Gee Tty, but WHO's diesel engine trucks are they?
1. Yours
2. Mine
3. Pie's
4. Buckster's
5. The OLIs who pay NO TAXES
Make Liberalism Great Again
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
1. Yours
2. Mine
3. Pie's
4. Buckster's
5. The OLIs who pay NO TAXES
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Having a minority of states dictate the President to the majority of states under your "fair" system would be an actual Plutocracy. Not even a good try so F.
You, on the other hand are advocating that we take a huge step towards a true democracy in how the President is elected and which branch of Government she or he belongs in, as well as calling into question the structure of the Peoples branch.
All in one swoop. You are talking about secession.
Your EC number for California seems at first glance to be based on dividing the population of the least populated state with its EC votes, then dividing that number into California's population to get your EC number.
Something you've repeated over and over in the past few weeks. Which is still per capita.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
True, in the US they are all Cold War Relics. And still humming along safely.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Free markets are susceptible to the knowledge base of the Market. Blaming the Free Market for such as lead in gasoline is about as silly as blaming the Market for a Doctor advertising healthy cigarettes on television.
In fact, Regulation has not stopped the Corporations from sucking the planet dry of petrol, in the absence of a Free Market in the US. Demand always wins if there is any supply.
Can you name one free market in the US?
Last edited:
Justin-case
Well-Known Member
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
My experts disagree with your experts:
"The free market, in fact, is precisely the diametric opposite of the "jungle" society. The jungle is characterized by the war of all against all. One man gains only at the expense of another, by seizure of the latter's property. With all on a subsistence level, there is a true struggle for survival, with the stronger force crushing the weaker. In the free market, on the other hand, one man gains only through serving another…. It is precisely through the peaceful co-operation of the market that all men gain through the development of the division of labor and capital investment. To apply the principle of the "survival of the fittest" to both the jungle and the market is to ignore the basic question: Fitness for what? The "fit" in the jungle are those most adept at the exercise of brute force. The "fit" on the market are those most adept in the service of society. The jungle is a brutish place where some seize from others and all live at the starvation level; the market is a peaceful and productive place where all serve themselves and others at the same time and live at infinitely higher levels of consumption.
The free market, therefore, transmutes the jungle's destructive competition for meager subsistence into a peaceful co-operative competition in the service of one's self and others. In the jungle, some gain only at the expense of others. On the market, everyone gains. It is the market — the contractual society — that wrests order out of chaos, that subdues nature and eradicates the jungle, that permits the "weak" to live productively … in a regal style compared to the life of the "strong" in the jungle. Furthermore, the market, by raising living standards, permits man the leisure to cultivate the very qualities of civilization that distinguish him from the brutes."-- Murray Rothbard
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
I think you are 4/5ths correct here. They belong to whomever is creating the demand for what is in the container. Without the demand, they wouldn't be running. Don't worry though, if Regs become too tight there then Ensenada will happily pick up the slack, just like they do when there's a strike.
see4
Well-Known Member
How is having every vote count a plutocracy? Please try and stay focused, you've managed to avoid this question [rephrased] several times now.
In no way am I talking about secession. Do you even know what that means?
No, the EC number for California is not a proportional division of its residents, the number would be much higher than 222 if it were [ as a comparison to less populous states ].
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
All this, nevermind the last few pages, confirms to all who care to see that you just plain don't have a grasp of how governments work, ours or anyone else's.
This is so riddled with errors that is not worth the rebuttal.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Ya @.nobody. is on a roll atm with my posts. If its pinny then I'm honored. If not then idc.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
He's just stupidly throwing words around he doesn't even know the definitions of.
Plutocracy = rule by money, rich people make the decisions. I don't even know wtf he's referring to when he's using the word, but it isn't that! DERP.
Secession = an attempt to leave the country and start your own, a la Civil War. I don't think he knows this one, either.
Electorate vs Electoral College- yep, clueless here, too.
In short he throws around terms in a desperate attempt to sound learned and insults others instead of making lucid arguments.
Nothing he says stands up to any kind of scrutiny.
Conclusion? He's a prime candidate for the ignore list, because he's incapable of sticking to political topics he knows anything about.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
The EC is not simply an amendment.
Article 2 covers the Executive branch and is where the EC is established. Notice article 1 establishes The Peoples Branch.
I wouldn't expect you to have an open discussion about it.
You cause is indeed noble. I never said it wasn't. You seem to want most all power to The People. Yet you speak out against the mechanism that would basically do just that. Inelastic currency. You're like a tempest in a teapot.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
No, it's because in spite of the walls of text, everyone can tell you are full of shit.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
No, I was clear about the limits; eliminate the electoral college.
Yes I want power to rest in the hands of the People. You'd rather it be where? Held by government so it needn't be responsive to the people? MORONIC. But considering the rest of your drivel, not surprising
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Run by money you say? The top 7 most populous states also have the most EC votes and the top 7 GSP's.
How you are unable to connect that is beyond me, given your use of the term Plutocracy.
You are talking about at least completely rewriting or removing clause 2 and 3 of Article 2.
The EC numbers are reflective of Congress and the EC is popularly elected but they reside in the Executive. It's a balance and it reflects the majority of States which are in contract to form the Union. You, as an individual are under no such Contract.
Given your support for such things as modern interpretations of what is "interstate commerce" its very clear where you stand on anything but "arms" which even you label as "guns" and even that position you hold is pretty belly up. That stance as a whole is clearly in some other form of government than our own, hence your secessionist label.
That number would hover around 200 if you used Wyoming, the lowest number, and get progressively lower from there. So, wrong again. I did notice the extra 22 votes you added to CA and did ask where you got the number from but here we are yet again with no answer.
Last edited:
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Yall are derping so goddam hard on this one its sad. It's not a Plutocracy iff (if and only if) you eliminate all state boundaries.
Like I said, you are talking about rewriting or completely eliminating the history of Law in our Republic with this one seemingly simple suggestion. But you already knew that.
Again, you fail to see the single most epic mechanism that literally places the Power in the hands of The People. Money. The power of the purse residing with The People in their branch is laughable and entirely fake. Yet here you are on these boards all day arguing the semantics of how to best operate a fake system to benefit The People the most with such notable quotes as "few wealthy individuals would walk away from the tax deductions of owning a home by paying that home off".
You stance on this monetary situation is not stupid or dumb and its actually pretty common in that its simply lacking information. I won't use the word for that btw.
I would rather it be balanced in the 3 branches equally with all rights reserved to The People with all 3 branches protecting the minorities life, liberty and property from the majority. The right to peaceful protest being among the highest. Define "support" for me tty. The People holding actual money and the right to actually withhold support as the only peaceful solution to a grievance is pretty fucking epic.
Last edited:
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Brawndo Plutocracy money sent them.