modern life is bullshit

[Jimjam]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

News tells you all the bad

Life is actually pretty good

Wholesome!

[Ooloo]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There are countless residents of states solidly controlled by the opposing party who are utterly disenfranchised. The solution isn't to join another state, it's to get rid of the Senate and electoral college, so representation can be based on votes, not on arbitrary geographical designations.

Regarding Greater Idaho, I honestly have no objection to the red areas of eastern Oregon and Washington joining Idaho. Will make it that much easier to govern the different blue and red areas how they prefer to be governed. Might as well throw in northern Nevada and a few parts of Northern California as well, so Nevada will be solidly blue instead of purple.

By this logic you might as well break down the entire country by household. Each household can be a separate state!

The electoral college exists for a very good reason, which is that life in los angeles and nyc is completely different than life in rural nebraska. The geographic designations aren't arbitrary at all. The founding fathers understood this, which is why our country is not a pure democracy. Pure democracy is just mob rule.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Ooloo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

By this logic you might as well break down the entire country by household. Each household can be a separate state!

The electoral college exists for a very good reason, which is that life in los angeles and nyc is completely different than life in rural nebraska. The geographic designations aren't arbitrary at all. The founding fathers understood this, which is why our country is not a pure democracy. Pure democracy is just mob rule.

This is nonsense lol, the electoral college has roots in realpolitik during the formation of the union and its early years, used for various reasons such as enticing small or sparsely populated states into the union, and dealing with the balance of power between slave states and northern states during the era of the 3/5 compromise.

Eliminating the electoral college isn't pure democracy, it's still a representative republic, except the representatives and president are actually chosen by votes of equal power, rather than a Democrat in Georgia's vote being worth 1000x more than a Republican in California.

Stop pretending like it's about anything other than giving disproportionate power to voters in empty states. Yes, rural and metropolitan voters have different issues, but that doesn't mean rural voters should be given power over metropolitan voters. You seem happy with the belief that the electoral college 'protects' rural life, but you don't seem to give a fuck about what effect having presidents and senators chosen by a handful of ranchers in Wyoming has on the places where everyone actually lives, nor do you take issue with the fact that there are more Republicans in California than the entire Midwestern United States, and all their votes mean absolutely nothing.

[aussenseiter]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is nonsense lol, the electoral college has roots in realpolitik during the formation of the union and its early years, used for various reasons such as enticing small or sparsely populated states into the union, and dealing with the balance of power between slave states and northern states during the era of the 3/5 compromise.

Eliminating the electoral college isn't pure democracy, it's still a representative republic, except the representatives and president are actually chosen by votes of equal power, rather than a Democrat in Georgia's vote being worth 1000x more than a Republican in California.

Stop pretending like it's about anything other than giving disproportionate power to voters in empty states. Yes, rural and metropolitan voters have different issues, but that doesn't mean rural voters should be given power over metropolitan voters. You seem happy with the belief that the electoral college 'protects' rural life, but you don't seem to give a fuck about what effect having presidents and senators chosen by a handful of ranchers in Wyoming has on the places where everyone actually lives, nor do you take issue with the fact that there are more Republicans in California than the entire Midwestern United States, and all their votes mean absolutely nothing.

Iirc Bernie Sanders is one of the most overrepresented Senators or however you phrase that.

[Patriam1066]

Originally Posted by Tnair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Not academic but the book Shogun is a fun intro to the period
Anything by Daisetz Suzuki is good, and also for yet more English perspective on Japanese culture you could check out Kokoro by Lafcadio Hearn

Thanks!

[Lune]

Originally Posted by aussenseiter [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Iirc Bernie Sanders is one of the most overrepresented Senators or however you phrase that.

Yup. Vermont should not have equal power with Texas in any of the three branches of government. 647,000 people with the ability to enforce their will on a country of 333 million, given the right conditions. The Senate is a dinosaur and it's no wonder our country is stagnating and utterly incapable of reform.

[Toxigen]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yup. Vermont should not have equal power with Texas in any of the three branches of government. 647,000 people with the ability to enforce their will on a country of 333 million, given the right conditions. The Senate is a dinosaur and it's no wonder our country is stagnating and utterly incapable of reform.

maple syrup tho

[aussenseiter]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yup. Vermont should not have equal power with Texas in any of the three branches of government. 647,000 people with the ability to enforce their will on a country of 333 million, given the right conditions. The Senate is a dinosaur and it's no wonder our country is stagnating and utterly incapable of reform.

Vermont won't like you altering the deal.

[Ooloo]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is nonsense lol, the electoral college has roots in realpolitik during the formation of the union and its early years, used for various reasons such as enticing small or sparsely populated states into the union, and dealing with the balance of power between slave states and northern states during the era of the 3/5 compromise.

Eliminating the electoral college isn't pure democracy, it's still a representative republic, except the representatives and president are actually chosen by votes of equal power, rather than a Democrat in Georgia's vote being worth 1000x more than a Republican in California.

Stop pretending like it's about anything other than giving disproportionate power to voters in empty states. Yes, rural and metropolitan voters have different issues, but that doesn't mean rural voters should be given power over metropolitan voters. You seem happy with the belief that the electoral college 'protects' rural life, but you don't seem to give a fuck about what effect having presidents and senators chosen by a handful of ranchers in Wyoming has on the places where everyone actually lives, nor do you take issue with the fact that there are more Republicans in California than the entire Midwestern United States, and all their votes mean absolutely nothing.

Did you know there are elections that aren't national?!

Seriously, do you actually think ranchers in wyoming have outsized influence in national elections? That's what keeps you up at night? Yes, their votes are weighted more heavily because there are way fewer of them. It's meant as a counterbalance, so that urban centers don't dictate the outcome of every single national election.

[unsunghero]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There are countless residents of states solidly controlled by the opposing party who are utterly disenfranchised

I dunno, I imagine many of the disenfranchised choose to leave. The only ones that remain are probably ones that can’t afford to

Would you choose to remain in an area surrounded by those vehemently against your politics?

I guess another reason people choose to tough it out in a state surrounded by the opposite political party is that there are a lot more unsocial shut ins these days, and a lack of overall community

I was just reminiscing with a co-worker how when we were kids we knew the names of every kid and adult in every house on our block. We’d have block parties too. Now with the advent of endless screen time, no one cares to know their neighbors anymore