View Poll Results: Are the Republicans trying to rig a presidential election?

Voters
28. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    17 60.71%
  • No

    4 14.29%
  • Maybe, see my points below

    4 14.29%
  • Who cares option

    3 10.71%
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 97

Thread: Are the Republicans trying to rig a presidential election?

  1. #61
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Anagram's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    St. Louis MO
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    6,188

    Re: Are the Republicans trying to rig a presidential election?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisher View Post
    I support the idea. It does away with swing districts/counties. If more people think their vote counts then they are more likely to vote. I thought democrats were all about voting rights for people......guess not really.
    In my opinion, it would just change the focus from swing states to swing districts. In fact most people's vote wouldn't count because most congressional districts are designed to favor one of the two parties.
    There should be Instant Runoff Voting

  2. #62
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,158

    Re: Are the Republicans trying to rig a presidential election?

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    And without the farming and mining there is no supply for those plants, those people to operate them and thus no urban centers. But a good description of the corruption process. You missed an intermediary step - urban sprawl. It happens because the folks don't really want to live like that, but they need to live close enough to commute to work. Then it decays and the blight solidifies and the area becomes fully urban. The job center finally dies and the urban center decays further. The folks who can flee to the suburbs (decaying themselves). Wait a couple generations and the city populations don't know any other way of life. They start thinking their food comes from the grocery store.

    Urban centers are not sustainable on their own.
    I've already mentioned mining and farming. Of course cities can't sustain itself! Nobody made that argument. The argument made was the value created in cities makes up the majority of wealth created in this country. There's nothing that disproves that.
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

  3. #63
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Anagram's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    St. Louis MO
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    6,188

    Re: Are the Republicans trying to rig a presidential election?

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateMk1 View Post
    Actaually Maine and Nebraska already do this. I would prefer it actually with a twist. Take a look at how Iowa does their redistricting. It quite inovative and very fair and quite frankly ought to be the model that should be followed by all the states.

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...2zxthH5Lg40ErQ

    If my state of California redistricted like Iowa does then I would be just fine with allocating elctorial votes according to district and award the overall winner the two congresional electorial votes. In fact I would prefer the system.
    That I could support.
    There should be Instant Runoff Voting

  4. #64
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Are the Republicans trying to rig a presidential election?

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    I've already mentioned mining and farming. Of course cities can't sustain itself! Nobody made that argument. The argument made was the value created in cities makes up the majority of wealth created in this country. There's nothing that disproves that.
    But again, without what the rural provides the urban can create no value to make up wealth. The reverse is not true however, rural areas can be self-sustaining.

  5. #65
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,158

    Re: Are the Republicans trying to rig a presidential election?

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    But again, without what the rural provides the urban can create no value to make up wealth. The reverse is not true however, rural areas can be self-sustaining.
    Sure....rural areas can be self-sustaining as they were for centuries. You seem to be wanting to claim one is "better" than another. As if the fact we could all be subsistence farmers threading our own clothes and bartering in a township proves some superiority. Large scale production requires large numbers of people. Large supply chains are more efficient when grouped together. The urbanization of the US occured at the same time as the industrialization of the US.

    One is not superior to another or has any added morality or some nonesense. I stated that urban areas are the main centers for the creation of wealth...because they are! They always have been! Since man first started grouping together in cities they have been the main engine for the advancement of civilization!
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

  6. #66
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Are the Republicans trying to rig a presidential election?

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    Sure....rural areas can be self-sustaining as they were for centuries. You seem to be wanting to claim one is "better" than another. As if the fact we could all be subsistence farmers threading our own clothes and bartering in a township proves some superiority. Large scale production requires large numbers of people. Large supply chains are more efficient when grouped together. The urbanization of the US occured at the same time as the industrialization of the US.

    One is not superior to another or has any added morality or some nonesense. I stated that urban areas are the main centers for the creation of wealth...because they are! They always have been! Since man first started grouping together in cities they have been the main engine for the advancement of civilization!
    Well, since I'm speaking from my own views, one IS superior, because it can sustain itself. But on balance the problem lies when the rural wanes in strength and the urban rules. Long term success of the society relies on a strong rural element. Erode that and the urban gradually (and sometimes not so gradually) decays and the society collapses.

    It should be noted that we have urbanized to the very zenith of our rural sector's ability to support at a time when our rural sector is rapidly declining. In other words, the canary in the mine has gone silent.

  7. #67
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,158

    Re: Are the Republicans trying to rig a presidential election?

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Well, since I'm speaking from my own views, one IS superior, because it can sustain itself. But on balance the problem lies when the rural wanes in strength and the urban rules. Long term success of the society relies on a strong rural element. Erode that and the urban gradually (and sometimes not so gradually) decays and the society collapses.

    It should be noted that we have urbanized to the very zenith of our rural sector's ability to support at a time when our rural sector is rapidly declining. In other words, the canary in the mine has gone silent.
    In what way? Where people chose to live or how they grouped are a result of economic factors moreso than anything else. Large agricultural farms have replaced individual farming. It's efficient and has led to the highest increase in agricultural output per acre than ever in the history of mankind. "Rural" mining areas boom and bust based upon minerals found and prices. This idea that there's some morale depravity or failure of a civilization because of them grouping is just not correct. Chinese civilization have been grouped in massive cities on their coasts for thousands of years. Their civilization is still going strong.

    The nostalgia over rural areas is just tradition based wariness of change. My family grew up on farms (parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, etc). All their children live in urban areas because that's where the jobs are. There's no moral decay, no loss of anything besides the ability to have a big cheap house with more property.
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

  8. #68
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Are the Republicans trying to rig a presidential election?

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    In what way? Where people chose to live or how they grouped are a result of economic factors moreso than anything else. Large agricultural farms have replaced individual farming. It's efficient and has led to the highest increase in agricultural output per acre than ever in the history of mankind. "Rural" mining areas boom and bust based upon minerals found and prices. This idea that there's some morale depravity or failure of a civilization because of them grouping is just not correct. Chinese civilization have been grouped in massive cities on their coasts for thousands of years. Their civilization is still going strong.
    Last point first, that's not accurate. Though the Chinese did establish large cities and maintained them for centuries, they also kept a larger rural sector to support those cities.

    I didn't address any sort of moral corruption, though, with more time on their hands city dwellers generally fall prey more easily to the idle hands being the devil's workshop thing. But that's just my two cents and not at all meant as authoritative.

    And finally, the first point is devastatingly incorrect. Though we have reached a high point in yield per acre, we do so by borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. The petro-based fertilizers we use leech nitrogen (among other things) into the streams and rivers, then into the ocean. This chokes out the native fish species, and in some cases creates huge dead zones in the ocean. So an important food source is compromised and we NEED to get even more from our farming operations to make up. More fertilizer - more dead zones, less fish - more fertilzer necessary. Rinse, repeat.

    Not to mention we've totally forgotten the lessons of the dust bowl and even worse doubled down on the area, population and farming wise. It's about time historically for that drought cycle to hit again like the early 30s.

    These are just a couple of the problems, and there are many.

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    The nostalgia over rural areas is just tradition based wariness of change. My family grew up on farms (parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, etc). All their children live in urban areas because that's where the jobs are. There's no moral decay, no loss of anything besides the ability to have a big cheap house with more property.
    When you lose track of how the things you rely upon to survive on a daily basis are grown and manufactured, you guarantee your own eventual doom as a society. Large rural areas are required for the urban areas to survive. Continuing to have a large rural sector isn't nostalgia but survival.

  9. #69
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,158

    Re: Are the Republicans trying to rig a presidential election?

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Last point first, that's not accurate. Though the Chinese did establish large cities and maintained them for centuries, they also kept a larger rural sector to support those cities.
    Due to inefficient methods of farming comparative to what we have now. They have had large urban areas for thousands of years. Those urban areas were the center of their civilization just as in the Western world it's Athen, Rome, Paris, London etc that were the center of Western civilization. There's nothing about urbanization that leads to civilization decay. It's the opposite.

    I didn't address any sort of moral corruption, though, with more time on their hands city dwellers generally fall prey more easily to the idle hands being the devil's workshop thing. But that just my two cents and not at all meant as authoritative.
    Well I disagree they have more time on their hands....when the majority of individuals were farming in rural areas the majority of individuals in industrial town were pulling 14 hour + shifts.

    And finally, the first point is devastatingly incorrect. Though we have reached a high point in yield per acre, we do so by borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. The petro-based fertilizers we use leech nitrogen (among other things) into the streams and rivers, then into the ocean. This chokes out the native fish species, and in some cases creates huge dead zones in the ocean. So an important food source is compromised and we NEED to get even more from our farming operations to make up.
    Sure...I'll give you that but it's not incorrect. Do you honestly think that people eat more if their grouped together? That food output would have to be less if people lived in rural areas? In fact I'd argue the opposite, people would need more calories to farm their own food.

    Not to mention we've totally forgotten the lessons of the dust bowl and even worse doubled down on the area population and farming wise. It's about time historically for that drought cycle to hit again like the early 30s.
    Sure...and what was the impact on a much more rural nation? It doesn't matter where anybody lives. If the midwest dustbowl situation occures it will have a huge impact.

    When you lose track of how the things you rely upon to survive on a daily basis are grown and manufactured, you guarantee your own eventual doom as a society. Large rural areas are required for the urban areas to survive. Continuing to have a large rural sector isn't nostalgia but survival.
    Can you build a computer from scratch? Can you build a care from scratch? Do you know how build a house from scratch? Specialization is one of the key componants of a modernizing economy. Sure everybody can do their own thing ranchers/farmers and they would have a better chance of surviving some global catosrophe but the country/economy would be drastically different. Urbanization is the result of changing economic factors.
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

  10. #70
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,158

    Re: Are the Republicans trying to rig a presidential election?

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Last point first, that's not accurate. Though the Chinese did establish large cities and maintained them for centuries, they also kept a larger rural sector to support those cities.

    I didn't address any sort of moral corruption, though, with more time on their hands city dwellers generally fall prey more easily to the idle hands being the devil's workshop thing. But that's just my two cents and not at all meant as authoritative.

    And finally, the first point is devastatingly incorrect. Though we have reached a high point in yield per acre, we do so by borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. The petro-based fertilizers we use leech nitrogen (among other things) into the streams and rivers, then into the ocean. This chokes out the native fish species, and in some cases creates huge dead zones in the ocean. So an important food source is compromised and we NEED to get even more from our farming operations to make up. More fertilizer - more dead zones, less fish - more fertilzer necessary. Rinse, repeat.

    Not to mention we've totally forgotten the lessons of the dust bowl and even worse doubled down on the area, population and farming wise. It's about time historically for that drought cycle to hit again like the early 30s.

    These are just a couple of the problems, and there are many.



    When you lose track of how the things you rely upon to survive on a daily basis are grown and manufactured, you guarantee your own eventual doom as a society. Large rural areas are required for the urban areas to survive. Continuing to have a large rural sector isn't nostalgia but survival.
    I'd like to point out....I don't agree with you but it's one of the more interesting conversations I've had on this site in awhile.
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •