Why Our Country Is So Screwed Up

[soylentgreen]

Huh? Why not what?

Why don't all get a BS/BA degrees? Because they don't want to and they don't have to.

You said in your post to me.

My only suggestion was they don't get to vote.

Of this I ask, why not.

So you argue they do not have to. And then tell them they are not among the freest of the free. Or will you argue that jefferson was full of crap when he said "all men are created equal"

 

[triharder]

Studies?

Can you site at least one?


There are some countries that are hundreds and hundreds of year old, in fact most of the old world is more than 5,000 years. China has a history dating back even further.

So where do you get your data?

Cite. Not site. And...perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word "average" as well. You think China has been the "same" country for over 5000 years? It's country has not changed at all? Well....the education system in Canada is certainly not better anyway. See ya, Champ.

 

[soylentgreen]

Studies show that an "empire" survives, on average, approximately 250 years. The average country will last 150 years. Hopefully that illustrates the point well enough.

The Roman civilization lasted about 1,000 years, from 753 BCE to 476 CE, with its impacts still apparent today.

Ancient Egyptian civilization lasted for more than 3,000 years and showed a stunning level of continuity. That is more than 15 times the age of the United States,

British Empire, a worldwide system of dependencies—colonies, protectorates, and other territories—that over a span of some three centuries

Which studies again?

 

[NolanVoyd]

Each state has two Senators.
Each state has Representatives based on the populations of each state.
Cities are gaining immigrant populations which will increase Congressional representation in blue states.

Who or which states do not have an "equal voice"?

Wyomings two senators represent half a million people.

Califirnia's two senators represent 40 million people.

Who has a bigger voice in the Senate a wyoming citizen or a California citizen?

 

[triharder]

The Roman civilization lasted about 1,000 years, from 753 BCE to 476 CE, with its impacts still apparent today.

Ancient Egyptian civilization lasted for more than 3,000 years and showed a stunning level of continuity. That is more than 15 times the age of the United States,

British Empire, a worldwide system of dependencies—colonies, protectorates, and other territories—that over a span of some three centuries

Which studies again?

Apparently there are two individuals who don't know what the word "average" means. Did you know that a civilization is different from a country? Probably not. The United States is not a civilization. Goodness gracious. The "British Empire" has not changed at all in 300 years? Goodness gracious.

 

[Nickyjo]

The Electoral College system stems more from pragmatism and efficiency. It's also symbolic of state's stature, rights and autonomy. Everyone knows the voter rules and how to work within the system. I really don't see a problem with it.

It’s undemocratic.

 

[soylentgreen]

Apparently there are two individuals who don't know what the word "average" means. Did you know that a civilization is different from a country? Probably not. The United States is not a civilization. Goodness gracious. The "British Empire" has not changed at all in 300 years? Goodness gracious.

Yet there are civilisations that have lasted far longer than the so called "average." Nor do you get to narrow the definition till it will fit your concept. A civilisation is also a society, culture, and way of life of a particular area. The aboriginals isolated in australia had a civilaisation that lasted 50,000 years.

 

[triharder]

Yet there are civilisations that have lasted far longer than the so called "average." Nor do you get to narrow the definition till it will fit your concept. A civilisation is also a society, culture, and way of life of a particular area. The aboriginals isolated in australia had a civilaisation that lasted 50,000 years.

A third person who doesn't know what the word "average" means, and also thinks a country is the same as a civilization. Goodness gracious. Do you even know what you are arguing about as it relates to my statement???

 

[NolanVoyd]

Studies?

Can you site at least one?


There are some countries that are hundreds and hundreds of year old, in fact most of the old world is more than 5,000 years. China has a history dating back even further.

So where do you get your data?

I think you need to distinguish between culture/geography on the one hand and government on the other.

The USA is one of the world's younger countries in terms of cultural geography, but it is the oldest democracy in the world.


China has been there as cultural and geographic entity for thousands of years but the government only dates back to the late '40's.

 

[triharder]

I think you need to distinguish between vultures geography and government.


China has been there a cultural and geographic entity for thousands of years but the government only dates back to the late '40's.

Finally someone who understands my point. Thank you.

 

[bomberfox]

Atomized hyper capitalist societies tend to break down under the rule of the best able to buy politicians. This is the folly of the modern age. We must break out of atomization and perhaps not do our duty to consume.

 

[Slavister]

Of this I ask, why not.

So you argue they do not have to. And then tell them they are not among the freest of the free. Or will you argue that jefferson was full of crap when he said "all men are created equal"

Clearly Constitution does not consider "all men" created equal as far as voting goes. Setting aside women, slaves could not have an equal vote, nor did those who did not own land, nor could children.

Someone argued on this thread that the idea was to have more "educated" people vote, which in itself sounds appealing to me, which is why I proposed a minimal education requirements for voters.

 

[Peacenik]

Studies show that an "empire" survives, on average, approximately 250 years. The average country will last 150 years. Hopefully that illustrates the point well enough.

That is what has passed. We control our future.

 

[Peacenik]

We need more maritime military assets to combat China's growing navy.
So what if we "already outspend 10 or so militaries of the world combined."? We have to be stronger to lead the world in Europe and the Indo-Pacific. You want us to grow weaker in those disputed areas?

A world arms race didn't work out very well in the past. Diplomacy is wiser.

 

[Peacenik]

Example.

Wyoming's two senators represent half a million people.

California's two senators represent 40 million people.

So wyoming voters have a massively larger voice in the senate than California voters do.

Exactly. Couple that with the fact that the Senate controls seating on the SCOTUS and the rural states control 2/3 of the government while most Americans don't live in the rural states. That's messed up. It needs to be fixed.

 

[Peacenik]

I did not realize you have so much insight into our military preparedness in the world today. America is working to preserve its dominance in two different global areas. The more we spend, the better we can retain such dominance. If you do not trust military to decide what it needs to defend Asia and Europe against the encroachments of China, N Korea, Russia, and Iran, then your opinion doesn't carry much weight.
I want us to be stronger militarily and politically.

In order for us to be stronger politically we are going to have to vastly improve education to match or exceed what those other countries are doing. The problem with Republicans is they are trying to kill education. They want to keep America dumb so voters are easier to manipulate into people like maga who can't tell fact from fiction and are more motivated by emotion than logic.

 

[Peacenik]

I did not realize you have so much insight into our military preparedness in the world today. America is working to preserve its dominance in two different global areas. The more we spend, the better we can retain such dominance. If you do not trust military to decide what it needs to defend Asia and Europe against the encroachments of China, N Korea, Russia, and Iran, then your opinion doesn't carry much weight.
I want us to be stronger militarily and politically.

There was no reason to say anything at all about the person you were responding to. Going after a poster personally indicates a lack of confidence in the merit of one's own argument.

 

[Peacenik]

None of this contradicts what I said. We have trillions in debt. Other countries and superpowers (yes, including Roman Empire) fell (in part) because of overspending on their militaries. They all wanted similar objectives to what you have. In the mean time, we are the only 1st world country without decent healthcare for everyone.

We can afford to make people billionaires, and we can cut their taxes; but we can't afford to provide good healthcare to everyone.

 

[triharder]

Clearly Constitution does not consider "all men" created equal as far as voting goes. Setting aside women, slaves could not have an equal vote, nor did those who did not own land, nor could children.

Someone argued on this thread that the idea was to have more "educated" people vote, which in itself sounds appealing to me, which is why I proposed a minimal education requirements for voters.

The Constitution (Amendments not original) is what offers the "right to vote," but the most broad part is that you have to be 18 and over. I would bet that today's SCOTUS would say then it is a State right. I mean, some States allow felons to vote. Some don't. It's an "allow the government to choose for us" right. With that said, I'm sure there is NOTHING unconstitutional (in today's United States) about denying people the right to vote (cough - conditioning their vote based on their intellectual level as you suggest).

Then....that would allow for the privatizing school plan to TRULY go into full effect. Only those we choose can attend school (and of course it's going to cost you) and ONLY if you pass our schools can you get to vote. Brilliant idea.

 

[triharder]

That is what has passed. We control our future.

We quite literally do not. That is like saying you can control the casinos better by either playing the slot machines or betting at the tables. Both options allow you the perception of control or odds, but the name of the game is to keep you betting either way because eventually the casino is going to take it all. They just need to make you think you have a chance. We don't.

But....I'm going to vote anyway because I still like to think I have a say. I find comfort in the thought. The reality is different. I can control my reality on an everyday very localized view. Whether or not I actually have any rights or opportunity is up to the government to tell me now. Still, I'm a good planner. And I will have plans.

 

[Slavister]

The Constitution (Amendments not original) is what offers the "right to vote," but the most broad part is that you have to be 18 and over. I would bet that today's SCOTUS would say then it is a State right. I mean, some States allow felons to vote. Some don't. It's an "allow the government to choose for us" right. With that said, I'm sure there is NOTHING unconstitutional (in today's United States) about denying people the right to vote (cough - conditioning their vote based on their intellectual level as you suggest).

Then....that would allow for the privatizing school plan to TRULY go into full effect. Only those we choose can attend school (and of course it's going to cost you) and ONLY if you pass our schools can you get to vote. Brilliant idea.

Not sure I follow you. But I fully support tuition-free public schools.

 

[Peacenik]

I guess as a Progressive, you live in an urban ares so, therefore, you are smarter than "those rural voters' lacking your superior education.
So what's your 'new Amendment'? Abolishing the EC so that urban voters have more political power? So that urban voters can continue to screw up their cities with more crime? More Progressive DAs who fail to punish criminals and keep them in jail? More homelessness costing more money that the cities don't have? Is that what the country now needs to improve the election process?

There was no reason to say anything at all about me. Going after a poster personally indicates a lack of confidence in the merit of one's own argument. I won't be doing that to you. There is no need. I believe in the merit of my arguments. I can back up everything I say with either references, logic or both.

A new amendment should abolish the EC, yes. It should also apportion senators in relation to population. Some states should have only one senator. Others should have more than 2. That would result in a Senate which is more reflective of our population, and a populace which has more confidence in government. Passing the American Anti Corruption Act will address the other part of the lack of confidence in government, the perception that the rich control everything. Intelligent well informed Americans need to work toward both of these goals, which will take a long time to achieve.

The rest of your post appears to be rhetoric unworthy of an answer.

 

[upsideguy]

The Electoral College system stems more from pragmatism and efficiency. It's also symbolic of state's stature, rights and autonomy. Everyone knows the voter rules and how to work within the system. I really don't see a problem with it.

The vision for the electoral college was that it would safeguard our country from the people voting foolishly. It was meant as an approval mechanism that would be a sanity check on the voter.

Federalist No. 68 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The formula for the electoral college was based on protecting the economics of slavery.

The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists

The Founding Fathers had something particular in mind when they set up the U.S. presidential election system: slavery

time.com

Its an antiquated system that was contrived through political comprise, never worked as designed, and today allows minority rule, which is unhealthy in any society, particularly a democracy.

I was a huge supporter of the electoral college until one party decided it was easier to game the system then to design a platform of policies that actually appeal to the majority of the voters. Instead of safeguarding our country from bad choices, it enables laziness on the part of one major political party, which has also led to bad choices. It should go.

 

[soylentgreen]

A third person who doesn't know what the word "average" means, and also thinks a country is the same as a civilization. Goodness gracious. Do you even know what you are arguing about as it relates to my statement???

You put to much emphasis on one word that still has not had anything to back it. If you mean average as anything spanning between 250 and 50,000 years then yes you are correct. It would seem your point is only that nothing lasts for ever.

 

[triharder]

You put to much emphasis on one word that still has not had anything to back it. If you mean average as anything spanning between 250 and 50,000 years then yes you are correct. It would seem your point is only that nothing lasts for ever.

Do you still not know what an average is? You can't interpret the word average. It's mathematics. But I'm glad you understand my point. And that is my point.