Be careful - you can get shot/killed anywhere/anytime

[djAdvocate]

not a fan of Coulter but she is right.  this issue, the way the GOP is running it, is a disaster for them.  that is not me, Mr. Liberal, say that.  it is ANN FUCKING COULTER.

[chiver78]

link
I'm gonna just leave this one here. curious what the pro-birth 2A posters might have to say. 

[pulmonarymd]

Just another responsible government in owner sacrifice at the alter of the second amendment. I am sure she is proud to be of use for the cause.

The tree of liberty requires its blood sacrifice from time to time

[scgal]

Jun 25, 2023 22:39:03 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

link
I'm gonna just leave this one here. curious what the pro-birth 2A posters might have to say. 

[scgal]

Jun 26, 2023 10:33:17 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 25, 2023 22:39:03 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

link
I'm gonna just leave this one here. curious what the pro-birth 2A posters might have to say. 

just what do you think I'm going to say has nothing to do with responsible gun ownership

[pulmonarymd]

Cases like this happen far too often. Too many people are irresponsible. But god forbid we try to put any regulations in place to educate people in responsible ownership or attempt to prevent those who will be irresponsible from owning guns

[scgal]

Jun 23, 2023 14:26:54 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

Jun 23, 2023 14:12:21 GMT -5 scgal said:

That is why anti-abortionist have to work extra hard. 40% is still alot of people. If your not worried then why all the hoopla

Because the minority is taking away the rights of the majority!

That is why we are a republic and not a democracy. 

[djAdvocate]

Jun 26, 2023 19:15:07 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 23, 2023 14:26:54 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

Because the minority is taking away the rights of the majority!

That is why we are a republic and not a democracy. 

as a general rule, republics that don't serve the interests of the majority don't last very long.  there are rare exceptions, of course.  but not many.

[dondubble]

Jun 26, 2023 19:15:07 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 23, 2023 14:26:54 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

Because the minority is taking away the rights of the majority!

That is why we are a republic and not a democracy. 

Is that really why we are a republic? So the minority can take away the rights of the majority?

[djAdvocate]

Jun 27, 2023 13:03:29 GMT -5 dondubble said:

Jun 26, 2023 19:15:07 GMT -5 scgal said:

That is why we are a republic and not a democracy. 

Is that really why we are a republic? So the minority can take away the rights of the majority?

kind of a waste of effort, when you can have a fascist do the same thing.

of course, that is the same conclusion that the GOP came to.

all of this voting bullshit?  it all goes away.

[Empire the P.A.]

Thought being a pool cleaner would be a low risk job? Think again. 

Man Accused of Firing 30 AR-15 Rounds at Pool Cleaner He Thought Was An Intruder

After the first two shots the pool cleaner booked it out of there. The homeowner continued shooting after the man was gone. So 28 of the 30 rounds were what, warning shots to not to come back 

[pulmonarymd]

Sounds like he is going to need to find a new pool cleaner. Although he might have a little trouble finding ones with all the publicity.

[Tennesseer]

[scgal]

Jun 27, 2023 13:03:29 GMT -5 dondubble said:

Jun 26, 2023 19:15:07 GMT -5 scgal said:

That is why we are a republic and not a democracy. 

Is that really why we are a republic? So the minority can take away the rights of the majority?

The majority doesn't have any more rights than the minority? That is why there has to be an electoral college small states should have as much say as large states.

[billisonboard]

Jun 28, 2023 8:12:30 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 27, 2023 13:03:29 GMT -5 dondubble said:

Is that really why we are a republic? So the minority can take away the rights of the majority?

The majority doesn't have any more rights than the minority? That is why there has to be an electoral college small states should have as much say as large states.

You are saying that voters in lower population states should individually have more say than voters individually in higher population states?

[dondubble]

Jun 28, 2023 8:12:30 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 27, 2023 13:03:29 GMT -5 dondubble said:

Is that really why we are a republic? So the minority can take away the rights of the majority?

The majority doesn't have any more rights than the minority? That is why there has to be an electoral college small states should have as much say as large states.

I don’t think you answered the questions.

[tallguy]

Jun 28, 2023 8:12:30 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 27, 2023 13:03:29 GMT -5 dondubble said:

Is that really why we are a republic? So the minority can take away the rights of the majority?

The majority doesn't have any more rights than the minority? That is why there has to be an electoral college small states should have as much say as large states.

Are you asking that as a question?  Trying to state that of course the majority has more rights than the minority?  Your meaning is very unclear, but if I were to guess I would bet you have everything backwards from what it should be.  

Either way, you are also wrong on the electoral college.  It greatly distorts the power of the vote, massively over-representing small states at the expense of large states and diminishing the vote of individual citizens in large states.  And why, pray tell, should a state have a say at all in national elections?  Voters vote.  States should not.

[scgal]

Jun 28, 2023 8:59:12 GMT -5 dondubble said:

Jun 28, 2023 8:12:30 GMT -5 scgal said:

The majority doesn't have any more rights than the minority? That is why there has to be an electoral college small states should have as much say as large states.

I don’t think you answered the questions.

Noone is taking away right just making sure everyone has the same right.

[scgal]

Jun 28, 2023 9:05:02 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jun 28, 2023 8:12:30 GMT -5 scgal said:

The majority doesn't have any more rights than the minority? That is why there has to be an electoral college small states should have as much say as large states.

Are you asking that as a question?  Trying to state that of course the majority has more rights than the minority?  Your meaning is very unclear, but if I were to guess I would bet you have everything backwards from what it should be.  

Either way, you are also wrong on the electoral college.  It greatly distorts the power of the vote, massively over-representing small states at the expense of large states and diminishing the vote of individual citizens in large states.  And why, pray tell, should a state have a say at all in national elections?  Voters vote.  States should not.

That is not a good idea. A small state should have the same power as a large state. The large state shouldn't have more power than a small state. The way it is, is correct

[billisonboard]

Jun 28, 2023 9:27:42 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 28, 2023 8:59:12 GMT -5 dondubble said:

I don’t think you answered the questions.

Noone is taking away right just making sure everyone has the same right.

Jun 28, 2023 9:30:55 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 28, 2023 9:05:02 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Are you asking that as a question?  Trying to state that of course the majority has more rights than the minority?  Your meaning is very unclear, but if I were to guess I would bet you have everything backwards from what it should be.  

Either way, you are also wrong on the electoral college.  It greatly distorts the power of the vote, massively over-representing small states at the expense of large states and diminishing the vote of individual citizens in large states.  And why, pray tell, should a state have a say at all in national elections?  Voters vote.  States should not.

That is not a good idea. A small state should have the same power as a large state

[/b]. The large state shouldn't have more power than a small state. The way it is, is correct[/quote] In the first post you identify the individual. In the second a political entity. You have to violate the first principle to support the second.

[pulmonarymd]

Jun 28, 2023 9:30:55 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 28, 2023 9:05:02 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Are you asking that as a question?  Trying to state that of course the majority has more rights than the minority?  Your meaning is very unclear, but if I were to guess I would bet you have everything backwards from what it should be.  

Either way, you are also wrong on the electoral college.  It greatly distorts the power of the vote, massively over-representing small states at the expense of large states and diminishing the vote of individual citizens in large states.  And why, pray tell, should a state have a say at all in national elections?  Voters vote.  States should not.

That is not a good idea. A small state should have the same power as a large state. The large state shouldn't have more power than a small state. The way it is, is correct

Yet a vote in Wyoming is more powerful than a vote in California under the current system, and you seem to have no problem with that

[tallguy]

Jun 28, 2023 9:30:55 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 28, 2023 9:05:02 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Are you asking that as a question?  Trying to state that of course the majority has more rights than the minority?  Your meaning is very unclear, but if I were to guess I would bet you have everything backwards from what it should be.  

Either way, you are also wrong on the electoral college.  It greatly distorts the power of the vote, massively over-representing small states at the expense of large states and diminishing the vote of individual citizens in large states.  And why, pray tell, should a state have a say at all in national elections?  Voters vote.  States should not.

That is not a good idea. A small state should have the same power as a large state. The large state shouldn't have more power than a small state. The way it is, is correct

You apparently have zero understanding of how this all works.  As it is, small states have a greatly distorted power compared to large states.  Voters in small states have more power than voters in large states.  Foe example, a vote in Wyoming is effectively worth three times as much as a vote in California.  I did a post months ago, comparing California by itself against a group of the smaller states.  I'll try to find it, but it should illuminate the issue nicely.

[Tennesseer]

Jun 28, 2023 9:30:55 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 28, 2023 9:05:02 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Are you asking that as a question?  Trying to state that of course the majority has more rights than the minority?  Your meaning is very unclear, but if I were to guess I would bet you have everything backwards from what it should be.  

Either way, you are also wrong on the electoral college.  It greatly distorts the power of the vote, massively over-representing small states at the expense of large states and diminishing the vote of individual citizens in large states.  And why, pray tell, should a state have a say at all in national elections?  Voters vote.  States should not.

That is not a good idea. A small state should have the same power as a large state. The large state shouldn't have more power than a small state. The way it is, is correct

Should a state with a population of 581,381 (Wyoming) be able to override the rights (via Electoral College) of a state with a population of 39,029,342 (California)?

No. Very small population states should not have the same power as large population states. More citizens are affected by a bad Electoral College vote in large states than small.

[tallguy]

Jun 28, 2023 9:42:22 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jun 28, 2023 9:30:55 GMT -5 scgal said:

That is not a good idea. A small state should have the same power as a large state. The large state shouldn't have more power than a small state. The way it is, is correct

You apparently have zero understanding of how this all works.  As it is, small states have a greatly distorted power compared to large states.  Voters in small states have more power than voters in large states.  Foe example, a vote in Wyoming is effectively worth three times as much as a vote in California.  I did a post months ago, comparing California by itself against a group of the smaller states.  I'll try to find it, but it should illuminate the issue nicely.

Here it is.  In response to another poster making the same incorrect argument:

The population of California is roughly 39 million. The population of the U.S. is around 332 million as I recall. We will have to assume that the percentage of eligible voters is uniform for any calculation to have any meaning, but that means that California contains about 11.75% of the population in this country. California receives 55 electoral votes. Given that the total is 538, that means that California accounts for only 10.22% of the electoral votes available. Large-population states always subsidize small-population states. That is just the way it works, and it ALWAYS works that way. It has to because of the way the system is set up. Wyoming, for example, basically has each individual vote count for three times as much as a vote in California. It is an odd calculation to make, figuring how many individual votes cast in the state per electoral vote received by the state, but no way in hell does California or any other large-population state gain an advantage at the expense of smaller states. It is clearly and unambiguously the other way around.



ETA: Because the idea is so wrong, I went ahead and did another calculation to illustrate it more fully. California's population of 39 million-plus is roughly two million more than the total combined population of the smallest 21 states plus the District of Columbia. California receives 55 electoral votes. Those other 22 voting populations receive a total of 95 electoral votes. Small states are OVER-REPRESENTED by dozens of electoral votes. 

[chiver78]

Jun 28, 2023 9:41:58 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Jun 28, 2023 9:30:55 GMT -5 scgal said:

That is not a good idea. A small state should have the same power as a large state. The large state shouldn't have more power than a small state. The way it is, is correct

Yet a vote in Wyoming is more powerful than a vote in California under the current system, and you seem to have no problem with that

you think she's going to have a problem with a red state voter having a larger say than a blue state voter? 

[pulmonarymd]

Jun 28, 2023 10:08:06 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Jun 28, 2023 9:41:58 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Yet a vote in Wyoming is more powerful than a vote in California under the current system, and you seem to have no problem with that

you think she's going to have a problem with a red state voter having a larger say than a blue state voter? 

I am under no illusion that she cares. If it was the other way around, and her precious gun rights were under assault, she would sing a different tune. She worries about the tyranny of the majority, when what we have now is the tyranny of the minority

[scgal]

Jun 28, 2023 9:52:51 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jun 28, 2023 9:42:22 GMT -5 tallguy said:

You apparently have zero understanding of how this all works.  As it is, small states have a greatly distorted power compared to large states.  Voters in small states have more power than voters in large states.  Foe example, a vote in Wyoming is effectively worth three times as much as a vote in California.  I did a post months ago, comparing California by itself against a group of the smaller states.  I'll try to find it, but it should illuminate the issue nicely.

Here it is.  In response to another poster making the same incorrect argument:

The population of California is roughly 39 million. The population of the U.S. is around 332 million as I recall. We will have to assume that the percentage of eligible voters is uniform for any calculation to have any meaning, but that means that California contains about 11.75% of the population in this country. California receives 55 electoral votes. Given that the total is 538, that means that California accounts for only 10.22% of the electoral votes available. Large-population states always subsidize small-population states. That is just the way it works, and it ALWAYS works that way. It has to because of the way the system is set up. Wyoming, for example, basically has each individual vote count for three times as much as a vote in California. It is an odd calculation to make, figuring how many individual votes cast in the state per electoral vote received by the state, but no way in hell does California or any other large-population state gain an advantage at the expense of smaller states. It is clearly and unambiguously the other way around.



ETA: Because the idea is so wrong, I went ahead and did another calculation to illustrate it more fully. California's population of 39 million-plus is roughly two million more than the total combined population of the smallest 21 states plus the District of Columbia. California receives 55 electoral votes. Those other 22 voting populations receive a total of 95 electoral votes. Small states are OVER-REPRESENTED by dozens of electoral votes. 

For this very reason is why it needs to be this way. 1 state no matter how many people are in that state should not have more votes than 22 other states combined. You cannot have just the metropolitan areas have a super majority say over everything. The system is correct. 

[billisonboard]

Jun 28, 2023 11:19:29 GMT -5 scgal said:

For this very reason is why it needs to be this way. 1 state no matter how many people are in that state should not have more votes than 22 other states combined. You cannot have just the metropolitan areas have a super majority say over everything. The system is correct. 

It is reality that the Electoral College gives more voting power to individuals in smaller population states than those in larger population states. scgal , are you good with that being allowed? It is a necessary consequence to your goal of smaller state empowerment. You suggest you are good with it but I am not seeing you state it specifically. I can respectfully disagree with it but not if you are unwilling to own it.

[scgal]

Jun 28, 2023 11:57:05 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 28, 2023 11:19:29 GMT -5 scgal said:

For this very reason is why it needs to be this way. 1 state no matter how many people are in that state should not have more votes than 22 other states combined. You cannot have just the metropolitan areas have a super majority say over everything. The system is correct. 

It is reality that the Electoral College gives more voting power to individuals in smaller population states than those in larger population states. scgal , are you good with that being allowed? It is a necessary consequence to your goal of smaller state empowerment. You suggest you are good with it but I am not seeing you state it specifically. I can respectfully disagree with it but not if you are unwilling to own it.

Large states should not be overshadowing smaller states. The system is fair as it can be

[billisonboard]

Jun 28, 2023 12:11:24 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jun 28, 2023 11:57:05 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

It is reality that the Electoral College gives more voting power to individuals in smaller population states than those in larger population states. scgal , are you good with that being allowed? It is a necessary consequence to your goal of smaller state empowerment. You suggest you are good with it but I am not seeing you state it specifically. I can respectfully disagree with it but not if you are unwilling to own it.

Large states should not be overshadowing smaller states. The system is fair as it can be

_wow