Two weeks later, u/pizzashill gets arrested for throwing bricks while protesting Trump. His defense at the trial? "I don't care about the law, I care about being right."
A few months later, in prison, u/pizzashill is debating the finer points of involuntary fellatio with some of the inmates. His bold strategy? "I don't care who has the shiv, I care about being right."
In a surprise twist, he would ultimately be vindicated when the prison gang later agreed that the resultant beating and sodomy of u/pizzashill just felt more right somehow that on anybody else, and he would wind up becoming the prison queens favorite ladyboy.
Never back down, u/pizzashill! As Dave Chappelle says, you need to "Keep It Real", no matter what.
That's an interesting position, especially coming from you. So if somebody voted for Trump primarily because they are threatened by violent Antifa and want to see those violent assholes in jail, what mental gymnastics would you deploy to look down on them?
You realize this is the same mental gymnastics morons used to justify voting for Nazis, right?
Nazis have never threatened me or my friends. Antifa have. What's moronic about voting in your own interests?
How'd that turn out? "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE IM GOING TO BURN MY OWN COUNTRY TO THE GROUND BECAUSE AN ANARCHIST TOSSED A BOTTLE IN MY DIRECTION."
I don't see the country burning to the ground, but I do see a lot of violent people like the ones who threatened me getting hurt or jailed. How is that a bad thing? I thought we both agreed that violence is wrong, so destroying violent groups like antifa is awesome. Maybe you need to clarify what "burning my country to the ground" looks like. From here it looks like more jobs, a healthy stock market, and putting our mooching "allies" in their place.
You realize right-wing domestic terrorism is far more common than any other form of domestic terrorism, right?
Say, how many people has antifa killed? Are there roaming squads of antifa formed into milita groups armed with rifles walking around the streets?
Maybe you need to clarify what "burning my country to the ground" looks like. From here it looks like more jobs, a healthy stock market, and putting our mooching "allies" in their place.
Lmao, this is hilarious. You genuinely believe Trump isn't a profoundly ignorant moron and incompetent clown, don't you?
Look, I'd love to have this discussion with you, but anyone that believes the things you just claimed is so detached from reality it's pointless.
It's a worldview that isn't driven by anything other than indoctrination in right-wing echo chambers. Trump has very seriously reduced the standing of this country globally and is an international embarrassment.
i remember him saying "the best way to troll is to say things you actually believe" which in his case seems to be retardo establishment cosmopolitanism
What are you worried about? he would have beat trump,
Hillary was an awful candidate with an awful campaign,
Higher taxes on the rich and even the middle class would displace healthcare costs on employers and individuals.
If the US organized its healthcare system on economies of scale that every other nation has developed they could likely have the lowest prices in the world as producers risk losing a 300 million block of consumers if they are unable to satisfy the gov't in price competition.
You have trump now because no one in america wants neolibs anymore. The repubs have so many state and municipal legislatures that they are on the edge of being capable of rewriting the constitution.
Lets be fair here champ, The way the right and the neolibs frame universal healthcare is economically impossible flies in the face of the irl healthcare systems that exist all over the developed world.
I think you have trouble seeing a difference from clinton dems and the sanders wing of the party, which is fine.
The clinton campaign utilized identity politics over class politics that you obviously have an issue with which is fair because it often boils down to anti-white people rhetoric and racism.
You support the right wing of the country, but that is the party of right to work legislation and trickle down economics, but still believe them to be the vanguard of the working class?
Like the right loves the working class!The economic policies of Trump and the republicans would devastate working class people while benefiting the only real ''parasites'', the rich. Just look at his proposed budget and the healthcare law that failed that would have thrown 32 millions people off health insurance.
Every policy has positive effects in one area and negative effects in another. That is why they are called "policies" and why we choose for or against them.
/u/Pizzashill, how does it feel knowing your commie grandpa own 3 houses including a $600,000 "vacation" home, is in the top 3.8 percent of U.S. households in terms of wealth yet only paid 13.5% in taxes? How would you argue this doesn't make him a hypocrite given he earned all that through (((capitalism)))? Do you ever feel like you got conned?
I always forget what /u/GearyDigit's deal is and so I accuse him of being an insane tranny and then he has to remind me that he is actually a dragon-furry.
It really wouldn't be that hard. He's a sperg who goes along with all of reddit's circle-jerks. So he probably gets upvoted for being crazy in a lot of anti-trump threads.
The Bernouts are still everywhere though. Besides the neolib sub, there aren't many people that would defend Hillary over Sanders on reddit. Look at /u/pizzashill, I think he might of died from typing exhausting.
Yeah, I see dozens more Bernouts in the wild daily than I see hillbots even in the joke that is /r/hillaryclinton. I just enjoy watching the butthurt from kids that think their whining is going to somehow reverse time.
Still, there are a plenty that think Hillary would have won if not for Sanders "stealing" her "thunder". Those are the ones we're talking about. Not near as many, but they're much more as assblasted than the average Dem.
Did you see all those Bernie gone Hilldawg types after the election? When the Trumpoids started flooding /r/politics and asked 'How come there's so much negative shit on Hillary now? CTR is gone!'
There were loads of Bernie boys who admitted to keeping all criticism of Hillary to themselves so she'd have a better chance of winning. Now they could finally speak out again, they said. Imagine deluding yourself so hard that you think your slacktivism on reddit would have any outcome on the election at all.
I was doing a lot of work out of town around that time so I wasn't on here much, but In retrospect, that actually explains a lot about just what changed for those few weeks. Sounds smart at first, but then you realize just how sad it really is. It's funny how much you can miss here in a matter of a week or 2.
There were loads of Bernie boys who admitted to keeping all criticism of Hillary to themselves so she'd have a better chance of winning. Now they could finally speak out again, they said. Imagine deluding yourself so hard that you think your slacktivism on reddit would have any outcome on the election at all.
This really seems more like people coming up with a rationalization for the mindless "I voted for the winner" / "I never liked the loser" thing that they will do
Did anyone except for Lena Dunham really like Hillary though? Seemed more like a lesser of two evils/at least we know she's experienced/we need a female PotUS reasons.
As a person she was a pandering sell out and as an ideologist she wanted to maintain the equilibrium. That's just me talking though. There will always be some idiots who think a career politician is worthy of respect for some reason.
I don't tend to get excited about politicians but Hillary seemed fine. Certainly I thought the criticisms of her were wildly overblown to the point of insanity, and seemed like people making excuses for the real reasons they disliked her.
Actually its (((Bernie))), [[[Hillary]]] is a whole different organization, confusing the Zionists and lizard people isn't a mistake you should make so easily, especially under the rule of \\Trump///
Are we talking stuff like giving certain groups 3/5th of the vote for example, or breaking down it all the way to individuals, with voting power proportional to individual wealth?
I mean, that's the implication of pointing out the "high-output vs low-output voter divide" in the context of whining about how Hillary should have won, isn't it?
I do love drama about abolishing the electoral college. I mean all you would need is for 2/3 of the house, 2/3 of the senate, and 2/3 of state legislatures to sign off on it. Convincing all of those small states to vote to give themselves (and the people they represent) less power because it's more fair should be a breeze.
It's literally not gay to slightly over half the population. And if we convert half of the men to traps then it will not be gay for 75% of the population because traps aren't gay. I think we could get 75%+ that would vote on dick sucking being purely heterosexual.
It's literally not gay to slightly over half the population. And if we convert half of the men to traps then it will not be gay for 75% of the population because traps aren't gay. I think we could get 75%+ that would vote on dick sucking being purely heterosexual.
Should the 3.3 million people in Montana/ND/SD/Wyoming get the same number of seats in the electoral college as Washington's 6.3 million? To me that's completely ridiculous.
Your whole country is ridiculous. You have these mean nothing states full of rednecks that refuse to implement anything resembling sane tax policy, so they rely on federal handouts to make up for all the taxes they don't collect, handouts which are taken from the revenue streams of states that aren't completely fucking retarded(chiefly NY and Cali and Texas). Then you give these same places all sorts of government facilities and projects that make their economy look better than it is. Then you still aren't done you let the citizens of these states that are basically leeching off the productive ones a bigger say in your presidential election than the ones that actually keep your economy running.
TBH Los Angeles and New York City should have more say. They are basically paying for the South anyways.
You're wasting your time broski, rural people in this country literally believe each one of them is worth 5x as much as someone that lives in new york or cali.
The rural bias in our electoral system is beyond absurd and it's outdated.
We've had to fight tooth and nail to make the system more fair and it's still hilariously onesided:
The state legislatures there also grew significantly less representative as America urbanized. In 1961, when lawyers in Tennessee brought what would be a seminal case before the Supreme Court challenging the practice, the state legislature had not reapportioned its districts to reflect population change in 60 years. Maryland was still using districts drawn in 1867.
Even states that had constitutions requiring equal population districts were ignoring them. Florida, Georgia and New Mexico gave small counties 100 times the voting power of the most populous ones. Decades ago in California, Amador County (population 14,294) had the same representation in the stateβs Senate as Los Angeles County (with a population over six million).
βThey justified it because that was a cultural norm; it was just the way things were,β said Stephen Ansolabehere, a Harvard professor of government. Rural legislators had no incentive to change a system that favored them. βThey just let it keep getting worse. Youβre in power. Why change?β
By the mid-20th century, no state approximated majority rule. America at the time, Dr. Ansolabehere and James M. Snyder Jr. wrote in their book βThe End of Inequality,β had some of the most unequal representation in the world. A series of Supreme Court cases beginning with that Tennessee complaint upended this system and established the standard that equal representation means βone person, one vote.β Not one town, one vote. Or one county, one senator. Only the United States Senate, protected by the Constitution, remained unchanged.
me: It's not about being nice really. It's about the fear that their interests would be considered unimportant. And people confirming their belief.
you: The exact opposite of what you're claiming is true.
sooo.... what you're saying is something like "It's about being nice really. It's not about the fear that their issues would be considered unimportant. And nobody really think that"?
Without the electoral college large cities like NYC, LA, Chicago, Baltimore, Houston, Dallas, etc etc would be the only places truly worth campaigning in. It would be a completely broken system that would give free reign to one political side for the rest of eternity. FYI the US is a republic so fucking get over it.
They weren't ignored unless their electoral votes weren't counted. (they were) The only people dumb enough to make their vote worthless are those who do so by not voting. Also just because WP confirms your bias, it doesn't mean what they say is fact. The U.S. is a republic, it always has been.
Read the first sentence and read on the right under "Government." I know, I know wikipedia, sources are all there though so feel free to educate yourself you fucking moron.
Holy shit, are you retarded? READ YOUR OWN FUCKING LINK YOU HIGH SCHOOL DROP OUT.
The United States is the world's oldest surviving federation. It is a representative democracy, "in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law".[348] The government is regulated by a system of checks and balances defined by the U.S. Constitution, which serves as the country's supreme legal document.[349] For 2016, the U.S. ranked 21st on the Democracy Index[350] (tied with Italy) and 18th on the Corruption Perceptions Index.[351]
The United States of America (USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S.) or America (/ΙΛmΙrΙͺkΙ/), is a federal republic[19][20] composed of 50 states
Government: Federal presidential constitutional republic
A distinct set of definitions for the word republic evolved in the United States. In common parlance, a republic is a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather has a government indirectly controlled by the people.
Dude, you're dumb as fuck. It's no wonder dipshits like you seriously want to get rid of the electoral college. The United States has never been a direct democracy.
Anyway, have fun with your coalition of California/New York and their bordering states. Sorry the rest of the country gets to have an opinion on things.
What representation? The absolute majority of campaiging, absolute majority, completely not even comparable, was done in just FOUR states out of fifty.
Do you really think places like Wyoming, Montana, or Vermont would have more power with a popular vote? I wasn't talking about where the campaigning was done.
I was talking about how much of an input those states got as far as who would be president.
Yes, of course? Popular vote + no first past the post by state means that your vote matters the exact same no matter where you are. I don't understand why people who defend electoral college for some fuckshit reason still claim that it gives electoral power to states where presidential candidates don't even bother with stump speeches.
I'm not saying the electoral college is the best system, I'm saying it's in the constitution and states are not likely to vote to give themselves less of a say in who becomes president. Which is what it would take. And when you say people have a right to be represented, but not states... the writers of the constitution specifically disagreed with you on that point, and good luck changing it now. Too many people have a strategic interest in it staying the same.
This is so fucking stupid and I have no idea why people think it's an argument. It makes absolutely no sense. It has absolutely nothing to do with how popular vote systems actually work. Fffffffuck I am so sick of seeing smug idiots say this shit and get treated like they're smart
There's actually a viable end run around it. Enough states just have to get together and agree to allocate their electoral votes to whoever wins the national popular vote.
There are still problems, though, as it needs some swing & Republican-leaning states to pass it (Republicans believe they are entitled to rule while being less popular, based on weird constitutional quirks) and I expect a Republican Supreme Court would strike it down for purely partisan reasons (ditto.) But it's still closer to happening than constitutional amendments.
I'm pretty sure that he could have. He just would have done slightly better among the white working class in the rust belt, and he would have been President.
I don't care about winning elections, I care about being right.
Hahaha, this is glorious. u/pizzashill, you're like one of those people I refused to believe to exist, who would agree that one-boxing me will end up rich and they poor if we ever participated in the Newcomb's experiment, and yet firmly insist that two-boxing is the "correct" choice.
Rural people have way too much political power. Land is not more important than people.
Well, for starters, this. The idea that rural people don't, or shouldn't, count is extremely dangerous. These are the people that are working farmland raising crops/livestock that you and I put on our tables daily.
I understand that you may not think their voices should count, but their needs being addressed by the government (local, state, and federal) is vital for the continued success of our nation.
That said, because there are a lot less people in rural areas, their voices do need to be weighted or idiots like you will run roughshod over them and the next thing we know we have another Dustbowl and a fuck ton more people die this time than last time.
Well, for starters, this. The idea that rural people don't, or shouldn't, count is extremely dangerous.
So to be clear here, you've managed to twist me saying rural people have disproportionate political power and that's wrong, into me saying rural people don't matter?
These are the people that are working farmland raising crops/livestock that you and I put on our tables daily.
Lol?
I understand that you may not think their voices should count
Let's copy paste this again:
So to be clear here, you've managed to twist me saying rural people have disproportionate political power and that's wrong, into me saying rural people don't matter?
Nice try.
but their needs being addressed by the government (local, state, and federal) is vital for the continued success of our nation.
Except their voices are heard, they have very seriously disproportionate political power. I'm baffled as to how you've managed to twist what I said this bad, you're either retarded or a troll.
That said, because there are a lot less people in rural areas, their voices do need to be weighted or idiots like you will run roughshod over them and the next thing we know we have another Dustbowl and a fuck ton more people die this time than last time.
I see, so rural people matter, but urban people don't. Rural people DESERVE to have a vote worth 4x as much as an urban person, of course.
So it's not me saying someone doesn't matter - it's you, because it's you trying to defend an extreme rural bias in our political system.
So to be clear here, you've managed to twist me saying rural people have disproportionate political power and that's wrong, into me saying rural people don't matter?
I hate you pizzashill, but I love you pizzashill. No i didn't take my medicine today I need to argue with nerds about politics on reddit for at least 12 hours and my medication would get in the way of my goals.
Nope I honestly have no idea what the posted thread is about since I don't really care about the content of linked drama threads just the comments. So I linked some contradicting quotes you made in this thread and voila. Here we are.
Eh, if I'm remembering correctly the only other place similar to the Great Plains in the U.S. are the Russian Steppes, so there's really not anything to compare it with.
Right, the only two countries with farmland are the United States and Russia. And the Tsardom of Putin curiously uses proportional representation instead of properly venerating their farmers and hillbillies.
Wonder why Vlad hasn't changed over to the vastly superior American system yet...
The Great Plains are a unique national resource unlike any in the world
Eh, if I'm remembering correctly the only other place similar to the Great Plains in the U.S. are the Russian Steppes
Not what I said.
Only farmers understand how to manage and maintain the Great Plains
I never mentioned or implied that. However I would assert that after the Dust Bowl, it was necessary for both the farmers and the government to work together to properly manage production on the plains, since part of the cause was overproduction of wheat and removal of drought resistant grasses.
Therefore farmers should get more control over the political system in the form of their votes being weighted more heavily
Never said that either, but if we modify the current system and remove anything that helps a state of 3.3 million people, like Iowa, have an equal voice with states that have cities with the same population as "flyover states", I feel like we could be welcoming other preventable disasters.
it is an economic nonsense to think that the farming sector, which is a tiny part of america's overall economy, is somehow uniquely important and vital
the large majority of rural people are not farmers and the large majority of farmers are economically marginal. US ag output is dominated by a minority of massive, capital-intensive farms, not by the sentimental mom-and-pop operations that people use to justify malapportionment
there's little basis for thinking that giving farmers more political power actually leads to better farm policy; a look at California's water issues, for instance, suggests that it may be the opposite way around
it is an economic nonsense to think that the farming sector, which is a tiny part of america's overall economy, is somehow uniquely important and vital
I didn't say anything about economics, per se. I was talking about how the productivity of the Great Plains helps sustain the nation with their production of goods.
the large majority of rural people are not farmers and the large majority of farmers are economically marginal. US ag output is dominated by a minority of massive, capital-intensive farms, not by the sentimental mom-and-pop operations that people use to justify malapportionment
Be that as it may, the vast majority of agriculture in the US is done in the Great Plains. Even if 99.9% of it is done by massive corporations, the surrounding population makes their living by supporting the companies, hence their welfare is still vital to the country.
there's little basis for thinking that giving farmers more political power actually leads to better farm policy
I never said we should give them more political power, did I? I said that we should make sure that there's a system in place to make sure that their concerns are also heard. Considering that roughly 2/3 of the country lives within 100 miles of the coast, it's easy to understand how they forget about some poor schmuck in Nebraska when they open a can of corn.
a look at California's water issues, for instance, suggests that it may be the opposite way around
No that's just California fucking over Colorado for decades. I can't wait for CO to tell them to fuck off. Cali sucks.
I didn't say anything about economics, per se. I was talking about how the productivity of the Great Plains helps sustain the nation with their production of goods.
why would we even expect that malapportionment somehow prevents people from voting selfishly, it makes no logical sense
there is no actual observable trend out in the world for countries that lack american-syle greivous malapportionment to fall apart because of selfish-goodie-voting
malapportionment in the american system was never seen as a bulwark against populism; it was recognized at the time as a deviation from the ideal, motivated to protect specific factional interests (ie slavery) not some timeless principle
202 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2017-08-28
You're not shit next to me. My genes are just light years superior to yours and I don't even need to look at you.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 I_EAT_GUSHERS 2017-08-28
n'lady
1 menvaren 2017-08-28
Liberals.txt
1 bluesummityay 2017-08-28
Repiblicans.txt
1 nonplussed__ 2017-08-28
he seriousposts here like all the time, he's at least serious on some level
1 menvaren 2017-08-28
bluesummityay.txt
1 ExtreemWeenie 2017-08-28
technocrat uprising when
1 MakeAmericaSageAgain 2017-08-28
Let's get all of us "I fucking love science"-bros together. We can do this reddit!
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-28
When they get robotic exoskeletons for their tiny arms.
1 PM_ME_FREE_FOOD 2017-08-28
Kill yourself
1 ExtreemWeenie 2017-08-28
damn when did you fucks get internet access?
1 heavenlytoaster 2017-08-28
The exact opposite of the trump strategy.
Bold move
1 wolfdreams01 2017-08-28
Two weeks later, u/pizzashill gets arrested for throwing bricks while protesting Trump. His defense at the trial? "I don't care about the law, I care about being right."
A few months later, in prison, u/pizzashill is debating the finer points of involuntary fellatio with some of the inmates. His bold strategy? "I don't care who has the shiv, I care about being right."
In a surprise twist, he would ultimately be vindicated when the prison gang later agreed that the resultant beating and sodomy of u/pizzashill just felt more right somehow that on anybody else, and he would wind up becoming the prison queens favorite ladyboy.
Never back down, u/pizzashill! As Dave Chappelle says, you need to "Keep It Real", no matter what.
1 pizzashill 2017-08-28
Attacking people violently is never right.
1 wolfdreams01 2017-08-28
That's an interesting position, especially coming from you. So if somebody voted for Trump primarily because they are threatened by violent Antifa and want to see those violent assholes in jail, what mental gymnastics would you deploy to look down on them?
1 pizzashill 2017-08-28
I'd honestly just laugh at them for being stupid enough to think antifa is a relevant threat.
You realize this is the same mental gymnastics morons used to justify voting for Nazis, right?
How'd that turn out?
1 wolfdreams01 2017-08-28
Nazis have never threatened me or my friends. Antifa have. What's moronic about voting in your own interests?
I don't see the country burning to the ground, but I do see a lot of violent people like the ones who threatened me getting hurt or jailed. How is that a bad thing? I thought we both agreed that violence is wrong, so destroying violent groups like antifa is awesome. Maybe you need to clarify what "burning my country to the ground" looks like. From here it looks like more jobs, a healthy stock market, and putting our mooching "allies" in their place.
1 pizzashill 2017-08-28
You realize right-wing domestic terrorism is far more common than any other form of domestic terrorism, right?
Say, how many people has antifa killed? Are there roaming squads of antifa formed into milita groups armed with rifles walking around the streets?
Lmao, this is hilarious. You genuinely believe Trump isn't a profoundly ignorant moron and incompetent clown, don't you?
Look, I'd love to have this discussion with you, but anyone that believes the things you just claimed is so detached from reality it's pointless.
It's a worldview that isn't driven by anything other than indoctrination in right-wing echo chambers. Trump has very seriously reduced the standing of this country globally and is an international embarrassment.
1 DeepDickedHillybilly 2017-08-28
/u/pizzashill you really take effort shitposting to the next level
1 MajorPrick 2017-08-28
Umm, I.. I think he's actually being serious. Please tell me I'm wrong?
Please?
I mean, I know we have some dumb people in this sub, myself included, but this is just too much to take serious.
ΰ² _ΰ²
1 glmox 2017-08-28
i remember him saying "the best way to troll is to say things you actually believe" which in his case seems to be retardo establishment cosmopolitanism
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-28
He has a point there. It's what I do, and people always accuse me of trolling.
1 grungebot5000 2017-08-28
the dullest and safest of all cults
1 glmox 2017-08-28
for now
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-08-28
LOOK AT HOW NORMIE I AM
HEY GUYS, LOOK I'M A NORMIE
1 nmx179 2017-08-28
u/pizzashill you pretty obviously don't care about being right though.
You care about treating other people with sneering contempt.
Being "right" is just the excuse you've given yourself for doing that.
1 Teresa_May 2017-08-28
Tbf, contempt is all the proles really deserve.
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-28
I'm still not sure how leftists and neolibs justify hating the working class while also courting the votes of the lumpenprole parasites.
1 pizzashill 2017-08-28
I don't hate the "working class" I hate rural people.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-08-28
Amen.
1 Grammar-Bolshevik 2017-08-28
links all healthcare systems across the developed world
1 pizzashill 2017-08-28
The fact you think Bern is economically illiterate because of healthcare is hilarious.
1 OnlyRacistOnReddit 2017-08-28
Well, we agree about that.
1 conspiracy_edgelord 2017-08-28
Yeah, he was gonna plant all those damn money trees.
1 Grammar-Bolshevik 2017-08-28
What are you worried about? he would have beat trump,
Hillary was an awful candidate with an awful campaign,
Higher taxes on the rich and even the middle class would displace healthcare costs on employers and individuals.
If the US organized its healthcare system on economies of scale that every other nation has developed they could likely have the lowest prices in the world as producers risk losing a 300 million block of consumers if they are unable to satisfy the gov't in price competition.
You have trump now because no one in america wants neolibs anymore. The repubs have so many state and municipal legislatures that they are on the edge of being capable of rewriting the constitution.
1 Grammar-Bolshevik 2017-08-28
Lets be fair here champ, The way the right and the neolibs frame universal healthcare is economically impossible flies in the face of the irl healthcare systems that exist all over the developed world.
The problem they have is ideology.
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-28
"I want to genocide all blue collar people because they don't recognize my gender, but but but free college and free healthcare"
1 djakake 2017-08-28
"I want to genocide all blue collar people because they have less money than me, but but but unborn fetuses are SACROSANCT"
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-28
what
1 djakake 2017-08-28
Keep Yourself Safe
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-28
Unless I am a fetus? What?
1 Grammar-Bolshevik 2017-08-28
I think you have trouble seeing a difference from clinton dems and the sanders wing of the party, which is fine.
The clinton campaign utilized identity politics over class politics that you obviously have an issue with which is fair because it often boils down to anti-white people rhetoric and racism.
You support the right wing of the country, but that is the party of right to work legislation and trickle down economics, but still believe them to be the vanguard of the working class?
I don't see how you can really reconcile that.
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-28
It's very simple, really: Americans are not Marxists.
1 ekk22 2017-08-28
Like the right loves the working class!The economic policies of Trump and the republicans would devastate working class people while benefiting the only real ''parasites'', the rich. Just look at his proposed budget and the healthcare law that failed that would have thrown 32 millions people off health insurance.
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-28
"Just look at [random policy]! It proves that my enemy hates the working man, whereas my calls to genocide Michigan just prove my love for it."
1 ekk22 2017-08-28
random policy that has destructive effects and i didn't call to genocide anyone wtf
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-28
Every policy has positive effects in one area and negative effects in another. That is why they are called "policies" and why we choose for or against them.
1 ekk22 2017-08-28
what were the positive effects of trump's healthcare reform?
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-28
Killing a giant give-away to the insurance industry.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-28
The working class votes by a strong margin for the leftist/neolib party dummy
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-28
Oh, ok. That explains why lefties and neolibs keep wishing for them to die this year.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-28
any π group π can π be π made π to π look π dumb π by π highlighting π its π dumbest π members π
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-28
My group can't be dumb. We have an undergraduate degree.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-28
Hospitality Management?
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-28
Disrupting Gender Paradigms
1 MajorPrick 2017-08-28
/u/Pizzashill, how does it feel knowing your commie grandpa own 3 houses including a $600,000 "vacation" home, is in the top 3.8 percent of U.S. households in terms of wealth yet only paid 13.5% in taxes? How would you argue this doesn't make him a hypocrite given he earned all that through (((capitalism)))? Do you ever feel like you got conned?
1 accounttttttttttt 2017-08-28
damn /u/pizzashill is cancerous
full disclosure: i'm a neo nazi radfem bernie supporter
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-28
I'm an Augustan Fascist TERF MAGA-American. Pleased to meet you.
1 aqouta 2017-08-28
You've outed yourself, any true MAGAmerican would know you can't separate MAGA from America in spelling.
1 wabbit_1444 2017-08-28
u/pizzashil is either a troll or a fucking loser. Who the hell has enough time to get triple digits comment karma with a 7 month old account?
1 DeepDickedHillybilly 2017-08-28
holy shit, you mean 6 digit comment karma, and yes that's an unprecedented level of faggotry
I'd rather jerk off to dragon poor /u/GearyDigit style than have a 7 month old account with 120,000+ comment karma
1 MajorPrick 2017-08-28
Pinging the twink supreme of SRS in an completely unrelated post? I couldn't approve of this more!!! ππ
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-28
I always forget what /u/GearyDigit's deal is and so I accuse him of being an insane tranny and then he has to remind me that he is actually a dragon-furry.
1 botchlings 2017-08-28
I vote for both.
1 ThatDamnedImp 2017-08-28
It really wouldn't be that hard. He's a sperg who goes along with all of reddit's circle-jerks. So he probably gets upvoted for being crazy in a lot of anti-trump threads.
1 froibo 2017-08-28
When has going against Bernie ever been a circle jerk?
1 MajorPrick 2017-08-28
Since the day (((Hilary))) got the nomination and everyone was ordered to get the fuck in line or else.
1 froibo 2017-08-28
The Bernouts are still everywhere though. Besides the neolib sub, there aren't many people that would defend Hillary over Sanders on reddit. Look at /u/pizzashill, I think he might of died from typing exhausting.
1 MajorPrick 2017-08-28
Yeah, I see dozens more Bernouts in the wild daily than I see hillbots even in the joke that is /r/hillaryclinton. I just enjoy watching the butthurt from kids that think their whining is going to somehow reverse time.
Still, there are a plenty that think Hillary would have won if not for Sanders "stealing" her "thunder". Those are the ones we're talking about. Not near as many, but they're much more as assblasted than the average Dem.
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-28
I don't think many of the Reddit Hillarymen were ever real. Their antics were always very robotic.
1 MajorPrick 2017-08-28
Based on most her crowd sizes, you're probably right
1 MakeAmericaSageAgain 2017-08-28
Did you see all those Bernie gone Hilldawg types after the election? When the Trumpoids started flooding /r/politics and asked 'How come there's so much negative shit on Hillary now? CTR is gone!'
There were loads of Bernie boys who admitted to keeping all criticism of Hillary to themselves so she'd have a better chance of winning. Now they could finally speak out again, they said. Imagine deluding yourself so hard that you think your slacktivism on reddit would have any outcome on the election at all.
1 MajorPrick 2017-08-28
I was doing a lot of work out of town around that time so I wasn't on here much, but In retrospect, that actually explains a lot about just what changed for those few weeks. Sounds smart at first, but then you realize just how sad it really is. It's funny how much you can miss here in a matter of a week or 2.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-28
This really seems more like people coming up with a rationalization for the mindless "I voted for the winner" / "I never liked the loser" thing that they will do
1 MakeAmericaSageAgain 2017-08-28
Did anyone except for Lena Dunham really like Hillary though? Seemed more like a lesser of two evils/at least we know she's experienced/we need a female PotUS reasons.
As a person she was a pandering sell out and as an ideologist she wanted to maintain the equilibrium. That's just me talking though. There will always be some idiots who think a career politician is worthy of respect for some reason.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-28
I don't tend to get excited about politicians but Hillary seemed fine. Certainly I thought the criticisms of her were wildly overblown to the point of insanity, and seemed like people making excuses for the real reasons they disliked her.
I mean, come on, when you see people saying she's too centrist establishment and compromised by the financial industry, so what we really need to do is draft Joe Biden instead, something funny is going on there.
1 MakeAmericaSageAgain 2017-08-28
That is definitely funny, but Americans are a funny people.
1 pizzashill 2017-08-28
I don't like Clinton, she's still better than Sanders.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-28
*deep breath* ACKSHUALLY
1 aqouta 2017-08-28
Actually its (((Bernie))), [[[Hillary]]] is a whole different organization, confusing the Zionists and lizard people isn't a mistake you should make so easily, especially under the rule of \\Trump///
1 PM_ME_FREE_FOOD 2017-08-28
Yo /u/pizzashill, mind breaking down that "high output vs. low output" down to individuals, instead of geographic location?
1 Works_of_memercy 2017-08-28
Are we talking stuff like giving certain groups 3/5th of the vote for example, or breaking down it all the way to individuals, with voting power proportional to individual wealth?
1 PM_ME_FREE_FOOD 2017-08-28
Dude what
1 Works_of_memercy 2017-08-28
I mean, that's the implication of pointing out the "high-output vs low-output voter divide" in the context of whining about how Hillary should have won, isn't it?
1 PM_ME_FREE_FOOD 2017-08-28
No
1 HodorTheDoorHolder 2017-08-28
Rural Midwesterners need to be part of the mayocide.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-08-28
THIS.
Amen brother
1 mrmcdude 2017-08-28
I do love drama about abolishing the electoral college. I mean all you would need is for 2/3 of the house, 2/3 of the senate, and 2/3 of state legislatures to sign off on it. Convincing all of those small states to vote to give themselves (and the people they represent) less power because it's more fair should be a breeze.
1 Ranilen 2017-08-28
Isn't there some way we can just ignore the constitution when we really, really want to?
1 mrmcdude 2017-08-28
Yeah. But it involves fighting another civil war or inventing a time travel device.
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-28
Yes, we can! When it is something that 75% of us agree on, more or less.
But, since we can't even get 75% of people to agree that sucking dicks is gay, it ain't gonna happen.
1 aqouta 2017-08-28
It's literally not gay to slightly over half the population. And if we convert half of the men to traps then it will not be gay for 75% of the population because traps aren't gay. I think we could get 75%+ that would vote on dick sucking being purely heterosexual.
1 aqouta 2017-08-28
It's literally not gay to slightly over half the population. And if we convert half of the men to traps then it will not be gay for 75% of the population because traps aren't gay. I think we could get 75%+ that would vote on dick sucking being purely heterosexual.
1 CC3940A61E 2017-08-28
everyone knows new york city and los angeles are the only important parts of the country, obviously they should have all the say.
1 OhNoHesZooming 2017-08-28
Should the 3.3 million people in Montana/ND/SD/Wyoming get the same number of seats in the electoral college as Washington's 6.3 million? To me that's completely ridiculous.
Your whole country is ridiculous. You have these mean nothing states full of rednecks that refuse to implement anything resembling sane tax policy, so they rely on federal handouts to make up for all the taxes they don't collect, handouts which are taken from the revenue streams of states that aren't completely fucking retarded(chiefly NY and Cali and Texas). Then you give these same places all sorts of government facilities and projects that make their economy look better than it is. Then you still aren't done you let the citizens of these states that are basically leeching off the productive ones a bigger say in your presidential election than the ones that actually keep your economy running.
TBH Los Angeles and New York City should have more say. They are basically paying for the South anyways.
1 pizzashill 2017-08-28
You're wasting your time broski, rural people in this country literally believe each one of them is worth 5x as much as someone that lives in new york or cali.
The rural bias in our electoral system is beyond absurd and it's outdated.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/upshot/as-american-as-apple-pie-the-rural-votes-disproportionate-slice-of-power.html?mcubz=0
We've had to fight tooth and nail to make the system more fair and it's still hilariously onesided:
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-08-28
LOLCOW AHOY
1 pizzashill 2017-08-28
"I have no valid argument and can't refute a single thing you said."
1 eggman_fauntleroy 2017-08-28
USA is a republic, not a democracy, you want democracy, move to Brazil
1 pizzashill 2017-08-28
No, the US is a democracy, I know what you just typed is the uneducated internet tard response to my argument, but it's wrong:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/
1 ikitomi 2017-08-28
Gerrymandering good
High pop density counties bad
t. Zardoz
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-28
"republic not a democracy" is like the ultimate, pure expression of "a dumb person's idea of what a smart person sounds like"
1 eggman_fauntleroy 2017-08-28
Thanks for your $0.00
1 TheEhSteve 2017-08-28
The electoral college is how things currently operate, therefore it is immune from criticism
1 onitsuka 2017-08-28
we are though
1 pizzashill 2017-08-28
By what metric?
1 IssaPupper 2017-08-28
Autism.
1 Mallardy 2017-08-28
Body mass?
Fraction of total health care spending taken up?
1 nanonan 2017-08-28
Meth consumption.
1 mrmcdude 2017-08-28
The fact that you call them "mean nothing states" is exactly why they are super protective of their representation.
1 OhNoHesZooming 2017-08-28
And I'm sure if everyone was nice about it but they'd trip over themselves to even the playing field. Surely.
1 mrmcdude 2017-08-28
It's not about being nice really. It's about the fear that their interests would be considered unimportant. And people confirming their belief.
1 pizzashill 2017-08-28
LOL, they've had disproportionate political power for the entire time this country has been around.
The exact opposite of what you're claiming is true. Fuck these people, they're a cancer.
1 mrmcdude 2017-08-28
me: It's not about being nice really. It's about the fear that their interests would be considered unimportant. And people confirming their belief.
you: The exact opposite of what you're claiming is true.
sooo.... what you're saying is something like "It's about being nice really. It's not about the fear that their issues would be considered unimportant. And nobody really think that"?
1 conspiracy_edgelord 2017-08-28
Without the electoral college large cities like NYC, LA, Chicago, Baltimore, Houston, Dallas, etc etc would be the only places truly worth campaigning in. It would be a completely broken system that would give free reign to one political side for the rest of eternity. FYI the US is a republic so fucking get over it.
1 pizzashill 2017-08-28
Yeah, ready to see your trash tier argument dismantled with one gif? The electoral college already causes most states to be ignored:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-last-10-weeks-of-2016-campaign-stops-in-one-handy-gif/
Not only that, it reduces voter turnout:
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/26/503170280/charts-is-the-electoral-college-dragging-down-voter-turnout-in-your-state
FYI you should go back to school:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/14/the-united-states-is-both-a-republic-and-a-democracy-because-democracy-is-like-cash/
1 conspiracy_edgelord 2017-08-28
They weren't ignored unless their electoral votes weren't counted. (they were) The only people dumb enough to make their vote worthless are those who do so by not voting. Also just because WP confirms your bias, it doesn't mean what they say is fact. The U.S. is a republic, it always has been.
1 pizzashill 2017-08-28
You're literally retarded. That's a WP opinion you fucking mongoloid, it's an objective fact.
"the US is a republic" is a common meme uneducated people throw out, the US is a representative democracy.
https://medium.com/@lessig/the-united-states-is-not-a-democracy-it-is-a-republic-54e8036c781c
Again, go back to school.
1 conspiracy_edgelord 2017-08-28
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States#cite_note-25
Read the first sentence and read on the right under "Government." I know, I know wikipedia, sources are all there though so feel free to educate yourself you fucking moron.
1 pizzashill 2017-08-28
Holy shit, are you retarded? READ YOUR OWN FUCKING LINK YOU HIGH SCHOOL DROP OUT.
1 conspiracy_edgelord 2017-08-28
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#United_States
Dude, you're dumb as fuck. It's no wonder dipshits like you seriously want to get rid of the electoral college. The United States has never been a direct democracy.
1 pizzashill 2017-08-28
Alright, I can't help you, you literally just do not understand that a republic is a form of democracy.
1 doughboy011 2017-08-28
Their interest in lowering taxes on the rich and outlawing lgbt people are unimportant tho
1 mrmcdude 2017-08-28
No. They're just wrong.
Anyway, have fun with your coalition of California/New York and their bordering states. Sorry the rest of the country gets to have an opinion on things.
1 doughboy011 2017-08-28
Jokes on you I live in ND
1 mrmcdude 2017-08-28
Cool. So just convince your state legislature to sign on to the treaty and I might start believing that it is actually possible.
1 thefran 2017-08-28
What representation? The absolute majority of campaiging, absolute majority, completely not even comparable, was done in just FOUR states out of fifty.
1 mrmcdude 2017-08-28
Do you really think places like Wyoming, Montana, or Vermont would have more power with a popular vote? I wasn't talking about where the campaigning was done. I was talking about how much of an input those states got as far as who would be president.
1 thefran 2017-08-28
Yes, of course? Popular vote + no first past the post by state means that your vote matters the exact same no matter where you are. I don't understand why people who defend electoral college for some fuckshit reason still claim that it gives electoral power to states where presidential candidates don't even bother with stump speeches.
1 mrmcdude 2017-08-28
I'm not saying the electoral college is the best system, I'm saying it's in the constitution and states are not likely to vote to give themselves less of a say in who becomes president. Which is what it would take. And when you say people have a right to be represented, but not states... the writers of the constitution specifically disagreed with you on that point, and good luck changing it now. Too many people have a strategic interest in it staying the same.
1 TNBK 2017-08-28
This but unironically
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-28
This is so fucking stupid and I have no idea why people think it's an argument. It makes absolutely no sense. It has absolutely nothing to do with how popular vote systems actually work. Fffffffuck I am so sick of seeing smug idiots say this shit and get treated like they're smart
1 pizzashill 2017-08-28
It's not drama and no it wouldn't be easy, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done or it isn't right.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-28
There's actually a viable end run around it. Enough states just have to get together and agree to allocate their electoral votes to whoever wins the national popular vote.
There are still problems, though, as it needs some swing & Republican-leaning states to pass it (Republicans believe they are entitled to rule while being less popular, based on weird constitutional quirks) and I expect a Republican Supreme Court would strike it down for purely partisan reasons (ditto.) But it's still closer to happening than constitutional amendments.
1 mrmcdude 2017-08-28
I am aware of the effort, but wake me up when Texas or Florida sign on.
1 ThatDamnedImp 2017-08-28
I'm pretty sure that he could have. He just would have done slightly better among the white working class in the rust belt, and he would have been President.
1 PM_ME_FREE_FOOD 2017-08-28
Not in my life bucko
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-28
that's what the NKVD invented gas vans for comrade
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-28
Hillary likely would have beaten Trump too, though. There's not really a strong case that Bernie would have been more likely to win.
And he also *pulls in close, whispers* wouldn't have been as good a president as Hillary, because he's overly ideological and not very bright
1 shitpersonality 2017-08-28
Bernie definitely would have picked up the states Hillary lost in the rust belt. GG CLINTONISTAS, YOU PLAYED YOURSELF.
1 wwyzzerdd 2017-08-28
Such joy in watching/reading the impotent coastal dweller REEEE about how important they are.
1 michgot 2017-08-28
I thought /u/pizzashill was just an /r/drama shitposting personality holy shit
1 do0rkn0b 2017-08-28
No he seriously believes the dumb shit he posts. It's awesome.
1 grungebot5000 2017-08-28
he could have won, but he didn't
1 WorldStarCroCop 2017-08-28
I can't wait until houston runs out of quinoa
1 Works_of_memercy 2017-08-28
Hahaha, this is glorious. u/pizzashill, you're like one of those people I refused to believe to exist, who would agree that one-boxing me will end up rich and they poor if we ever participated in the Newcomb's experiment, and yet firmly insist that two-boxing is the "correct" choice.
1 pizzashill 2017-08-28
Yeah, because everyone knows the rational thing to do is to believe false things for political gain!
1 Works_of_memercy 2017-08-28
Are you a one-boxer or two-boxer?
1 Notthehalf 2017-08-28
Imagine calling someone who lost to trump, who's only job was to appear more appealing then a oompa loompah gone bad, competent.
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2017-08-28
Well, for starters, this. The idea that rural people don't, or shouldn't, count is extremely dangerous. These are the people that are working farmland raising crops/livestock that you and I put on our tables daily.
I understand that you may not think their voices should count, but their needs being addressed by the government (local, state, and federal) is vital for the continued success of our nation.
That said, because there are a lot less people in rural areas, their voices do need to be weighted or idiots like you will run roughshod over them and the next thing we know we have another Dustbowl and a fuck ton more people die this time than last time.
/u/pizzashill you're a dumbfuck.
1 pizzashill 2017-08-28
So to be clear here, you've managed to twist me saying rural people have disproportionate political power and that's wrong, into me saying rural people don't matter?
Lol?
Let's copy paste this again:
Nice try.
Except their voices are heard, they have very seriously disproportionate political power. I'm baffled as to how you've managed to twist what I said this bad, you're either retarded or a troll.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/upshot/as-american-as-apple-pie-the-rural-votes-disproportionate-slice-of-power.html?mcubz=0
I see, so rural people matter, but urban people don't. Rural people DESERVE to have a vote worth 4x as much as an urban person, of course.
So it's not me saying someone doesn't matter - it's you, because it's you trying to defend an extreme rural bias in our political system.
1 acctforbrowsing 2017-08-28
https://www.reddit.com/r/Drama/comments/6wg37m/bernie_could_have_won_sparks_row_between_rdrama/dm85shu/
1 pizzashill 2017-08-28
Me saying I hate rural people is = to me saying rural people don't matter?
1 acctforbrowsing 2017-08-28
I too care about people I hate.
1 pizzashill 2017-08-28
I don't care about them, they still matter, they're still US citizens.
1 acctforbrowsing 2017-08-28
And the gold for 2017 mental gymnastics goes to..... /u/pizzashill. You did it buddy! Good job.
1 pizzashill 2017-08-28
You seem to have very severe comprehension problems.
1 acctforbrowsing 2017-08-28
100% possible. However, I have never said anything like this:
1 pizzashill 2017-08-28
Them not mattering to me personally doesn't mean they don't matter in the grand scheme of US democracy.
Like I said - severe comprehension problems.
1 acctforbrowsing 2017-08-28
I hate you pizzashill, but I love you pizzashill. No i didn't take my medicine today I need to argue with nerds about politics on reddit for at least 12 hours and my medication would get in the way of my goals.
1 pizzashill 2017-08-28
No problem dude, just make sure you take your meds next time.
1 acctforbrowsing 2017-08-28
Don't worry I just popped a few since I see we have you to fill in for me.
1 pizzashill 2017-08-28
Glad to help.
1 acctforbrowsing 2017-08-28
Thanks man.
1 acctforbrowsing 2017-08-28
One more question then I'll leave you alone, I promise.
When Hilary wins in 2020 can we be friends?
1 pizzashill 2017-08-28
Considering the severe comprehension problems you've displayed here I don't think it's possible for me to be friends with you.
1 TheEhSteve 2017-08-28
TIL you can't dislike somebody and believe they should have the right to vote at the same time
1 acctforbrowsing 2017-08-28
Did he or I say anything about them not being allowed to vote??? He said they don't matter, which they clearly do, thus the election results.
1 TheEhSteve 2017-08-28
Oops, you're not the OP of this comment chain who was actually asserting that, nvm
1 acctforbrowsing 2017-08-28
NP dude. Can you try to explain this to OP as well. I'm like 99% sure he still thinks I'm OP.
1 TheEhSteve 2017-08-28
Yeah it looks like he does. To be fair I'm sure his inbox is blowing the fuck up though, lmao
1 acctforbrowsing 2017-08-28
Nice Edit I was calling you out for this:
You didn't say they shouldn't be allowed to vote.
1 pizzashill 2017-08-28
What? Are you still trying to double down on this absurd lie you tossed out?
1 acctforbrowsing 2017-08-28
What lie?
1 pizzashill 2017-08-28
The entire context of this argument is political power, you realize that, right?
1 acctforbrowsing 2017-08-28
Nope I honestly have no idea what the posted thread is about since I don't really care about the content of linked drama threads just the comments. So I linked some contradicting quotes you made in this thread and voila. Here we are.
1 pizzashill 2017-08-28
Nothing even contradicted, I hope to god this is a satire account dude.
1 acctforbrowsing 2017-08-28
You should take a minute to reread your posts. You have a ton of contradictions, it's really bad.
1 pizzashill 2017-08-28
Alright, at this point you've just convinced me you're a troll, there's just no way a normal person could have comprehension this bad.
1 acctforbrowsing 2017-08-28
"I can't defend my contradicting statements so I'm gonna call you a troll"
Got it.
1 acctforbrowsing 2017-08-28
Likewise.
1 Teresa_May 2017-08-28
TIL drought and famine are much more commonplace in democracies that utilise proportional representation.
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2017-08-28
Eh, if I'm remembering correctly the only other place similar to the Great Plains in the U.S. are the Russian Steppes, so there's really not anything to compare it with.
1 Teresa_May 2017-08-28
Right, the only two countries with farmland are the United States and Russia. And the Tsardom of Putin curiously uses proportional representation instead of properly venerating their farmers and hillbillies.
Wonder why Vlad hasn't changed over to the vastly superior American system yet...
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2017-08-28
Farmland != The Great Plains.
1 Teresa_May 2017-08-28
So, just to make sure I'm following you correctly here...
The Great Plains are a unique national resource unlike any in the world
Only farmers understand how to manage and maintain the Great Plains
Therefore farmers should get more control over the political system in the form of their votes being weighted more heavily
Am I to understand that is your argument here?
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2017-08-28
Not what I said.
I never mentioned or implied that. However I would assert that after the Dust Bowl, it was necessary for both the farmers and the government to work together to properly manage production on the plains, since part of the cause was overproduction of wheat and removal of drought resistant grasses.
Never said that either, but if we modify the current system and remove anything that helps a state of 3.3 million people, like Iowa, have an equal voice with states that have cities with the same population as "flyover states", I feel like we could be welcoming other preventable disasters.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-28
i love you teresa
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-28
lmaoooooooo
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2017-08-28
I mean, you can laugh, but I'm not wrong. Granted, California is the largest single largest state for agricultural exports, but they're only 10%.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-28
of course you are wrong.
it is an economic nonsense to think that the farming sector, which is a tiny part of america's overall economy, is somehow uniquely important and vital
the large majority of rural people are not farmers and the large majority of farmers are economically marginal. US ag output is dominated by a minority of massive, capital-intensive farms, not by the sentimental mom-and-pop operations that people use to justify malapportionment
there's little basis for thinking that giving farmers more political power actually leads to better farm policy; a look at California's water issues, for instance, suggests that it may be the opposite way around
1 wwyzzerdd 2017-08-28
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-28
1 wwyzzerdd 2017-08-28
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2017-08-28
I didn't say anything about economics, per se. I was talking about how the productivity of the Great Plains helps sustain the nation with their production of goods.
Be that as it may, the vast majority of agriculture in the US is done in the Great Plains. Even if 99.9% of it is done by massive corporations, the surrounding population makes their living by supporting the companies, hence their welfare is still vital to the country.
I never said we should give them more political power, did I? I said that we should make sure that there's a system in place to make sure that their concerns are also heard. Considering that roughly 2/3 of the country lives within 100 miles of the coast, it's easy to understand how they forget about some poor schmuck in Nebraska when they open a can of corn.
No that's just California fucking over Colorado for decades. I can't wait for CO to tell them to fuck off. Cali sucks.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-28
π
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2017-08-28
not an argument
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-28
the fuck do you think economics even is you absolute buffoon
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2017-08-28
I'm talking about the service provided, not the economics involved.
Jesus christ, someone call Evan's tard wrangler.
1 eggman_fauntleroy 2017-08-28
It's a republic, if it wasn't, Bernie or Hillary would have won based on popular vote.
Plebs voting themselves gifts from the treasury is popular, and is what happens in a democracy. Thank God USA isn't.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-28
dude this makes no sense on any level
why would we even expect that malapportionment somehow prevents people from voting selfishly, it makes no logical sense
there is no actual observable trend out in the world for countries that lack american-syle greivous malapportionment to fall apart because of selfish-goodie-voting
malapportionment in the american system was never seen as a bulwark against populism; it was recognized at the time as a deviation from the ideal, motivated to protect specific factional interests (ie slavery) not some timeless principle
1 TheEhSteve 2017-08-28
Sounds like a good reason to curtail farmers voting for generous subsidies for themselves imo
1 eggman_fauntleroy 2017-08-28
Well they are the producers, so it's important that they produce. Useless eaters voting themselves more gibs is a problem