM and RYM

Look on the bright side, one day you'll be dead~Street Sects

User avatar
Telconi
Post Czar
 
Posts: 34903
Founded: Oct 08, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Telconi » Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:40 pm

Corrian wrote:
Dresderstan wrote:False.

Then don't put up candidates who only represent those who vote for them.

Maybe Republicans should do the same :)


They can't tho, like you literally can't represent mutually exclusive beliefs...
-2.25 LEFT
-3.23 LIBERTARIAN

PRO:
-Weapons Rights
-Gender Equality
-LGBTQ Rights
-Racial Equality
-Religious Freedom
-Freedom of Speech
-Freedom of Association
-Life
-Limited Government
-Non Interventionism
-Labor Unions
-Environmental Protections
ANTI:
-Racism
-Sexism
-Bigotry In All Forms
-Government Overreach
-Government Surveillance
-Freedom For Security Social Transactions
-Unnecessary Taxes
-Excessively Specific Government Programs
-Foreign Entanglements
-Religious Extremism
-Fascists Masquerading as "Social Justice Warriors"

"The Constitution is NOT an instrument for the government to restrain the people,it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government-- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." ~ Patrick Henry

User avatar
Corrian
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53465
Founded: Mar 19, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Corrian » Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:41 pm

Telconi wrote:
Corrian wrote:Maybe Republicans should do the same :)


They can't tho, like you literally can't represent mutually exclusive beliefs...

Then don't expect Democrats to do the same.
My Last.FM and RYM

Look on the bright side, one day you'll be dead~Street Sects

User avatar
Thermodolia
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 79496
Founded: Oct 07, 2011
Anarchy

Postby Thermodolia » Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:43 pm

Corrian wrote:
Telconi wrote:
They can't tho, like you literally can't represent mutually exclusive beliefs...

Then don't expect Democrats to do the same.

I don’t think anyone was.
Male, Jewish, lives somewhere in AZ, Disabled US Military Veteran, Oorah!, I'm GAY!
I'm agent #69 in the Gaystapo!
>The Sons of Adam: I'd crown myself monarch... cuz why not?
>>Dumb Ideologies: Why not turn yourself into a penguin and build an igloo at the centre of the Earth?
Click for Da Funies

RIP Dya

User avatar
Telconi
Post Czar
 
Posts: 34903
Founded: Oct 08, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Telconi » Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:44 pm

Corrian wrote:
Telconi wrote:
They can't tho, like you literally can't represent mutually exclusive beliefs...

Then don't expect Democrats to do the same.


I don't expect them to have my interests.
-2.25 LEFT
-3.23 LIBERTARIAN

PRO:
-Weapons Rights
-Gender Equality
-LGBTQ Rights
-Racial Equality
-Religious Freedom
-Freedom of Speech
-Freedom of Association
-Life
-Limited Government
-Non Interventionism
-Labor Unions
-Environmental Protections
ANTI:
-Racism
-Sexism
-Bigotry In All Forms
-Government Overreach
-Government Surveillance
-Freedom For Security Social Transactions
-Unnecessary Taxes
-Excessively Specific Government Programs
-Foreign Entanglements
-Religious Extremism
-Fascists Masquerading as "Social Justice Warriors"

"The Constitution is NOT an instrument for the government to restrain the people,it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government-- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." ~ Patrick Henry

User avatar
Genivaria
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 69943
Founded: Mar 29, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Genivaria » Sat Dec 29, 2018 3:45 pm

So this is the closest relevant thread I could find for this post.
I was looking up Constitutional Amendments because I didn't know how many there were, turns out its 27.

And then I saw that the 27th Amendment was proposed on September 25, 1789 but wasn't ratified until May 5, 1992.
I thought this was utterly bizarre so I looked it up.

And this is ridiculously absurd that it sounds like something out of a comedy.
The Twenty-seventh Amendment (Amendment XXVII) to the United States Constitution prohibits any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of Congress from taking effect until the start of the next set of terms of office for Representatives. The amendment is the most recent to be adopted, but one of the first proposed.

It was submitted by the 1st Congress to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789, along with eleven other proposed amendments. While ten of these twelve proposals were ratified in 1791 to become the Bill of Rights, what would become the Twenty-seventh Amendment and the proposed Congressional Apportionment Amendment did not get ratified by enough states for them to also come into force with the first ten amendments.

The proposed congressional pay amendment was largely forgotten until 1982, when Gregory Watson, a 19-year-old sophomore at the University of Texas at Austin, wrote a paper for a government class in which he claimed that the amendment could still be ratified. A teaching assistant graded the paper a "C" and an appeal to Professor Sharon Waite failed, motivating Watson to launch a nationwide campaign to complete its ratification.[1] The amendment eventually became part of the United States Constitution, effective May 5, 1992,[2] completing a record-setting ratification period of 202 years, 7 months, and 10 days.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-se ... nstitution

It took 200 years for Congress to not benefit from adjusting their own salaries. :roll:

User avatar
Telconi
Post Czar
 
Posts: 34903
Founded: Oct 08, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Telconi » Sat Dec 29, 2018 3:47 pm

Genivaria wrote:So this is the closest relevant thread I could find for this post.
I was looking up Constitutional Amendments because I didn't know how many there were, turns out its 27.

And then I saw that the 27th Amendment was proposed on September 25, 1789 but wasn't ratified until May 5, 1992.
I thought this was utterly bizarre so I looked it up.

And this is ridiculously absurd that it sounds like something out of a comedy.
The Twenty-seventh Amendment (Amendment XXVII) to the United States Constitution prohibits any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of Congress from taking effect until the start of the next set of terms of office for Representatives. The amendment is the most recent to be adopted, but one of the first proposed.

It was submitted by the 1st Congress to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789, along with eleven other proposed amendments. While ten of these twelve proposals were ratified in 1791 to become the Bill of Rights, what would become the Twenty-seventh Amendment and the proposed Congressional Apportionment Amendment did not get ratified by enough states for them to also come into force with the first ten amendments.

The proposed congressional pay amendment was largely forgotten until 1982, when Gregory Watson, a 19-year-old sophomore at the University of Texas at Austin, wrote a paper for a government class in which he claimed that the amendment could still be ratified. A teaching assistant graded the paper a "C" and an appeal to Professor Sharon Waite failed, motivating Watson to launch a nationwide campaign to complete its ratification.[1] The amendment eventually became part of the United States Constitution, effective May 5, 1992,[2] completing a record-setting ratification period of 202 years, 7 months, and 10 days.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-se ... nstitution

It took 200 years for Congress to not benefit from adjusting their own salaries. :roll:


I mean. I'd be a bit dodgy with regulations too if I could give myself pay raises...
-2.25 LEFT
-3.23 LIBERTARIAN

PRO:
-Weapons Rights
-Gender Equality
-LGBTQ Rights
-Racial Equality
-Religious Freedom
-Freedom of Speech
-Freedom of Association
-Life
-Limited Government
-Non Interventionism
-Labor Unions
-Environmental Protections
ANTI:
-Racism
-Sexism
-Bigotry In All Forms
-Government Overreach
-Government Surveillance
-Freedom For Security Social Transactions
-Unnecessary Taxes
-Excessively Specific Government Programs
-Foreign Entanglements
-Religious Extremism
-Fascists Masquerading as "Social Justice Warriors"

"The Constitution is NOT an instrument for the government to restrain the people,it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government-- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." ~ Patrick Henry

User avatar
Northern Davincia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16960
Founded: Jun 10, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Northern Davincia » Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:19 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Dresderstan wrote:Says the man who won't support PR reform and calls our system """Free and fair"""

You only want it because your candidates don’t win. Try putting up better candidates

If 5% of the people vote Libertarian, why shouldn't there be a 5% Libertarian makeup in congress?
San Lumen wrote:
Telconi wrote:
There are many methods of securing people's rights. Rendering a government who attacks those rights inoperable is one such way.


Go ask someone from Somalia how wonderful having no functioning government is. In fact as ask Congresswoman Illhan Omar. She can tell you all about it.

Somalia during its anarchist period was actually not that bad. The effects of civil war notwithstanding.
Last edited by Northern Davincia on Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Hoppean Libertarian, Acolyte of von Mises, Protector of Our Sacred Liberties
Economic Left/Right: 9.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.05
Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."

User avatar
Shrillland
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 26063
Founded: Apr 12, 2010
Democratic Socialists

Postby Shrillland » Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:43 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Dresderstan wrote:Says the man who won't support PR reform and calls our system """Free and fair"""

You only want it because your candidates don’t win. Try putting up better candidates


I'm from Illinois and my side wins all the time here. That doesn't mean I'm going to reject a better way of doing things.
How America Came to This, by Kowani: Racialised Politics, Ideological Media Gaslighting, and What It All Means For The Future
Plebiscite Plaza 2026
Confused by the names I use for House districts? Here's a primer!
In 1963, Doctor Who taught us all we need to know about politics when a cave woman said, "Old men see no further than tomorrow's meat".

User avatar
Thermodolia
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 79496
Founded: Oct 07, 2011
Anarchy

Postby Thermodolia » Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:44 pm

Shrillland wrote:
San Lumen wrote:You only want it because your candidates don’t win. Try putting up better candidates


I'm from Illinois and my side wins all the time here. That doesn't mean I'm going to reject a better way of doing things.

But you’re not a partisan hack
Male, Jewish, lives somewhere in AZ, Disabled US Military Veteran, Oorah!, I'm GAY!
I'm agent #69 in the Gaystapo!
>The Sons of Adam: I'd crown myself monarch... cuz why not?
>>Dumb Ideologies: Why not turn yourself into a penguin and build an igloo at the centre of the Earth?
Click for Da Funies

RIP Dya

User avatar
Corrian
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53465
Founded: Mar 19, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Corrian » Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:49 pm

Northern Davincia wrote:If 5% of the people vote Libertarian, why shouldn't there be a 5% Libertarian makeup in congress?

Seems reasonable to me.
Last edited by Corrian on Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
My Last.FM and RYM

Look on the bright side, one day you'll be dead~Street Sects

User avatar
Northern Davincia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16960
Founded: Jun 10, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Northern Davincia » Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:56 pm

Corrian wrote:
Northern Davincia wrote:If 5% of the people vote Libertarian, why shouldn't there be a 5% Libertarian makeup in congress?

Seems reasonable to me.

Aye. If the Reform Party makes a comeback, then we're in for a good time.
Hoppean Libertarian, Acolyte of von Mises, Protector of Our Sacred Liberties
Economic Left/Right: 9.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.05
Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."

User avatar
Genivaria
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 69943
Founded: Mar 29, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Genivaria » Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:59 pm

Corrian wrote:
Northern Davincia wrote:If 5% of the people vote Libertarian, why shouldn't there be a 5% Libertarian makeup in congress?

Seems reasonable to me.

And me, it would be nice if American socialists were actually represented.

User avatar
Genivaria
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 69943
Founded: Mar 29, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Genivaria » Sat Dec 29, 2018 8:04 pm

Northern Davincia wrote:
Corrian wrote:Seems reasonable to me.

Aye. If the Reform Party makes a comeback, then we're in for a good time.

???
*Googles*
Platform
The Reform Party platform includes the following:[4]

Maintaining a balanced budget, ensured by passing a Balanced Budget Amendment and changing budgeting practices, and paying down the federal debt
Campaign finance reform, including strict limits on campaign contributions and the outlawing of political action committees
Enforcement of existing immigration laws and opposition to illegal immigration
Opposition to free trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement and Central America Free Trade Agreement, and a call for withdrawal from the World Trade Organization
Term limits on U.S. Representatives and Senators
Direct election of the United States President by popular vote and other election system reforms
Federal elections held on weekends or Election Day (on a Tuesday) made a national holiday

Oh. My. God. YES!

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: American Legionaries, Bienenhalde, Crysuko, DutchFormosa, Felid Robloxia, Google [Bot], New Kisha, Shrillland, TheHouseOfSilly, Valrifell, Yorsa II

Advertisement

Remove ads