Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Here's your problem.

The citizens in their respective states ARE "the people".

I think you're misusing the term "federal election". The US House/Senate/President are all federal elections.

Perhaps if I use the term "national election" you might understand. I'm talking about an election where people in every state vote, rather than a state election where people from that particular state vote (such as congressional or gubernatorial), or local elections where people from a certain area or district vote (state legislatures, house of reps).

But, hey... since the system didn't work out for you, do what you can to change it.

I mean, there's always the fact that I have railing against the EC for far longer than that, and if HRC won the EC but lost the popular I'd still say the EC is bad. This is nothing to do with "my team" (and I'm a resisted independent, so I don't really have a team), it's to do with a system that is bad. I know it must be hard to imagine people pushing against something because it's bad and not for their own interests, but it does happen.

So you do want us to decide representation via amount of land?

By current system.

That doesn't make it any better.

I couldn't disagree with you more.

Our states ARE 'states in the traditional sense of the word'

Are our States sovereign nations? You just answered your own argument.
Germany is a state. France is a state. The US is a state. Massachusets is not a state*.

and has far more say/power than the likes of Canadian provinces.

They have more power, but that doesn't make them sovereign nations



*It's a Commonwealth.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Our states ARE 'states in the traditional sense of the word'

Are our States sovereign nations? You just answered your own argument.
Germany is a state. France is a state. The US is a state. Massachusets is not a state*.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Our states ARE 'states in the traditional sense of the word'

Are our States sovereign nations? You just answered your own argument.
Germany is a state. France is a state. The US is a state. Massachusets is not a state*.

No.

We are a union of 50 discrete states.

Like to see something beyond just "No." there. Because good luck arguing that to the supreme court.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Our states ARE 'states in the traditional sense of the word'

Are our States sovereign nations? You just answered your own argument.
Germany is a state. France is a state. The US is a state. Massachusets is not a state*.

No.

We are a union of 50 discrete states.

Like to see something beyond just "No." there. Because good luck arguing that to the supreme court.

You cite the Supreme Court, so... what ruling of there's are you referencing?

a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation.

From Dictionary.com.

Michigan is a politically unified "people" occupying a defined territory. They have an elected executive and legislative body, with a judicial arm of the government as well. They are a distinct state. A fully functioning government, a defined territory.

Michigan, or the other 49 states, are not sovereign states, as they are federated under the United States of America. For all intents and purposes of the meaning of State though, yes, every one of our states meets that definition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Our states ARE 'states in the traditional sense of the word'

Are our States sovereign nations? You just answered your own argument.
Germany is a state. France is a state. The US is a state. Massachusets is not a state*.

No.

We are a union of 50 discrete states.

I think you mean distinct, not discrete.

Yup... don't know what I was thinking there...

Salon and Vox are useless sites. It's more of a tabloid. Did these news sources used to be solid before this election? I've never heard of Vox until a year ago.

I thought Japan was hilarious with this

 djones520 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Our states ARE 'states in the traditional sense of the word'

Are our States sovereign nations? You just answered your own argument.
Germany is a state. France is a state. The US is a state. Massachusets is not a state*.

No.

We are a union of 50 discrete states.

Like to see something beyond just "No." there. Because good luck arguing that to the supreme court.

You cite the Supreme Court, so... what ruling of there's are you referencing?

The billion or so civil rights cases showing that federal law trumps state law? More specicaly, showing that states are not soverign states.

a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation.

From Dictionary.com.

I am referring to it's political defoliation. I thought that was clear as we are talking about politics, but I guess not. Specifically, a single "community" under one centralized government, a sovereign state. Also known as a "nation". As apposed to a federated state, more commonly referred to as a province, which is what our states are. I thought my talk about sovereignty was enough.

Michigan is a politically unified "people" occupying a defined territory. They have an elected executive and legislative body, with a judicial arm of the government as well. They are a distinct state. A fully functioning government, a defined territory.

Michigan, or the other 49 states, are not sovereign states, as they are federated under the United States of America. For all intents and purposes of the meaning of State though, yes, every one of our states meets that definition.

Not of a sovereign state, which is what they would need to be for Whem's argument to hold any sort of ground.

 Frazzled wrote:
The Onion exists but still can't catch up fast enough with reality:
http://www.theonion.com/article/dnc-aiming-reconnect-working-class-americans-new-h-54707

The humor is almost lost because it's so believable. It really does read like something the DNC and Dunham would actually dream up.

@Co'tor... I should've clarified that the states are semi-sovereign in the sense that state laws can differ between in other.

You know... the concept of 50 laboratories trying different things?

Is there any practical barrier between individual states? Travel, trade, education, rights?

I suspect the real difference, besides culture, between states is the tax rate.

 feeder wrote:
Is there any practical barrier between individual states? Travel, trade, education, rights?

I suspect the real difference, besides culture, between states is the tax rate.

Yes, there are education and certification barriers between states, for example a lawyer licensed in one state may not be able to practice law in another. Same with electricians. And yes there are differences in rights between states. Gun rights is probably the easiest difference to see.

 feeder wrote:
Is there any practical barrier between individual states? Travel, trade, education, rights?

I suspect the real difference, besides culture, between states is the tax rate.

You should come down here and see for yourself.

 CptJake wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Is there any practical barrier between individual states? Travel, trade, education, rights?

I suspect the real difference, besides culture, between states is the tax rate.

Yes, there are education and certification barriers between states, for example a lawyer licensed in one state may not be able to practice law in another. Same with electricians.

Interesting. I wonder if that is for any practical reason (major differences in state electrical codes, for example) or merely protectionism.

And yes there are differences in rights between states. Gun rights is probably the easiest difference to see.

Forgot about that one, but let's please not go down the gun thread rabbit hole.

So while this circlejerk over the electoral college and states rights continues, its been revealed that Trump registered eight companies in Saudi Arabia back when he announced his campaign for the presidency and used a phone call with the Argentinian president to push a stalled building construction. And there was the whole Neo-Nazi conference held in DC praising Trump, his Cabinet appointments and other picks, with full blown Nazi salutes and yells of "Heil Victory."

Barring the Neo-Nazi celebrations, what happened to everyone screaming about conflicts of interests when there were Saudi contributions to the Clinton Foundation? We're fine with this kind of stuff as long as the beneficiary recieves the money directly?

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Is there any practical barrier between individual states? Travel, trade, education, rights?

I suspect the real difference, besides culture, between states is the tax rate.

You should come down here and see for yourself.

I took a Greyhound bus from Vancouver to San Diego when I was young man. I saw the good parts

Citation needed.
I heard about the Argentinian thing. Apparently that's a hoax, cause we have one journalist reporting on what one guy told an Argentinian news paper, and we have another reporting affirming that Macri's spokesman said it didn't happen.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/21/report-trump-may-have-asked-business-favor-argentine-call/94224742/

I think you guys are arguing apples and oranges when it comes to "states".

Virginia is a state as envisioned by the US constitution but is not one in the classic, poli sci definition.

The electors college isn't to blame for all this mess. The electors have the same # of reps as the states themselves. The disbursement of reps - senate and house- were specifically designed to give less populous states a greater say to balance out the population centers.

Can the electoral college be gamed? Sure. But that is only if you take the view that electors must vote for the state's popular vote winner. That idea is in no way included in the constitution. In fact, though never challenged, laws defining how an elector must vote may be unconstitutional. Though I would find it surprising if it was found to be so.

Ender502

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Is there any practical barrier between individual states? Travel, trade, education, rights?

I suspect the real difference, besides culture, between states is the tax rate.

You should come down here and see for yourself.

I took a Greyhound bus from Vancouver to San Diego when I was young man. I saw the good parts

Others would disagree but could see why you wouldn't want to come back.

"Babies love Tijuana!"
-Frazzled on child care.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Citation needed.
I heard about the Argentinian thing. Apparently that's a hoax, cause we have one journalist reporting on what one guy told an Argentinian news paper, and we have another reporting affirming that Macri's spokesman said it didn't happen.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/21/report-trump-may-have-asked-business-favor-argentine-call/94224742/

Some companies reflect long-established deals while others were launched as recently as Trump’s campaign, including eight that appear tied to a potential hotel project in Saudi Arabia, the oil-rich Arab kingdom that Trump has said he “would want to protect.”

And you'll excuse me if I don't believe anything coming out of Trump's camp regarding Trump's business, especially after Trump's Washington hotel hosted a reception for foreign diplomats, and he's been meeting with his Indian business partners.

New question.

On the subject of America's aging infrastructure, your entire government, including both the President and President-Elect, agrees on how severe and immediate the problem is. The agreement on it is in fact so strong, that even Business and Labor agree on it, and in fact those two sides came together to plead to the government to find a way to provide funding to fix the problem before it becomes a literal disaster.

If literally everyone in charge of your government, plus both sides of the business/labor dispute, are in total agreement... why are you guys still refusing to let your government increase the gas tax to account for over 20 years of inflation, so they can fund simple things like routine maintenance and inspections of 50-year-old bridges and dams?

The government isn't like your personal finances. They can't just take money from the military to fund this the way you can shuffle money between your chequing and savings accounts. The money can't be shifted around at will. The gas tax was created specifically to fund this, but the fact it's been at the same 18c/gallon for over 20 years means that when you adjust for inflation, it's insufficient because it's actually gone down by almost 40% since then.

Are you really so opposed to the idea of something as universal as paying taxes that you're willing to let bridges collapse and dams burst because your government has spent years trying to find another way to fund this without success, and Americans would rather let it happen than support their entire government by letting them raise the tax that was created to stop it from happening just to account for inflation?

 infinite_array wrote:
what happened to everyone screaming about conflicts of interests when there were Saudi contributions to the Clinton Foundation? We're fine with this kind of stuff as long as the beneficiary recieves the money directly?

hey... I'm screaming about this.

Dude... it gets worst.

Trump has Hotels/Casinos/Golf course that he owns... what's to stop foreign dignitaries from exclusively using his companies to curry favor?

Yeah... this isn't a good look. Unfortunately, the President is exempted of Conflict of Interests laws.

O.o

Read this for more:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ethics-rules-would-have-little-impact-on-a-president-trump/2016/10/03/e04e4dd2-875f-11e6-92c2-14b64f3d453f_story.html

 Stevefamine wrote:
Salon and Vox are useless sites. It's more of a tabloid. Did these news sources used to be solid before this election? I've never heard of Vox until a year ago.

'

Vox has been around for awhile, but they're never really been solid (depending on how you define solid). It's actually a pretty good place to get a feel for what's going on in the... I guess I'd put them under "middling left" as in not quite far left, but not quite center left. Most often though I'd say the biggest problem with Vox is piss poor writing. Like just the straight up mechanics of the English language. Every Vox article I've ever read reminded me of all those college papers I rushed to get done in the hour before the due date

I've honestly never read Salon.

 Pouncey wrote:
New question.

On the subject of America's aging infrastructure, your entire government, including both the President and President-Elect, agrees on how severe and immediate the problem is. The agreement on it is in fact so strong, that even Business and Labor agree on it, and in fact those two sides came together to plead to the government to find a way to provide funding to fix the problem before it becomes a literal disaster.

If literally everyone in charge of your government, plus both sides of the business/labor dispute, are in total agreement... why are you guys still refusing to let your government increase the gas tax to account for over 20 years of inflation, so they can fund simple things like routine maintenance and inspections of 50-year-old bridges and dams?

The government isn't like your personal finances. They can't just take money from the military to fund this the way you can shuffle money between your chequing and savings accounts. The money can't be shifted around at will. The gas tax was created specifically to fund this, but the fact it's been at the same 18c/gallon for over 20 years means that when you adjust for inflation, it's insufficient because it's actually gone down by almost 40% since then.

Are you really so opposed to the idea of something as universal as paying taxes that you're willing to let bridges collapse and dams burst because your government has spent years trying to find another way to fund this without success, and Americans would rather let it happen than support their entire government by letting them raise the tax that was created to stop it from happening just to account for inflation?

A gas tax is regressive. Why do you hate poor people?

 Pouncey wrote:
New question.

On the subject of America's aging infrastructure, your entire government, including both the President and President-Elect, agrees on how severe and immediate the problem is. The agreement on it is in fact so strong, that even Business and Labor agree on it, and in fact those two sides came together to plead to the government to find a way to provide funding to fix the problem before it becomes a literal disaster.

If literally everyone in charge of your government, plus both sides of the business/labor dispute, are in total agreement... why are you guys still refusing to let your government increase the gas tax to account for over 20 years of inflation, so they can fund simple things like routine maintenance and inspections of 50-year-old bridges and dams?

The government isn't like your personal finances. They can't just take money from the military to fund this the way you can shuffle money between your chequing and savings accounts. The money can't be shifted around at will. The gas tax was created specifically to fund this, but the fact it's been at the same 18c/gallon for over 20 years means that when you adjust for inflation, it's insufficient because it's actually gone down by almost 40% since then.

Are you really so opposed to the idea of something as universal as paying taxes that you're willing to let bridges collapse and dams burst because your government has spent years trying to find another way to fund this without success, and Americans would rather let it happen than support their entire government by letting them raise the tax to stop it from happening just to account for inflation?

Well... because we have both federal and state funding streams that are earmarked for roads and bridges.

The feds give "block grants" to states for some of this...

The states get their funds in their own way.

For instance, in Missouri it's called a "road tax" which a flat percentage of the blue book value of your car. You pay this every year during tax time.

However, in Illinois, they don't tax you based on what vehicle your drive... that tax you at the gas pump. Hence, why you'll almost always see a gas station right on the Missour side of the state line in just about every roadway.

The state of Missouri and Illinois run their state governance differently.

Doesn't your Canadian provinces work that way too?

EDIT: other funding streams could be used for infrastructure projects as well...

 Frazzled wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
New question.

On the subject of America's aging infrastructure, your entire government, including both the President and President-Elect, agrees on how severe and immediate the problem is. The agreement on it is in fact so strong, that even Business and Labor agree on it, and in fact those two sides came together to plead to the government to find a way to provide funding to fix the problem before it becomes a literal disaster.

If literally everyone in charge of your government, plus both sides of the business/labor dispute, are in total agreement... why are you guys still refusing to let your government increase the gas tax to account for over 20 years of inflation, so they can fund simple things like routine maintenance and inspections of 50-year-old bridges and dams?

The government isn't like your personal finances. They can't just take money from the military to fund this the way you can shuffle money between your chequing and savings accounts. The money can't be shifted around at will. The gas tax was created specifically to fund this, but the fact it's been at the same 18c/gallon for over 20 years means that when you adjust for inflation, it's insufficient because it's actually gone down by almost 40% since then.

Are you really so opposed to the idea of something as universal as paying taxes that you're willing to let bridges collapse and dams burst because your government has spent years trying to find another way to fund this without success, and Americans would rather let it happen than support their entire government by letting them raise the tax that was created to stop it from happening just to account for inflation?

A gas tax is regressive. Why do you hate poor people?

You read all that. And that's your response. THAT is your response after hearing your entire government has spent years trying to find an alternative way to fund this so they don't have to raise the gas tax, and have come up with a total of zero solutions.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:
Salon and Vox are useless sites. It's more of a tabloid. Did these news sources used to be solid before this election? I've never heard of Vox until a year ago.

'

Vox has been around for awhile, but they're never really been solid (depending on how you define solid). It's actually a pretty good place to get a feel for what's going on in the... I guess I'd put them under "middling left" as in not quite far left, but not quite center left. Most often though I'd say the biggest problem with Vox is piss poor writing. Like just the straight up mechanics of the English language. Every Vox article I've ever read reminded me of all those college papers I rushed to get done in the hour before the due date

I've honestly never read Salon.

Thanks, Huffington post has been terrible lately

 LordofHats wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:
Salon and Vox are useless sites. It's more of a tabloid. Did these news sources used to be solid before this election? I've never heard of Vox until a year ago.

'

Vox has been around for awhile, but they're never really been solid (depending on how you define solid). It's actually a pretty good place to get a feel for what's going on in the... I guess I'd put them under "middling left" as in not quite far left, but not quite center left. Most often though I'd say the biggest problem with Vox is piss poor writing. Like just the straight up mechanics of the English language. Every Vox article I've ever read reminded me of all those college papers I rushed to get done in the hour before the due date

I've honestly never read Salon.

Salon is for the true believers.
Slate is for the true believers who failed didn't do well in school and think in depth discussions of SNL or GOT is important too.

 Pouncey wrote:

You read all that. And that's your response. THAT is your response after hearing your entire government has spent years trying to find an alternative way to fund this so they don't have to raise the gas tax, and have come up with a total of zero solutions.

Raising gas taxes won't solve it Pouncey.

Besides, it's not raising taxes on gas the problem... it's literally spending priority is the problem.

We're not a tax-poor country.

 Stevefamine wrote:
Salon and Vox are useless sites. It's more of a tabloid. Did these news sources used to be solid before this election? I've never heard of Vox until a year ago.

I thought Japan was hilarious with this

That would be because they are tabloids. They were both part of gawker, iirc.

When complaining about trump conflicts of interest or double dealing, an appropriate response is not "but Clinton did it."

Whether or not she did has nothing to do with whether or not trump is doing I. And her guilt (assuming she is guilty) in no way lessens trump's guilt.

So if you are answering charges of conflicts with trump by citing Hillary I suggest you cowboy up and stop obfuscating.

Just deal with the fact that you voted in someone who is a serial scanner and welcher of deals.

Ender502