Displaying 1 - 10 of 3702 Forum Posts1 2 3 4 5 Next
  • Nov 19, 2016 11:41 AM
    Last: 3hr
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: The 12 step rehabilitation program has a very smart point. It says something like "there are things you can do something about and things you can't. The ones you can't you don't worry about." Look how many times the electoral college has elected the minority candidate. If people by now aren't smart enough to think of something to win those small population states then maybe they don't deserve the office. The reason it is impossible to get enough votes to get rid of the electoral college is ultimately representatives realize the bad effects by getting rid of it. Without representation those small states would not get any recognition. Cut back or elimination of government programs. Once the logic of the most people getting the most representation the apportioning of Senators would get attacked. Why should California with 39,000,000 people get only two votes just like Wyoming with 585,000 .

    Your argument makes zero sense. Swing states are not and never have been low population states.

    If that were the case then candidates would be spending time in Montana, Wyoming, and North Dakota.

    No one is calling for the elimination of the Senate, a place where small states are able to play a big role. What we are calling for is the elimination of a system that allows the will of the majority of the country to be thwarted by a handful of so called swing states.

    Do you understand the difference?

  • May 27, 2017 01:41 PM
    Last: 4hr

    No need to make it personal just because I don't agree with everything you say.

    Oh - and I used to work in healthcare...over ten years ago. Then I worked as a social worker, college admissions counselor, and eventually as a website administrator.

    I actually put my money where my mouth is and interact with people who don't think exactly like me both by the friends I keep and by volunteering many hours for various not for profits in Oregon.

    You don't know me outside of the confines of this website.

  • Jun 20, 2017 06:40 PM
    Last: 3hr
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Paying a person more money may not make a more responsible person but it will attract a different class of person. Pay more and people will want to protect their employment more.

    There is literally zero empirical or peer reviewed evidence to back this claim up. None whatsoever.

    In fact, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. But, hell...why should facts matter when your feelings are more important?!

    Social workers aren't social workers because they enjoy making $10/hour; they are social workers because they want to help people. Sure, they would love to make more money, but they will continue to be social workers regardless. The same goes with teachers. They are teachers because they love teaching kids.

    I'm all for dramatically increasing social workers and teachers incomes (you seem to forget I was a social worker for five years), but social workers and teachers aren't doing what they do because they are a "different class of person." They are doing what they do because they want to make a difference in peoples lives.

    Why do coal miners and plumbers make more than social workers and teachers? Shouldn't the real question be figuring out where our nations priorities lie? Is someone who unclogs your toilet more valuable than someone who teaches our nations youth?

  • Nov 19, 2016 11:41 AM
    Last: 3hr
    Dutch Wrote:

    Shaking my old head; I've been hammering on this forever. But yeah like Schmidt says "this country" as well the naive stupid population does not want such change, because they only want changes which harms them, like electing Trump.

    Thus we will be stuck with the "electoral college" forever as well the "second Amendment" and some other stupid laws or non-laws, like not "vetting" an President, protecting the lobby system; pouring in billions into elections so you can corrupt it; protecting the healthcare industry, so they can get rich over your dead body; giving tax breaks to the rich instead of the poor or middle class; refusing an sliding scale of taxing etc. A lot has to change in this country to make it livable for the common people.

    How do you suggest we get rid of the electoral college outside of passing a new amendment to the Constitution?

    We get it. You don't like our Constitution. But what are you suggesting we do? Ignore it?

    I want nothing more than to get rid of the Electoral College, but I also understand that would require the passage of a new amendment to the Constitution. And if so called liberals can't bother to get off their ass to vote in Federal elections then why should anyone expect them to take time out of their busy day to actually vote to get rid of the Electoral College they profess to hate?

    If people actually got off their ass and voted for once then maybe we would have a federal government that reflects the will of the people. But when people vote for candidates who could never win or, even worse, don't vote at all, then we get the government we deserve.

    Republicans are good at one thing - getting their people out to vote no matter how shitty their candidate is. That's because Republicans would rather vote for the devil himself than a Democrat. Democrats, on the other hand, would rather vote for someone who never stands a chance of winning because they just can't bring themselves to vote for someone who doesn't share 100% of their political views. How is that working out for us?

  • May 27, 2017 01:41 PM
    Last: 4hr
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: jaredsxtn, You said you will compromise on tax policy. What would be a compromise you would make. What would you be willing to give up or change regarding tax policy?

    There are all sorts of compromises that could be made on tax policy.

    I'm someone who is happy to pay more taxes, but I also want that money to be spent wisely.

    Here's a possible compromise I would be able to stomach - raising the maximum taxable income for Social Security from $127,200 to $5,000,000 and then lowering the federal income tax rate for higher earners. The trust fund would get a massive inflow of cash it desperately needs to continue delivering monthly checks to the 76 million baby boomers and the wealthy wouldn't see a massive increase in their overall tax rate.

    That's called a compromise. A compromise is when both sides get some of what they want and some of what they don't want.

    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Do you think Obama's Social Security concession was a compromise or attack on civil rights?

    Ummm, no. A chained consumer price index is not an attack on civil rights. Or did I miss the freedom rides protesting the chained CPI proposal? Seriously man...get a grip.

    Regardless, President Obama removed the proposal from his 2014 budget proposal and it never became law under his watch.

  • May 27, 2017 01:41 PM
    Last: 4hr
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: The U.S. Is Number One -- But in What?

    The country is tops when it comes to violence and weapons exports but ranks low in healthcare and education.

    I was more so talking about us being a melting pot that welcomes in individuals and families from throughout the world. Or how entrepreneurs in this country invented the very things that allow you to criticize this country on any given day. Or how, no matter our current trials and tribulations, we are still the number one! country that people from nearly every nation in this world want to live in.

    We have our problems, but what country of over 300 million people doesn't? One thing that drives me nuts when certain people compare us to Europe is that Europe is a damn continent; not a country. It is a continent filled with prosperous and poor countries, but it is still a damn continent and each country is able to chart their own path.

    It's different here because we are a country (not a continent!) of well over 300 million people who have different philosophies, beliefs, and goals.

    Do you understand how it might be a wee bit more difficult to govern a country of over 300 million people than it is to govern a country of 3 million people and why learning to compromise with those you disagree with might be a better path than just telling everyone else that you know what is best for them?

    I won't compromise when it comes to civil rights, but I will compromise when it comes to tax policy. I won't compromise when it comes to keeping Church and State separate, but I still respect those who believe in a higher power.

    The list goes on and on, but this whole "my way or the highway" bullshit has to stop.

  • May 27, 2017 01:41 PM
    Last: 4hr
    Dutch Wrote: Please ask Schmidt what an banana republic is; he worked in one!!!

    A banana republic is when a country is predominately dependent on the exportation of a single (or very few) product(s) or resource(s) that a private corporation then exploits. The term was coined by William Sydney Porter to lament the way the United Fruit Company had a stranglehold on small Central-American countries and how they exploited those nations workforce's.

    Based off that definition, I'd hardly call the United States a banana republic.

    Dutch Wrote: Just an question; why are you defending everything here? While the whole world is laughing at us;

    I'm the first one that will say our country has a plethora of issues we have to deal with. Where you lose me is when you make it seem like America is the only country that has a plethora of issues we have to deal with.

    I've never defended "everything here" and am quite critical of many of the things my government has done in my name. I was against the Iraq War before it was cool to be against the Iraq War. I was for gay marriage before it was cool to be for gay marriage. And I was raging against the prison-industrial complex before it was cool to rage against the prison-industrial complex.

    I also love my country and see the good our citizens can do. I see my fellow citizens marching in the streets to protest this President and I see my fellow citizens standing up against hate and bigotry wherever they see it. I also see my fellow citizens volunteering at soup kitchens, homeless shelters, Boy's and Girl's Clubs, and teaching immigrant children how to speak English.

    We're all just one of over 300 million people just trying to get by in this world and it offends me when you belittle people who don't think exactly like you, or who happen to vote for someone you don't like, or have the audacity to worship a higher power. And I'm an atheist who doesn't believe in a higher power!

    That's my point, Dutch. This country is not a monolith and not everyone who lives here is a narcissist who thinks their shit doesn't stink. Not every person who votes for someone you don't like is a terrible person who wants to tear down our country. And not every person who believes in a higher power is a stupid idiot who should be publicly shamed.

    I encourage you to learn how to respect people who don't agree with everything you think.

    Dutch Wrote: I read most of the European news papers which indeed think this country is an other Rome.

    Empires rise and empires fall. If America is in its waning days as the worlds only empire then so be it, but I'd caution you to be careful what you wish for. The period between an empires demise and rise of a new one has always been filled with unthinkable bloodshed. And that was before the nuclear age where nine nations possess 16,300 weapons that can wipe out all of humanity in an instant.

    Dutch Wrote: Are you that indoctrinated?

    The real question should be why are you so indoctrinated against the country that welcomed you with open arms and provided a great life for you and your family?

  • Nov 19, 2016 11:41 AM
    Last: 3hr

    I'm resurrecting this thread because it frustrates me to no end when threads are hijacked and turned into something that the original thread has nothing to do with.

    Here's my two cents.

    I hate the electoral college because I don't like that the will of the people can be overruled by a handful of so called swing states. The President should be directly elected by the people of all 50 states and not the people in a handful of swing states. The system encourages Presidential candidates to completely ignore the vast majority of the country and instead focus all of their attention on a select few "special" states that will decide the election.

    I also understand that it would take a Constitutional Amendment to do away with the electoral college and that it is extremely unlikely to ever happen because the system as we now have it heavily favors the Republican Party. Why in the world would the Republicans ever shoot themselves in the foot and actually allow the people to decide who our leader would be?!

  • Jun 14, 2017 08:40 AM
    Last: 4d
    Schmidt Wrote: We are way off topic, so I hope we can move on.

    Me too.

    I'm not surprised one bit that this is already out of the news. The Republicans are sucking of the teat of the NRA so much that having one of their own members nearly killed in a mass shooting won't even get them to pass even the most token of gun regulations.

    Hell, I won't be surprised if they go the opposite direction and pass a bill that allows gun toting rednecks to open carry their AR-15 any and everywhere they damn well please. As we all know, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is an anti-government survivalist who has a hero complex with a gun.

  • Jun 14, 2017 08:40 AM
    Last: 4d
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: You don't have to read my post more carefully, just read all of it.

    This is coming from someone who selectively picks and chooses sentences (and sometimes even sentence fragments) to respond to while at the same time ignoring anything that makes your arguments look silly.

    Here's a guess - you're going to ignore this response because you know it's true.