Page 2 of 2 [ 20 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 28 Jun 2022
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 154
Location: US

14 Nov 2022, 11:05 am

DeathFlowerKing wrote:
I did not. Why bother? We're so far gone there is no helping this country anymore. :D

Besides I don't like either Democrat Raphael Warnock or Republican Herschel Walker. They both beat on their wives apparently. :|

Ah yes, lets equivocate Warnock with Walker. /s

Walker is on another level when it comes to violent behavior. His own kids who are MAGA are telling people not to vote for him.

Worst I can say about Warnock is he is a pastor who gets like $10,000 a month housing allowance. He's a fake Christian, he likes the attention and especially likes that housing allowance. Real Christians don't run for office and be a pastor at the same time. The Bible is pretty clear about mixing religion with earthly power. Still, I voted for him.

I live in Georgia and you got another chance.

One will vote for policies that benefit people who earn salaries.

One will vote for policies that benefit people who pay salaries.

The country is not far gone. If we are "far gone," then point out a country that is doing great! I hate to tell you, we are doing better than any other country with >100 million people. I can point out some smaller countries that seem more desirable to live but I'm hard pressed to come up with a country in that population class that doesn't have worse issues. Japan is doing so great their citizens aren't making babies and they ain't letting us in either.

The future of America is bright.

Sea Gull
Sea Gull

Joined: 20 Dec 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 237
Location: Santa Maria, CA

15 Nov 2022, 6:32 pm

I was thinking about when YouTubers say to upvote their video because it helps their channel. I don't believe my individual upvote does anything, but I will do it anyway if I actually like the video.

I have no such affection for politicians. Generally speaking, I can't listen to a politician of either side for more than 10 seconds without it making my skin crawl. It's that rhetorical manner of speaking that I guess is very convincing to others and very off-putting to me.

ToughDiamond wrote:
I live in the USA, and have to pay local taxes to a degree, and purchase tax in full, but they don't let me vote because I'm only a Green Card holder so far. So I'm taking the liberty of posting here, and I'll desist if the OP politely asks me to...

Your opinion is welcome :). As are those of everyone else who replied.

kraftiekortie wrote:
I believe the right to vote is something which is fundamental.

If we didn't have that right, there would still be kings/dictators ruling over us.

If it is known that a whole group will not vote, that group will be taken for granted.

We must use the power of the ballot.

kraftiekortie wrote:
If we lose the right to vote, we are sunk.

AnonymousAnonymous wrote:
...I also believe the right to vote is essential to keep the US political system in check and if the right to vote is taken away, the US could become a worse dystopia than it is as of now.

What does anyone's personal decision not to vote have to do with taking away the right to vote? Nobody has advocated that in this thread. You may do whatever you want with your "power of the ballot."

AnonymousAnonymous wrote:
I voted and Tina Kotek won Oregon's Gubernatorial Race.

She is now Oregon's first lesbian governor. :D

If I lived in Oregon, I would not have voted and the outcome would have been the same.


User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,806

15 Nov 2022, 8:45 pm

Seems about right to me. I don't upvote people's work on YouTube because I didn't know I could, and I possibly can't because I always use Invidious to see the videos and don't have an account with YouTube, for privacy reasons. But I'd consider it if I could do it.


User avatar

Joined: 1 Sep 2022
Gender: Male
Posts: 568

17 Nov 2022, 4:21 am

naturalplastic wrote:
Worthless wrote:
ToughDiamond wrote:


Neither The House of Representatives nor The Senate are elected by proportional representation. The main difference between the two is the House is based on districts that contain a certain amount of people (or the entire state if there are few enough people). Where as, the Senate is a state wide position and each state has two with only up to one up for election at a time. Originally, Senators where not elected directly by voters and were in were chosen by state government.

Youre contradicting yourself.

You said that the House is NOT based upon proportional representation.

And then you say that Reps to the House are elected from local districts laid out to contain roughly the same number of voters. Ergo members DO represent comparable population sizes. Therefore the House IS "proportional" to population size.

Youre right that the Senate has nothing to do with proportionality. Each state gets two senators regardless of its population size. But youre wrong in your assertion (but right in what you demonstrated that contradicts your assertion) that the House IS proportional (states with greater population size do get more reps).

No, I did not contradict myself.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what concepts were being discussed.

My understanding and what I was answering is that "elected by proportional representation" rather than "first past the goal" is referring to a system of election practiced in some other nations such as the UK in which people vote for a party, NOT a politician. The representation is the alloted based on what percentage of the vote each party received. Then, the party with the most seats, or a coalition of parties, votes for the new Prime Minister.