• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Is anger and hatred towards Trump supporters acceptable? I was in a larger urban core for a lunch meeting this afternoon, and the person behind me was ranting and raving about how Trump is to blame for the recent shootings, and then someone at her table commented that if he sees someone in a MAGA hat, he is going to beat the $&#! out of them. I was waiting for someone to speak up, but instead the woman commented that she will do the same for anyone who voted for Trump.

It was a very artsy restaurant and it was evident that it had a left leaning vibe to it, so I did not expect to see too many Trump supporters in there, but I was taken back by the hatred expressed. No, I don't expect that they would actually attack anyone, but it was enough to get me thinking. I looked it up, and apparently there have been Trump supporters attacked, including one in NYC last week who had a MAGA hat on.

Is this type of rhetoric acceptable in today's society? If someone said that about a Hillary supporter, would that be any different?
 
Interesting, everyone is blaming Trump for the mass shootings this weekend, and while yes, the El Paso shooter was a white suprematist/right with extremist/domestic terrorist... the Dayton shooter was a liberal extremest/ domestic terrorist.

Maybe both extremes of the political spectrum are just as bad...
 
AG74683 said:
It has something to do with his sister I think. There's video of them together at a bar a few hours before the shooting and she was killed in it. IMO she was the target and the rest of the victims were unfortunately collateral damage.

It is interesting to see a far-left activist get national coverage though. You never hear about them, and they are absolutely just as dangerous as the right.
Click to expand...
Turns out his sibling was a trans man. The plot thickens ...
 
Either way it comes down to a crazy white guy with a gun. I started profiling myself to make sure I'm not one of them. A quick pat down to make sure I don't have a gun on me. A read through The Facebook to make sure there's no crazy anti whatever discussions. You never know.
 
michaelskis said:
Interesting, everyone is blaming Trump for the mass shootings this weekend, and while yes, the El Paso shooter was a white suprematist/right with extremist/domestic terrorist... the Dayton shooter was a liberal extremest/ domestic terrorist.
Click to expand...

Since the recent round of the culture wars began, a "punching down" aspect of an incident will tend to get far more attention than a "punching up" aspect of a similar incident. The white supremacy motivation of the El Paso shooting is front and center in the media and in online discussion. The media seemed to give the "kill whitey" motivation of the 2016 downtown Dallas shooting only a passing mention. No "sparking national conversations", no calls to disassociate the larger group of white people in America from the bigotry and intolerance of some of their forebearers.

Nobody knows the motivations of the Dayton shooter. We do know he romanticized violence. His ideology is far left, but we don’t know if his intent was to off some conservatives. We do know the El Paso shooter targeted Mexicans and Mexican-Americans at Cielo Vista Mall. (For what it's worth, I've shopped there before. In English, the mall's name means "sky view" or "heaven view" -- sadly ironic.) Either way, it's too easy for a single American -- regardless of ancestry or personal ideology -- to have the power of life or death over tens or hundreds of their fellow humans like that. This shit needs to stop, but our leaders are too beholden to a small group of greedy gun manufacturers and idealogue gun owners to do anything. The lives of the people they represent are worth less than a stupid NRA “A” rating.
 
michaelskis said:
Interesting, everyone is blaming Trump for the mass shootings this weekend, and while yes, the El Paso shooter was a white suprematist/right with extremist/domestic terrorist... the Dayton shooter was a liberal extremest/ domestic terrorist.

Maybe both extremes of the political spectrum are just as bad...
Click to expand...
I blame the ease of getting guns. I don't care about your political reasoning, your racist reasoning, or your religious reasoning. If they didn't have guns, they would have killed less people. The concept that we are trying to "fix" anything is stupid. We can't stop them completely. That isn't the point. The point is to lessen it. Make it somewhat better. TRY SOMETHING.

I don't blame Trump for the shootings, I blame the guy who was able to get weapons to do this. I wish Trump wouldn't speak like he does, and it certainly doesn't help our country become better people, but we all have to stop blaming the other side. Extremism is an evil with no political agenda. Domestic terrorism is still terrorism.
 
michaelskis said:
Actually no... there are general estimates, but we don't really know. (LINK)
Click to expand...

Correct. We have to rely on survey statistics because, in this country, we can't even TALK about gun registration. We can't take a "gun census," although I think that would be a fascinating Census question. But it shouldn't be asked for the same reason the citizenship question should not be asked--it would cool the response to the Census. That means the best we can do is survey statistics, which is a scientifically valid approach to study. You did notice that I used the words "about" and "estimated", right? Even then, there is almost no money available for gun research because the place best equipped to study it, the CDC, is prohibited from doing so.
 
Dan said:
Since the recent round of the culture wars began, a "punching down" aspect of an incident will tend to get far more attention than a "punching up" aspect of a similar incident. The white supremacy motivation of the El Paso shooting is front and center in the media and in online discussion. The media seemed to give the "kill whitey" motivation of the 2016 downtown Dallas shooting only a passing mention. No "sparking national conversations", no calls to disassociate the larger group of white people in America from the bigotry and intolerance of some of their forebearers.

Nobody knows the motivations of the Dayton shooter. We do know he romanticized violence. His ideology is far left, but we don’t know if his intent was to off some conservatives. We do know the El Paso shooter targeted Mexicans and Mexican-Americans at Cielo Vista Mall. (For what it's worth, I've shopped there before. In English, the mall's name means "sky view" or "heaven view" -- sadly ironic.) Either way, it's too easy for a single American -- regardless of ancestry or personal ideology -- to have the power of life or death over tens or hundreds of their fellow humans like that. This shit needs to stop, but our leaders are too beholden to a small group of greedy gun manufacturers and idealogue gun owners to do anything. The lives of the people they represent are worth less than a stupid NRA “A” rating.
Click to expand...

Hink said:
I blame the ease of getting guns. I don't care about your political reasoning, your racist reasoning, or your religious reasoning. If they didn't have guns, they would have killed less people. The concept that we are trying to "fix" anything is stupid. We can't stop them completely. That isn't the point. The point is to lessen it. Make it somewhat better. TRY SOMETHING.

I don't blame Trump for the shootings, I blame the guy who was able to get weapons to do this. I wish Trump wouldn't speak like he does, and it certainly doesn't help our country become better people, but we all have to stop blaming the other side. Extremism is an evil with no political agenda. Domestic terrorism is still terrorism.
Click to expand...

I completely agree that we need a realistic system in place that prevents the wrong people from getting guns. There is zero argument with me on that one. The question is how do we go about doing it in a way that we can all agree on. I really question if this is something that the democrats really want to do, or if they are just saying that they do to gain political points. A few years ago, they had control of the House, Senate, and White House... why didn't they put in a grand plan back then? I am 100% for advanced background checks. One idea that a conservative friend suggested was requiring someone to go through the same level of training and background checks as if they were getting a CPL for their first weapon, and then just the basic checks there after. Do think that would work?

Suburb Repairman said:
Correct. We have to rely on survey statistics because, in this country, we can't even TALK about gun registration. We can't take a "gun census," although I think that would be a fascinating Census question. But it shouldn't be asked for the same reason the citizenship question should not be asked--it would cool the response to the Census. That means the best we can do is survey statistics, which is a scientifically valid approach to study. You did notice that I used the words "about" and "estimated", right? Even then, there is almost no money available for gun research because the place best equipped to study it, the CDC, is prohibited from doing so.
Click to expand...

The problem with estimated is there are so many different ways to estimate it. I think there should be a registration process that at least takes new firearms purchases into consideration. When you buy a weapon, the FFL should be required to enter the purchase details including serial number and owners information into a system. Depending on the state, some already have similar programs. When I bought my first handgun, I had to register it with the Sheriffs Department... and guess what, it was no big deal.

The bigger issue is why do these folks do these things. Yes, the tool that they use is significant, but so the their reasoning and intent. When we can better understand why they do what they do, the better we as a society can be equipped to make sure that they do not have access to anything that could be a weapon, but that they also receive the help they need.

On a side note, this was from April of 2018, but I think he brings up some interesting discussion points. First you notice he does not oppose keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. He does however oppose regulations that will result in unnecessary restrictions or elimination of his rights, which is what some from the far left are calling for... What are your thoughts to his speech?
 
I think this all takes a grown up approach of locking a few congressmen in a room and making them have a discussion with no political grandstanding involved. The first problem is defining gun "rights". On the extreme, everything is a right on the other nothing is. Leaving all the AK/AR 4715 whatevers out of it. We have limits on what you can and can't own. You have an absolute right to say a 45. You have no right to an RPG. Both are "arms". So somewhere some thoughtful people need to spell out exactly what you can and can't own. Easier said than done. The next problem comes down to accessories. Do you have a right to a 5 round clip? What about 15 or 50? Do you have a right to a silencer or bump stocks or any of the wonderful modification we can do to our guns or do you just have a right to an unmodified musket? It all goes back to educated people hammering out the discussion without heavy political influence. Whatever happened to saying we have a problem and we'll go discuss it? The other problem comes from what Mskies said unintentional - or not, what do I know. A solution we can ALL agree on. You will never get all of us to agree on anything. I think that's part of what is paralyzing congress (only a small part). They want to create a solution for everyone or at least for all of their people. In the end someone will get hurt feelings.
 
How convenient to have a medical encyclopedia at my fingertips.

"Due to its position, the hyoid bone is not easily susceptible to fracture. In a suspected case of murder or physical abuse, a fractured hyoid strongly indicates throttling or strangulation in an adult." --Wikipedia
 
Veloise said:
How convenient to have a medical encyclopedia at my fingertips.

"Due to its position, the hyoid bone is not easily susceptible to fracture. In a suspected case of murder or physical abuse, a fractured hyoid strongly indicates throttling or strangulation in an adult." --Wikipedia
Click to expand...

100% Agree...

How many times did Bill Clinton hang out with Epstein and rode on his plane?
 
Veloise said:
How convenient to have a medical encyclopedia at my fingertips.

"Due to its position, the hyoid bone is not easily susceptible to fracture. In a suspected case of murder or physical abuse, a fractured hyoid strongly indicates throttling or strangulation in an adult." --Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Uh yeah, he violently choked himself to death duh. Don't ask questions or you'll find yourself on a list!
 
JNA said:
Representative Steven King's comment about no population left - Just :wow:
Click to expand...

Speaking for most Iowans, sorry about Steve King.
sorry.jpg
 
Aaaaaand ... John Hickenlooper is out of the race. It's too bad, but the field was really crowded, and he had zero buzz. I think Hickenlooper -- and a lot of the Democratic candidates who aren't in Congress already-- would have made more of an impact if they ran against incumbemt Republicans for House or Senate seats.
 
Soo, howbout that economy? Anybody checked their retirement plan this morning?

/haha I'm in my 40's, I'm never going to retire anyway what does it matter?
 
Dan said:
Aaaaaand ... John Hickenlooper is out of the race. It's too bad, but the field was really crowded, and he had zero buzz. I think Hickenlooper -- and a lot of the Democratic candidates who aren't in Congress already-- would have made more of an impact if they ran against incumbemt Republicans for House or Senate seats.
Click to expand...
Dan Savage had some good commentary about that, related to the Green party.

"You don't do that by trotting out the reanimated corpse of Ralph f----- Nader every four f----- years."
 
Faust_Motel said:
Soo, howbout that economy? Anybody checked their retirement plan this morning?

/haha I'm in my 40's, I'm never going to retire anyway what does it matter?
Click to expand...

I just turned 59. I can't bear to look at my pension plan.
If Trump makes it all go POOF Imma be pissed.
 
Gedunker said:
I just turned 59. I can't bear to look at my pension plan.
If Trump makes it all go POOF Imma be pissed.
Click to expand...

I hope NJ's is still solvent by the time I make it to retirement. The state manages it.
 
Faust_Motel said:
Soo, howbout that economy? Anybody checked their retirement plan this morning?
Click to expand...

I don't plan on retiring, because the Great Recession really, really hit me hard. I'll probably be one of those semi-retired planners who has some small-time comp plan / zoning rewrite / temp jobs here and there. My wife is a few years younger than me, and I'd feel weird being at home while she's still working.

michaelskis said:
How many times did Bill Clinton hang out with Epstein and rode on his plane?
Click to expand...

Epstein knew a LOT of powerful people, not just the Clintons. I wonder if he's got a dead man switch ...
 
Dan said:
I don't plan on retiring, because the Great Recession really, really hit me hard. I'll probably be one of those semi-retired planners who has some small-time comp plan / zoning rewrite / temp jobs here and there. My wife is a few years younger than me, and I'd feel weird being at home while she's still working.
Click to expand...

I'll be paying student loans pretty much right until my son leaves for college. I'll (hopefully) have a pension (municipal employees here are basically in the state retirement system) but I can't see myself and my wife really getting ahead in such a way that we truly retire until we are no longer medically able to work.

Dan said:
Epstein knew a LOT of powerful people, not just the Clintons. I wonder if he's got a dead man switch ...
Click to expand...

I think he was such a narcissist that he would rather relish the thought that nobody will ever know what he knew.
 
Dan said:
Aaaaaand ... John Hickenlooper is out of the race. It's too bad, but the field was really crowded, and he had zero buzz. I think Hickenlooper -- and a lot of the Democratic candidates who aren't in Congress already-- would have made more of an impact if they ran against incumbemt Republicans for House or Senate seats.
Click to expand...

I liked him and I wish he would have had a bit more buzz, but oh well. I just like the fact that Michael Bennet worked as John Hickenlooper's Chief of Staff when he was mayor of Denver.
 
Veloise said:
Dan Savage had some good commentary about that, related to the Green party.
Click to expand...

Love it. During the last presidential election cycle, there were a ton of Jill Stein lawn signs around here. In previous elections, the county where I live had the highest or second highest percentage of votes nationally for Green Party presidential candidates. However, I've never seen a Green Party candidate for any municipal, county, or school district office on the ballot. The Democratic Socialists are very active around here, and there was a socialist mayor in the 1990s. Since I moved here, though, I haven't seen any socialist candidates on the ticket.
 
Dan said:
Epstein knew a LOT of powerful people, not just the Clintons. I wonder if he's got a dead man switch ...
Click to expand...

Did he have paintings of them in blue dresses similar to the one he had of Bill? (I don't know the answer... but it is way too twisted to not bring up)
 
Bumper stickers that read “ELECT WOMEN” are a fairly common sight around here. I wonder if the people that display them think it applies to candidates from any party.

Is there still anyplace in the Democratic Party for a progressive Bill Maher liberal who scorns identity politics, and is a more of a rationalist than woke?
 
Dan said:
Bumper stickers that read “ELECT WOMEN” are a fairly common sight around here. I wonder if the people that display them think it applies to candidates from any party.

Is there still anyplace in the Democratic Party for a progressive Bill Maher liberal who scorns identity politics, and is a more of a rationalist than woke?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately no. That is why they keep losing to Republicans that have no place winning. The D's need to get away from identity politics and they will win in a landslide.
 
Hink said:
Unfortunately no. That is why they keep losing to Republicans that have no place winning. The D's need to get away from identity politics and they will win in a landslide.
Click to expand...

One of the most astute observations on this board in quite some time.
 
michaelskis said:
What do you think it will take to really have viable 3rd or 4th party options for major offices?
Click to expand...


I think the reality of having 'Independent' candidates is much more viable than another party. That might turn into a party after several decades, but not soon.
 
michaelskis said:
What do you think it will take to really have viable 3rd or 4th party options for major offices?
Click to expand...
Rich people with enough money to self fund candidates for a couple of cycles. The Koch brothers and others get together and create their dream platform and run candidates that follow it. The libertarian on the right and green party on the left could work if they put more money into them. Unfortunately at this time the rich people keep supporting the R's and D's, which isn't helping the nation.

Personally I think that if either side came up with a viable alternative to the D's and R's, it would make the D's and R's start trying harder to not suck as much. They would have to play to the middle more instead of the crazy wings of the party, which cause most of the issues we see in the country now. If we had moderate R's and moderate D's we would see things getting done. It is both parties wings that are causing nothing to get done.
 
Hink said:
Rich people with enough money to self fund candidates for a couple of cycles. The Koch brothers and others get together and create their dream platform and run candidates that follow it. The libertarian on the right and green party on the left could work if they put more money into them. Unfortunately at this time the rich people keep supporting the R's and D's, which isn't helping the nation.

Personally I think that if either side came up with a viable alternative to the D's and R's, it would make the D's and R's start trying harder to not suck as much. They would have to play to the middle more instead of the crazy wings of the party, which cause most of the issues we see in the country now. If we had moderate R's and moderate D's we would see things getting done. It is both parties wings that are causing nothing to get done.
Click to expand...

I also think it is because not enough people are vocal regarding how the Commission on Presidential Debates is structured and their rules. Even within a single party, it is situated that those who poll the highest get the most airtime even though they might not be the best candidate. For a 3rd party candidate to really have a chance, there needs to be an unimaginable public campaign just to get their name and ideas out, just to give them a chance to argue with the R & D on TV. Heck, Gary Johnson ended up getting 4.5 Million votes which was more than 3.25% of the total population, and he wasn't able to be on stage.

And while I don't think it will happen in my lifetime, here are my thoughts on how to fix this...
1) Following the party conventions, the top 5 polling candidates will get to be in the TV debates. Let people know they don't need to pick from Dumb and Dumber and they have a whole cast of characters to pick from!
2) Do away with straight party vote. Make them fill in the damn bubbles for every race and vote for the person, not the party.
3) a) Have congressional districts that are fair. Some of these are beyond stupid.
3) b) The winner of each congressional district gets one electoral college vote and the candidate that gets the most votes for each state get the other 2 votes. That way NYC and LA don't get to elect the president...
4) Go back to the way it once was, where the VP as the 2nd place finisher...
 
michaelskis said:
I also think it is because not enough people are vocal regarding how the Commission on Presidential Debates is structured and their rules. Even within a single party, it is situated that those who poll the highest get the most airtime even though they might not be the best candidate. For a 3rd party candidate to really have a chance, there needs to be an unimaginable public campaign just to get their name and ideas out, just to give them a chance to argue with the R & D on TV. Heck, Gary Johnson ended up getting 4.5 Million votes which was more than 3.25% of the total population, and he wasn't able to be on stage.

And while I don't think it will happen in my lifetime, here are my thoughts on how to fix this...
1) Following the party conventions, the top 5 polling candidates will get to be in the TV debates. Let people know they don't need to pick from Dumb and Dumber and they have a whole cast of characters to pick from!
2) Do away with straight party vote. Make them fill in the damn bubbles for every race and vote for the person, not the party.
3) a) Have congressional districts that are fair. Some of these are beyond stupid.
3) b) The winner of each congressional district gets one electoral college vote and the candidate that gets the most votes for each state get the other 2 votes. That way NYC and LA don't get to elect the president...
4) Go back to the way it once was, where the VP as the 2nd place finisher...
Click to expand...
5) Remove the Electoral College and make people get votes not states. Votes should matter whether you are a Republican in California or a Democrat in Mississippi.
 
Hink said:
5) Remove the Electoral College and make people get votes not states. Votes should matter whether you are a Republican in California or a Democrat in Mississippi.
Click to expand...

I don't have time to look up the data, and I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong, but if you go with strict popular vote, there is the potential that a few major US Cities could decide the president because of population density were rural areas that have felt ignored will continue to do so. You will have campaigns that will only focus on major cities like NYC, LA, and Chicago and abandon the rest of the county. After all if the top 5 or so Major Cities swing really hard to one candidate, it does not matter how the rest of the nation votes.
 
michaelskis said:
I don't have time to look up the data, and I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong, but if you go with strict popular vote, there is the potential that a few major US Cities could decide the president because of population density were rural areas that have felt ignored will continue to do so. You will have campaigns that will only focus on major cities like NYC, LA, and Chicago and abandon the rest of the county. After all if the top 5 or so Major Cities swing really hard to one candidate, it does not matter how the rest of the nation votes.
Click to expand...
Why does it matter where you live? Who cares if cities determine the winner? Do their votes not count because they are in the same place? For some reason a hermit in the foothills of South Dakota matters, but guy #37 in an apartment building in Manhattan doesn't?

I have always found it odd the weak arguments for why the Electoral College has to stay. The only real reason is because it would require the republican party to change to have a shot at winning. They would have to get away from many of their positions that are just not supported by the majority of the country. With that said the D's would need to do the same, as they would not be able to lean on California and NY to save them...

The Electoral College only made sense in the olden days, when there weren't planes, or TV, or phones, or internet. It makes no sense today, with technology making it very easy for all candidates to get around to see whomever they choose. It has only made our system weaker now, because it make it easy for candidates to not travel around, because they don't have to.
 
Hink said:
Why does it matter where you live? Who cares if cities determine the winner? Do their votes not count because they are in the same place? For some reason a hermit in the foothills of South Dakota matters, but guy #37 in an apartment building in Manhattan doesn't?

I have always found it odd the weak arguments for why the Electoral College has to stay. The only real reason is because it would require the republican party to change to have a shot at winning. They would have to get away from many of their positions that are just not supported by the majority of the country. With that said the D's would need to do the same, as they would not be able to lean on California and NY to save them...

The Electoral College only made sense in the olden days, when there weren't planes, or TV, or phones, or internet. It makes no sense today, with technology making it very easy for all candidates to get around to see whomever they choose. It has only made our system weaker now, because it make it easy for candidates to not travel around, because they don't have to.
Click to expand...

I disagree primarily because I think that they both count because of the electoral college and the original intent of the congressional districts, which we need to go back to and stop this gerrymandering BS. Each congressional district is currently structured to have approximately 747,000 people. With that, dense cities like NYC will have multiple congressional districts, whereas Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota Wyoming, and Alaska only have 1 congressional district for the entire state. I personally think that it makes it stronger because candidates need to pay attention to all parts of the map. Right now, they only focus on swing states and under a popular vote method they would only focus on campaigning (and helping) those in major metro areas. If a President wants to get reelected, where is he going to focus his efforts? Helping rural farm communities and small towns in the midwest or will he focus on NYC, Chicago, LA, and Houston?
 
I think gerrymandering is much more of a danger to our voting process than the Electoral College - gerrymandering has been in our lexicon for a very long time but I feel like the last 20 years it's gotten a little ridiculous and hardly passes any straight face test
 
Concerning the electoral college system, much of today's debate is focused on the idea that the electoral college was designed to protect smaller states voices. However, the primary driver behind the idea of an electoral college in the days of the framers was to choose "men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice" in selecting a chief executive. In other words, a group of educated individuals who were intended to prevent the direct election of Presidents by low-information voters choosing an individual that isn't qualified or suited for the office, but having skill in the 'low arts' of popularity to sway lots of folks with BS. This is discussed by Madison in Federalist Paper 68
 
My problem is that I've never voted for an electorate. So why is this random guy representing me. I understand that popular vote will screw the rural people, but face it, they use fewer resources, generally choose to live a life more detached from government so they should count this as a blessing, and besides, the office of pres represents the entire nation's population, not a loose collection of states. The hermit from Michigan's UP is represented by his congressmen if nothing else.
 
DVD said:
My problem is that I've never voted for an electorate. So why is this random guy representing me. I understand that popular vote will screw the rural people, but face it, they use fewer resources, generally choose to live a life more detached from government so they should count this as a blessing, and besides, the office of pres represents the entire nation's population, not a loose collection of states. The hermit from Michigan's UP is represented by his congressmen if nothing else.
Click to expand...

19.3% of the U.S. population is rural. In 1790, our first real Census information, 95% of the U.S. population was rural. The whole rural-representation/low-pop state issue that served as the public explanation for the Senate and Electoral College is obsolete and warrants elimination. Yes, I'm someone that believes the EC was primarily a tool to preserve slavery in the less populated south and that the public explanation is whitewashed history.
 
I've always gone with the basic idea that it took a day or two to ride up to the capital and vote so instead of everyone trying to get up there on horseback just have a few representatives ride up and vote for you. Makes sense. Today we can all vote. It no longer makes sense. I'm being naive, but I just see it as a way to efficiently cast votes back in the day. I'm sure other political problems existed, but that was then and this is now.
 
Maister said:
Concerning the electoral college system, much of today's debate is focused on the idea that the electoral college was designed to protect smaller states voices. However, the primary driver behind the idea of an electoral college in the days of the framers was to choose "men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice" in selecting a chief executive. In other words, a group of educated individuals who were intended to prevent the direct election of Presidents by low-information voters choosing an individual that isn't qualified or suited for the office, but having skill in the 'low arts' of popularity to sway lots of folks with BS. This is discussed by Madison in Federalist Paper 68
Click to expand...
Suburb Repairman said:
19.3% of the U.S. population is rural. In 1790, our first real Census information, 95% of the U.S. population was rural. The whole rural-representation/low-pop state issue that served as the public explanation for the Senate and Electoral College is obsolete and warrants elimination. Yes, I'm someone that believes the EC was primarily a tool to preserve slavery in the less populated south and that the public explanation is whitewashed history.
Click to expand...

This... The population trends have shifted but the same concern exists but from a different angle, no longer are they low-informed, but they have different needs living in urban environments than in rural areas. There will always be people out there who try to manipulate it, but I agree whole heatedly in that we need to fix congressional districts and do away with gerrymandering. A guy from Billings Montana should not be disenfranchised because he does not live in a flat in SO-HO.
 
michaelskis said:
..... no longer are they low-informed, but ...
Click to expand...
I would differ on this point. You may have higher literacy rates now, but that doesn't mean Joe Dokes is spending any more time today reading the Congressional Record than Jebediah Dokes did in 1790. Jebediah Dokes probably heard conspiracy theories aplenty by opinionated loudmouths at the local tavern that might have prompted him to participate in Jay's rebellion, but Joe Dokes today gets his low information views listening to propaganda from a single tv media source today.
 
Maister said:
I would differ on this point. You may have higher literacy rates now, but that doesn't mean Joe Dokes is spending any more time today reading the Congressional Record than Jebediah Dokes did in 1790. Jebediah Dokes probably heard conspiracy theories aplenty by opinionated loudmouths at the local tavern that might have prompted him to participate in Jay's rebellion, but Joe Dokes today gets his low information views listening to propaganda from a single tv media source today.
Click to expand...

On one hand I will concede in that the Federalist Papers were written so that a rural farmer would be able to understand them and the intentions behind the Constitution... yet today the vast majority of folks in DC have zero understanding of them and try to warp the meaning to fit their agenda.

However, I will also argue in support of that rural america is more informed now than at any point in history thanks to today's technology. Anyone can log into a campaign website to understand the ideas and theories of a particular candidate within a moments notice. They can also watch or live stream debates, speeches, and commentary from a wide range of pundits. They no longer get to the ballot box and look down at several foreign names for president whereas in the late 1700's that was the case in rural America.

As for the single source, I would also argue that the same could be said regarding both sides of the political spectrum. Someone watching Fox News all the time just outside of Alliance, Nebraska is just as bad as someone watching CNN all the time in the lower east village of Manhattan. Franklin Dokes might be influenced a first floor coffee shop by an open mic night speech by Johnathon who just happens to be a passionate Saul Alinsky fan and believes in an antagonist format of change.
 
Back
Top