Do you think the US should offer taxpayer funded gender transition surgeries for prisoners and migrants? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
What are "rural issues". Alaska has the most land, but population is massively centered within cities. If "rural" refers to higher percentage of people living outside the major population centers, then Vermont and Maine are the two most rural states in the US. (Alaska is 14). Vermont is as blue as it gets. Are Pres going to give a shit about Vermont's "rural" Maple Syrup problems? NOPE, cuz they're just 3 EC, and not a swing state.
So the word rural is meaningless unless it happens to impact one of the 10 swing states. The EC isn't helping small OR less populated states in any direct way. And the "Greater Potential for Election Integrity Concerns" point just proves that cheating only matters in swing states.
So in the end the only argument to keep EC is administrative difficulties (since "cheating" could matter in places other than swing states) and ensuring the executive branch can't impact the overall outcome.
People need to vote first, not land (land which is usually owned by a few wealthy people or corps).
So the word rural is meaningless unless it happens to impact one of the 10 swing states. The EC isn't helping small OR less populated states in any direct way. And the "Greater Potential for Election Integrity Concerns" point just proves that cheating only matters in swing states.
So in the end the only argument to keep EC is administrative difficulties (since "cheating" could matter in places other than swing states) and ensuring the executive branch can't impact the overall outcome.
People need to vote first, not land (land which is usually owned by a few wealthy people or corps).
Last edited:
Why are we even talking about this? What % of the population is transgendered enough to work thru processes with psychologists enough to get to the point where surgery is even something they want? And then of that tiny subset, how many are prisoners or migrants?
Can we debate something which matters?
I asked the question a few days ago, "who would replace Trump when he is out of the picture". I never got a response but here is one from another forum:
When Trump finally dies, this is the interesting question. Trumpism unearthed a really, really ugly American. One that was better left in their cave. Amazingly (and unfortunately) they’re not crawling back in and it looks like they’re here to stay if you play to their ugliness just right. The republicans have sold their souls and latched on to them because they can actually move the needle. Whomever takes the baton from a dead Trump will likely have to lower themselves to appeal to this ugly American. Because if they don’t, someone will.
When Trump finally dies, this is the interesting question. Trumpism unearthed a really, really ugly American. One that was better left in their cave. Amazingly (and unfortunately) they’re not crawling back in and it looks like they’re here to stay if you play to their ugliness just right. The republicans have sold their souls and latched on to them because they can actually move the needle. Whomever takes the baton from a dead Trump will likely have to lower themselves to appeal to this ugly American. Because if they don’t, someone will.
Unless you're in a swing state, your vote doesn't count at all.
I'm sure everyone knows their electors. I'm sure everyone is quite certain that they're rational, critical thinking people.
I'm sure everyone knows their electors. I'm sure everyone is quite certain that they're rational, critical thinking people.
under any president, all kinds of shit happens that doesn't fit his/her philosophy. Then again, maybe it does as far as it goes and which might not be indicated by some simplistic blurb. In other words, do you want to try to make us believe that Trump went out of his way, as Kamala Harris boasts about having done, to see that all prisoners who applied could get a taxpayer-paid sex change? Good luck with that stupidity.
I have no problem believing that Trump does not disagree with a prison treating a trans like a trans socially and medically, as long as that means that in reality, and as common sense dictates, any sexual treatment is toward the actual sex and not what the prisoner wishes the sex was.
How desperate are you, to present this kind of nothingburger?
Not.
It's "We the people..." not "We the States."
They acted as states to ratify the constitution but it's the people who are supposed to be represented.
1. It depends on what you give up to have that (dubious) enhancement of the several protections against the tyranny of the majority. You can eliminate drunk driving deaths by eliminating driving. We have good protections vs tyranny of the majority.
2. You have yet to demonstrate that the EC actually acts to reduce the risk of tyranny of the majority.
3. You have yet (unless I missed it) addressed the problem of tyranny of the minority. A better argument can be made that the EC protects the power and interests of the minority. It puts a thumb on the scale in favor of money, property, and private concentrations of power.
4. The EC is a blatant rejection of the concept that each person's vote should have equal value. How do you justify that? Or do you reject that democratic value?
Excellent point.
Just look at the transformation of JD Vance. I might never vote for him, but he's definitely worse now than a few years ago.
Similar threads
