1049: "Bookshelf"

[IcedT]

I did not read this thread. I was too shocked how long it got in just a few days.

But I wanted to ask: Is it save to say that Ayn Rand and the emotions she sparks are a very ... American thing?

Cause I never heard of her over here (Germany) until a few years ago. Then I noticed she was referenced again and again: I think my first encounter with her was in Matt Ruff's Sewer, Gas & Electric (which, in my opinion, was seriously flawed by his ostentatious hatred for a writer I hadn't even heard about). Next time I met her was in a Twilight parody, then in Stephen Chbosky's Perks of Being a Wallflower, in which she is the only author (along with William Burroughs, sort of) that doesn't receive open praise in the book. Next time, Bert Cooper in Mad Men tries to convince people they should read her work. All in all, she seems to possess a remarkably polarizing effect on people: for some she seems to be an all-American (immigrant) saint, and others seem to feel an irresistible need to make fun of her. And at the same time, from a European perspective, it's very hard to understand why so much attention is being paid to her at all.

Europe is probably better off for not paying her too much mind. This thread alone should probably be enough to convince you that she's too polarizing to be worth it. But here's an article that should give you an idea of why she's still so relevant in the US and why opinions on her differ so strongly. http://www.gq.com/entertainment/books/2 ... untainhead

And since this article is extremely negative about Rand, I'm expecting an angry rebuttal shortly.

[HugoSchmidt]

Perhaps you should ask HugoSchmidt whether he objects to the death penalty. When many of his claims are GOP talking points it's natural to suppose he would not

Or you could read my post where I specifically say that I abhor the death penalty and give some of my reasons for that.

Do you know of any president in recent memory who hasn't been a clear and unquestionable link in an extraordinary number of deaths?

That, sunshine, is what I'm complaining about in the first place. And it is always through criminal irresponsibility.

[The Great Hippo]

Perhaps you should ask HugoSchmidt whether he objects to the death penalty. When many of his claims are GOP talking points it's natural to suppose he would not. But when he self-identifies as libertarian, it's natural to suppose that he would object to the government killing citizens, and would feel that the government should impose no penalty on US citizens who kill suspected criminals. So it could easily go either way.

I... what? Are we even reading the same dude's posts?

Yes. Played well, too.
...

A better response for him is to say "Here's $5 to help your cause, now go away while I talk about how horrible your side is for not casting out the horrible person who did the horrible thing". That's a win for you because you got him to contribute $5 toward your cause that he has no sympathy for.

...why not just say 'I recognize that's a bad thing, but it's not a bad thing I'm particularly passionate about'? That seems like the reasonable response, to me.

Okay, I think this thread is starting to break my brain. No one seems to be communicating to anyone.

That, sunshine, is what I'm complaining about in the first place. And it is always through criminal irresponsibility.

So, applying your reasoning, are all of these Presidents therefore intensely unhappy, miserable people?

[Kaylakaze]

Um, if you'd actually read it all the way, you'd see that a full recount would have shown Gore the winner. Part of the legal issue was the argument that the type of recount Gore was asking for wasn't legal and that to recount, it'd require a full state recount, which, as the article points out, would have been a Gore win.

I did read. And you apparently missed this line:

Note these figures also do not take into account a dispute over 500 asbentee ballots that Bush requested to be added to the certified totals. If found to be legal votes that would put Gore totally out of reach regardless of any manual recount standard.

Again: your source, not mine, counters your claims.

That's an if, and a big if at that.

[Kaylakaze]

Kaylakaze wrote:
Cain's woman problems. Unless you're of the conspiracy theory that that was a) fake b) engineered by democrats and c) somehow racists, it doesn't apply.

Oh, whoop-de-do. Clinton is a rapist lynch murdering war-criminal, and the Democrats and the "liberals" never cease to shill for the guy. They even had the nerve to say he was "the first black president", and as though that wasn't enough, he was "blacker than Barack" because he'd slept with more black women. The sheer cynicism and callousness with which the American left plays the race card three ways and none never ceases to take my breath away.

Wow. That doesn't make you look crazy at all.

[Kaylakaze]

The electoral college itself is both stupid and corrupt in the first place since even though the electoral votes were close, Gore had millions more votes over all. All the electoral college does is say that if you live in a place that's contentious, your vote counts a lot more. If you live in a state that's primarily for your opposition, your vote doesn't count at all.

It's not corrupt when it is the rules of the game which you agreed to before playing. It could have just as easily been a Republican who had the popular vote, but not the electoral vote, who lost.

Also, in a system done by popular vote, if you live in a small state (or heck, possibly even if you didn't live in a big city), your vote wouldn't count at all. The electoral college mimics the congress in this regard. It's sort of how the Senate allows places with smaller populations to still have their interests spoken for. New York City has a population of 8,391,000. City, not state. This is a larger population than 38 of the 50 states. It doesn't take much imagination to see how smaller state's opinions and needs could be ignored in a popular vote system.

That being said, I do think that one very simple but positive change to the electoral college would be for a State's electors to be able to be split, where if a state had 10 electors, and one candidate got 60% of the popular vote within the state, then they would be given 6 electors, and their opponent would be given 40%. Though this is a bit more complicated, and would need the details hammered out. This would make sure that as you said, "if you live in a state that's primarily for your opposition," your vote would still count, because it could mean an extra elector for your candidate from your state.

No, if you lived in a small state, your vote would count just as much as anyone else's. It mimics Congress? Yes, it does, and Congress is broken and corrupt. Just because you may live in Bumfuck, Oklahoma, doesn't mean you should have more of a say than if you live in NYC, which is how the system is now. I understand the concept of "well the less populace states may not have their interests met" but that doesn't mean you screw those who live in populace regions by making their votes count less.

Frankly, our entire system of government is broken. Our Constitution was one of the first of its kind and as such, there are new ideas and concepts and methods that are better. It's the founding documentation version of Windows 1.0 and it's time for an upgrade.

Splitting electoral votes would be a step in the right direction, obviously. It's really the same thing but not as grandular.

[RoberII]

Okay, I think this thread is starting to break my brain. No one seems to be communicating to anyone.

I think that's because the last many many pages has mostly been people talking to HugoSchmidt, and he's playing CalvinBall, except it's less like CalvinBall and more like one of the Little Sisters from BioShock babbling to herself. And then he wins.

And IcedT, thanks for that link. I particularly liked the comparison to birthers.

[Karilyn]

No, if you lived in a small state, your vote would count just as much as anyone else's. It mimics Congress? Yes, it does, and Congress is broken and corrupt.

Just because Congress is broken and corrupt, does not mean that everything remotely associated with it is broken and corrupt. 2 votes per state in the Senate, and a variable amount of votes based on population per state in the House is a good system. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Just because you may live in Bumfuck, Oklahoma, doesn't mean you should have more of a say than if you live in NYC, which is how the system is now. I understand the concept of "well the less populace states may not have their interests met" but that doesn't mean you screw those who live in populace regions by making their votes count less.

Except you already get hundreds of times as many votes. Your votes already count more because you have hundreds of times as many residents. This ultimately comes down to are you thinking of it as "votes in the interest of [insert state name here]" or individual votes. I think the mean average interest of the region is far more important than the interest of specific individuals, because holy crap there are a lot of fucked up people out there that I do not want their interests to be counted. Like the inevitable 0.001% of the population which would like to see all non-whites in the country executed to make our nation more pure. Holy crap, I do NOT want their vote to count.

I think that's because the last many many pages has mostly been people talking to HugoSchmidt, and he's playing CalvinBall, except it's less like CalvinBall and more like one of the Little Sisters from BioShock babbling to herself. And then he wins.

Every time HugoSchmidt says he agrees with something I say, it makes me die a little on the inside, because I do not want someone as irrational as him agreeing with me.

[Kaylakaze]

I'm still trying to wrap my brain around Clinton being a 'rapist lynch murdering war criminal', or the idea that Democrats and "liberals" never cease to shill for him.

You can find the evidence for all of this in No one left to lie to. Just to take the most salient example of his "Southern strategy", for a bounce in the polls his flew back to Arkansas to supervise the execution of a mentally retarded black inmate who would have received clemency otherwise.

And Bush executed a mentally retarded woman and laughed about it publicly. And he executed people who were known to be innocent based on continued forensic evaluation of the crime. It's what Southern governors do. And Democrat and Liberalism do not go hand in hand. Both Clinton and Obama are Goldwater Republicans and corporate shills.

[Karilyn]

And Democrat and Liberalism do not go hand in hand. Both Clinton and Obama are Goldwater Republicans.

Goldwater Republicans desire small federal government and are socially libertarian. While this description accurately applies to Clinton, you'd have to be insane to suggest that Obama wants or desires to have a small federal government.

Basically Goldwater Republican is a near synonym with fiscal conservative libertarian as best as I know. And there's no way in HELL this applies to Obama.

[Kaylakaze]

No, if you lived in a small state, your vote would count just as much as anyone else's. It mimics Congress? Yes, it does, and Congress is broken and corrupt.

Just because Congress is broken and corrupt, does not mean that everything remotely associated with it is broken and corrupt. 2 votes per state in the Senate, and a variable amount of votes based on population per state in the House is a good system. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Just because you may live in Bumfuck, Oklahoma, doesn't mean you should have more of a say than if you live in NYC, which is how the system is now. I understand the concept of "well the less populace states may not have their interests met" but that doesn't mean you screw those who live in populace regions by making their votes count less.

Except you already get hundreds of times as many votes. Your votes already count more because you have hundreds of times as many residents. Herpaderp.

2 votes per state is a severe problem. I don't see how anyone can say it isn't. Why should 1 million people in Montana get as much say as 20 million in California? (I don't know the population numbers of these states but I bet the difference is even wider than this).

And how do you figure your vote counts more because you have more residents? If all your popular votes equal only 2 real votes, that's each vote being worth 1/10 millionth of a vote per person in CA and 1/500,000th of a vote per person in MT. A vote in MT is worth 20 times as much as a vote in CA. it's like saying you work in an office of 21 people. You guys vote to go to lunch. 20 people say Italian and 1 person says Mexican. Based on our current system in the US (and my population guesstimates), we'd call that a tie.

[Kaylakaze]

And Democrat and Liberalism do not go hand in hand. Both Clinton and Obama are Goldwater Republicans.

Goldwater Republicans desire small federal government and are socially libertarian. While this description accurately applies to Clinton, you'd have to be insane to suggest that Obama wants or desires to have a small federal government.

Basically Goldwater Republican is a near synonym with fiscal conservative libertarian as best as I know. And there's no way in HELL this applies to Obama.

Well, since you've been listening to nothing but right-wing propaganda on Obama and never paid attention to anything TRUE about him, you would say that.

That aside, a quick question: would you rather have a big rock or a small rock?

[IcedT]

And Democrat and Liberalism do not go hand in hand. Both Clinton and Obama are Goldwater Republicans.

Goldwater Republicans desire small federal government and are socially liberal. While this description accurately applies to Clinton, you'd have to be insane to suggest that Obama wants or desires to have a small federal government.

Why, because he put in place a government mandate that was previously embraced by small-government Republicans instead of pushing for the single-payer system that his liberal constituents wanted to see? Obama's a Goldwater. The only reason he seems liberal in today's world is because the GOP keeps drifting further and further to the right.

EDIT:

And IcedT, thanks for that link. I particularly liked the comparison to birthers.

No problem, glad somebody enjoyed it. It's crazy, huh?

[Karilyn]

2 votes per state is a severe problem. I don't see how anyone can say it isn't. Why should 1 million people in Montana get as much say as 20 million in California? (I don't know the population numbers of these states but I bet the difference is even wider than this).

And how do you figure your vote counts more because you have more residents? If all your popular votes equal only 2 real votes, that's each vote being worth 1/10 millionth of a vote per person in CA and 1/500,000th of a vote per person in MT. A vote in MT is worth 20 times as much as a vote in CA. it's like saying you work in an office of 21 people. You guys vote to go to lunch. 20 people say Italian and 1 person says Mexican. Based on our current system in the US (and my population guesstimates), we'd call that a tie.

I don't think you know how the system works. California has a population of 37,691,912, and 55 electoral votes (2+53). Montana has a population of 998,199, and 3 electoral votes (2+1). Montana gets 1 electoral vote per 332,733 people. California gets 1 electoral vote per 685,307 people. So yes, a person in California's vote counts for half that of someone in Montana, however, in exchange, California gets a total of 18.3x more votes than Montana. I think that's a fair exchange.

Your 20 times claim is factually wrong, by an order of 10, and ignores the fact that California's vote is 18 times larger than Montana's.

Learn how the system works before you make claims like that.

[RoberII]

Why, because he put in place a government mandate that was previously embraced by small-government Republicans instead of pushing for the single-payer system that his liberal constituents wanted to see? Obama's a Goldwater. The only reason he seems liberal in today's world is because the GOP keeps drifting further and further to the right.

I always thought of him as a somewhat naíve centrist. He saw health care in the US, wanted to reform it, and figured the Republicans wouldn't block their own idea, now would they? And that'd still be better than failingto reform, like Clinton did, right? ... Right?

[Karilyn]

And Democrat and Liberalism do not go hand in hand. Both Clinton and Obama are Goldwater Republicans.

Goldwater Republicans desire small federal government and are socially libertarian. While this description accurately applies to Clinton, you'd have to be insane to suggest that Obama wants or desires to have a small federal government. Basically Goldwater Republican is a near synonym with fiscal conservative libertarian as best as I know. And there's no way in HELL this applies to Obama.

Well, since you've been listening to nothing but right-wing propaganda on Obama and never paid attention to anything TRUE about him, you would say that.

That aside, a quick question: would you rather have a big rock or a small rock?

What the crap are you talking about? Clinton was small government. Bush was big government. Obama was even bigger government than Bush. Here have a source from CNN. CNN is generally considered a left-wing publication. It includes lots of statistics.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/25/news/ec ... /index.htm

And what the fuck is that crap about a rock? Are you seriously suggesting I want to stone Obama?



You have no business being a part of this conversation anymore. Just walk away from your computer and don't come back until you can handle discussing things like an adult.

[HugoSchmidt]

Oh Christ, someone get me a red bull. J Thomas is being boring again.

And Bush executed a mentally retarded woman and laughed about it publicly

Thank you, kaylakaze, for admitting that "your" boys and "their" boys are exactly the same. That's my beef to begin with.

It's what Southern governors

And do you think this is okay?

If this meant anything, it meant that the difference between a donkey and an elephant was the difference between democracy and fascism, or between pluralism and absolutism. But just wait for the good people's party to be caught doing something shady or vile; at once you will be told that it's no worse than what the bad people's party would do or has done. Immediately, in other words, the apologist will admit that the game is up, and that he is judging his own team by a standard (of ghastliness in others) that he himself helped to set. "They all do it" means, in this circle, "We all do it." But the apologist won't concede this consciously or honestly

Every time HugoSchmidt says he agrees with something I say, it makes me die a little on the inside, because I do not want someone as irrational as him agreeing with me.

Irrational, eh? So irrational that neither you nor anyone here can point out where I am irrational.

[Karilyn]

Irrational, eh? So irrational that neither you nor anyone here can point out where I am irrational.

I've done it in about a dozen posts, which were quite long and detailed. You might not have noticed them. This doesn't surprise me.

[IcedT]

Why, because he put in place a government mandate that was previously embraced by small-government Republicans instead of pushing for the single-payer system that his liberal constituents wanted to see? Obama's a Goldwater. The only reason he seems liberal in today's world is because the GOP keeps drifting further and further to the right.

I always thought of him as a somewhat naíve centrist. He saw health care in the US, wanted to reform it, and figured the Republicans wouldn't block their own idea, now would they? And that'd still be better than failingto reform, like Clinton did, right? ... Right?

I think he definitely underestimated just how determined the GOP was to keep him from accomplishing anything. Politics is a prisoner's dilemma and for most of this presidency, it seems like Obama's been the only one acting in good faith.

Obama was even bigger government than Bush. Here have a source from CNN. CNN is generally considered a left-wing publication. It includes lots of statistics.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/25/news/ec ... /index.htm

All I'm seeing in that article is that government spending as a share of GDP has expanded naturally due to the recession and mandatory increases to social security and medicaid. Hiring has been concentrated in the military and intelligence, which is not what most people mean when they say "big government." And most of his regulations are being represented primarily as cost-saving measures.

[PeteP]

2 votes per state is a severe problem. I don't see how anyone can say it isn't. Why should 1 million people in Montana get as much say as 20 million in California? (I don't know the population numbers of these states but I bet the difference is even wider than this).

And how do you figure your vote counts more because you have more residents? If all your popular votes equal only 2 real votes, that's each vote being worth 1/10 millionth of a vote per person in CA and 1/500,000th of a vote per person in MT. A vote in MT is worth 20 times as much as a vote in CA. it's like saying you work in an office of 21 people. You guys vote to go to lunch. 20 people say Italian and 1 person says Mexican. Based on our current system in the US (and my population guesstimates), we'd call that a tie.

I don't think you know how the system works. California has a population of 37,691,912, and 55 electoral votes (2+53). Montana has a population of 998,199, and 3 electoral votes (2+1). Montana gets 1 electoral vote per 332,733 people. California gets 1 electoral vote per 685,307 people. So yes, a person in California's vote counts for half that of someone in Montana, however, in exchange, California gets a total of 18.3x more votes than Montana. I think that's a fair exchange.

Your 20 times claim is factually wrong, by an order of 10, and ignores the fact that California's vote is 18 times larger than Montana's.

Learn how the system works before you make claims like that.

If that property is important, you could use popular vote and just add a weighting factor. Explicitly saying that people from Montana get 2 votes would be a much more open system and it would get rid of the electorate step, which unnecessarily removes granularity. Why is "small states getting more votes" the usual main argument for the current system, if you could easily add that property to another voting system?

[Kaylakaze]

Just so you know, there is a very large swathe of the American right I have utter disgust for. I know the sort of thing that the WND crowd peddle. But my point in raising this stuff is that I have little patience with people like kaylakaze who say it's only ever the other side that does the bad stuff.

When did I ever say only the other side did bad stuff? When did ever claim to a side in the Republican/Democrat debate? What I hate is the false equivalence the media in this country tries to peddle. ie. Republicans are actively doing their damndest to legally torture women in America. A woman who isn't in any official government or democratic position says Ann Romney isn't a go to source on the economics of women in the workplace because she's never worked a day in her life. So of course media says both sides are equally anti-woman.

Romney, as an adult, straps a pet dog to the roof of his car and drives 12 hours on the freeway, stopping part way to drench the dog with water. Barack Obama ate dog as a child while living in a country where a dog was normal livestock to be eaten. So of course media says these are the exact same thing.

It's ridiculous.

[RoberII]

Irrational, eh? So irrational that neither you nor anyone here can point out where I am irrational.

In general, irrational people are not that good at recognizing their own irrationality though. So, you know. Maybe we already did. You can never know.

[Kaylakaze]

2 votes per state is a severe problem. I don't see how anyone can say it isn't. Why should 1 million people in Montana get as much say as 20 million in California? (I don't know the population numbers of these states but I bet the difference is even wider than this).

And how do you figure your vote counts more because you have more residents? If all your popular votes equal only 2 real votes, that's each vote being worth 1/10 millionth of a vote per person in CA and 1/500,000th of a vote per person in MT. A vote in MT is worth 20 times as much as a vote in CA. it's like saying you work in an office of 21 people. You guys vote to go to lunch. 20 people say Italian and 1 person says Mexican. Based on our current system in the US (and my population guesstimates), we'd call that a tie.

I don't think you know how the system works. California has a population of 37,691,912, and 55 electoral votes (2+53). Montana has a population of 998,199, and 3 electoral votes (2+1). Montana gets 1 electoral vote per 332,733 people. California gets 1 electoral vote per 685,307 people. So yes, a person in California's vote counts for half that of someone in Montana, however, in exchange, California gets a total of 18.3x more votes than Montana. I think that's a fair exchange.

Your 20 times claim is factually wrong, by an order of 10, and ignores the fact that California's vote is 18 times larger than Montana's.

Learn how the system works before you make claims like that.

Actually, in that case I was referring to the Senate, not electoral college. My apologies for not stating so.

However, I don't see how you can call that electoral college math fair. Yes, CA gets 18x more votes, but they have 38x as many people. They should get 38 times more votes than MT if you want to be fair.

[Kaylakaze]

And Democrat and Liberalism do not go hand in hand. Both Clinton and Obama are Goldwater Republicans.

Goldwater Republicans desire small federal government and are socially libertarian. While this description accurately applies to Clinton, you'd have to be insane to suggest that Obama wants or desires to have a small federal government. Basically Goldwater Republican is a near synonym with fiscal conservative libertarian as best as I know. And there's no way in HELL this applies to Obama.

Well, since you've been listening to nothing but right-wing propaganda on Obama and never paid attention to anything TRUE about him, you would say that.

That aside, a quick question: would you rather have a big rock or a small rock?

What the crap are you talking about? Clinton was small government. Bush was big government. Obama was even bigger government than Bush. Here have a source from CNN. CNN is generally considered a left-wing publication. It includes lots of statistics.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/25/news/ec ... /index.htm

And what the fuck is that crap about a rock? Are you seriously suggesting I want to stone Obama?



You have no business being a part of this conversation anymore. Just walk away from your computer and don't come back until you can handle discussing things like an adult.

The only people who consider CNN a left-wing publication are people who subsist on nothing but Fox News and scream "socialist!" anytime someone quote reality at them.

And no, I wasn't suggesting you wanted to stone Obama. I'm asking you which you would prefer, a small rock or a big rock. It's a metaphor, the point being we never laid out what the rock is for. Depending on the purpose, a small rock is better than a big rock. For other purposes, a big rock is better than a small. And the same is with government. Until the discussion establishes what the government is for, it's ridiculous to argue about small government vs large government, unless you're one of those whack jobs who think all government period is bad no matter what, and you've already demonstrated that you are not.

[Kaylakaze]

And do you think this is okay?

No, I was basically saying what Hippo did. If I got the vapors every time I heard about a politician doing something monstrous, I'd never get off my fainting couch.

And as it has been pointed out, letting the execution be carried out on someone who intentionally retarded themself in order to try to escape a jury's sentence is totally different than approving the execution of a woman who was always retarded and then, afterwards, publicly mocking her and laughing about it. Again, it's that false equivalence thing.

[Karilyn]

If that property is important, you could use popular vote and just add a weighting factor. Explicitly saying that people from Montana get 2 votes would be a much more open system and it would get rid of the electorate step, which unnecessarily removes granularity. Why is "small states getting more votes" the usual main argument for the current system, if you could easily add that property to another voting system?

I would be fine with doing that. The point is that the system can't be changed after votes have already been cast, in order to change the outcome. We can change it, but it needs to be done between election cycles.

Also, if I might suggest one problem with switching to a popular vote system?

If you thought the Florida recounting was a big mucking mess, imagine what it would be like if elections were decided by popular vote, and the popular vote was within 100 votes or so. United States has about a 55% voter turnout on presidential elections. Could you imagine if instead of recounting 12 million votes, we had to recount, 170 million votes? My stomach crawls up inside itself and dies just thinking about the amount of bullshittery that would be surrounding such a thing.

That's the main complaint off the top of my head. There's a lot of practical reasons behind why I think a split electorate vote like (I think) Maine does would be superior to either popular vote, or the current "winner take all" system.

In the current system, my vote in my state is approximately 1 out of 5,398,365. In a popular vote system, my vote would be approximately 1 out of 171,375,554; in other words, a whopping 25 times less valuable. In a split delegate system, my vote would be 1 out of 359,891. Oh hey, now THAT is more like it. Suddenly we're starting to reach a range where a person's vote is actually having an impact. Or at least it's less than a 1 in a half million chance of being a vote that matters. Still playing the lottery there, but at least it's not as bad as 171 million.

[Karilyn]

Republicans are actively doing their damndest to legally torture women in America.

Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. No. Just. No. Just. Go away. I've been giving calm rational arguments all day, and now you're trying to suggest that Republicans want me to make it legal to torture me?

Just. Shut up.

What the fuck is wrong with you? Where do you get this nonsense? Argh how do you even begin to debate something as completely ridiculous as that.

You know what, you know what? Yeah. We can go with that. Republicans want it to be legal to torture women. And Democrats want it to be legal to rape babies. Let's just say that! Yeah! I can make up complete nonsense too!

[RoberII]

Republicans are actively doing their damndest to legally torture women in America.

Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. No. Just. No. Just. Go away. I've been giving calm rational arguments all day, and now you're trying to suggest that Republicans want me to make it legal to torture me?

Just. Shut up.

What the fuck is wrong with you? Where do you get this nonsense? Argh how do you even begin to debate something as completely ridiculous as that.

You know what, you know what? Yeah. We can go with that. Republicans want it to be legal to torture women. And Democrats want it to be legal to rape babies. Let's just say that! Yeah! I can make up complete nonsense too!

I'm guessing he's talking about transvaginal ultrasounds or something similarly abhorrent.

[Kaylakaze]

Republicans are actively doing their damndest to legally torture women in America.

Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. No. Just. No. Just. Go away. I've been giving calm rational arguments all day, and now you're trying to suggest that Republicans want me to make it legal to torture me?

Just. Shut up.

What the fuck is wrong with you? Where do you get this nonsense? Argh how do you even begin to debate something as completely ridiculous as that.

You know what, you know what? Yeah. We can go with that. Republicans want it to be legal to torture women. And Democrats want it to be legal to rape babies. Let's just say that! Yeah! I can make up complete nonsense too!

Well, since we HAVE established that you don't pay attention to the news, perhaps you haven't seen the so-called anti abortion laws Republicans are passing? Like the one in VA requiring that a woman be penetrated without permission if she wanted an abortion (even if she got pregnant as a result of rape)? Keep in mind, most abortions are done non-surgically so saying "well she'd have to be for the surgery anyway" doesn't fly.

[IcedT]

EDIT: I was ninja'd to hell on this, but I'd already written up my post and I decided to let it stand.

Republicans are actively doing their damndest to legally torture women in America.

Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. No. Just. No. Just. Go away. I've been giving calm rational arguments all day, and now you're trying to suggest that Republicans want me to make it legal to torture me?

Just. Shut up.

What the fuck is wrong with you? Where do you get this nonsense? Argh how do you even begin to debate something as completely ridiculous as that.

You know what, you know what? Yeah. We can go with that. Republicans want it to be legal to torture women. And Democrats want it to be legal to rape babies. Let's just say that! Yeah! I can make up complete nonsense too!

Calm down everybody. Kaylakaze was using a thing called "hyperbole" to describe a series of Republican bills that require, among other things, unwanted and invasive trans-vaginal ultrasounds. And also efforts to repeal equal pay laws, bills that make it legal for doctors to lie to patients considering abortion, and a slew of other bizarre and extreme bills that make me glad I have a dick. And to give you an idea of just how far the ideological ridiculousness goes, there's an effort in my home state of Arizona to define life as beginning two weeks prior to conception. This shit is seriously a big deal.

[Kaylakaze]

I'm guessing he's talking about transvaginal ultrasounds or something similarly abhorrent.

She, and yes, as well as the psychological torture of the forcing of non-invasive ultra sounds. Or of the "the nearest clinic you can go to is 200 miles away because we shut all the other ones down. Now, you have to go, see the doctor, and then wait a week before anything can be done, then, a week later you have to come back again for another talk, and then, only a week after that can you get an abortion." Or the new law in Arizona that says start of pregnancy is "calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman" so you could legally be pregnant before you even had sex.

And if you want psychological torture, I read an article by a woman who was pregnant and her and her husband were thrilled and were so happy, but then they found out the fetus had a severe birth defect that'd cause the baby to be stillborn, if the fetus even lived that long. She had to choose to either carry a dead fetus inside her or have an abortion. She chose abortion, but because of the new laws in TX, I think it was, the doctors were required by law to give her speeches about adoption and all that sort of stuff and then they were required to perform an ultrasound. The only good part was TX hadn't passed the part of the law that required doctors to force the woman to watch. But the woman was completely devastated for obvious reasons.

[Karilyn]

Well, since we HAVE established that you don't pay attention to the news, perhaps you haven't seen the so-called anti abortion laws Republicans are passing?

I don't approve of abortion. I'm allowed to not approve of abortion despite being a woman. It is a massive stretch of the imagination to call anti-abortion laws "torturing women."

I think at the point where abortion surgeries are performed are far too late in the development of a fetus (after about 1 month is too far), and it becomes murder. And I do not think anything justifies murder of a person who has not committed a crime. While of COURSE I agree that my body is my body, and I have the right to do with it what I want, an abortion involves two bodies, not just one body. And a right to do what I want with my body, does not give me the right to do what I want with someone else's body, simply because they aren't born yet.

Before you start flinging names at me again you should know this. Despite all of the above, I am a huge supporter of the morning-after pill, and think that the morning-after pill should be subsidized by the government to be provided to everybody free of charge should they need it. This accomplishes all the same purposes as the legalization of abortion, but does not kill children with substancial brain and nervous system development.

Not a human being yet. This is 1 month.


This on the other hand is a human. This is 6 months.

[IcedT]

Before you start flinging names at me again you should know this. Despite all of the above, I am a huge supporter of the morning-after pill, and think that the morning-after pill should be subsidized by the government to be provided to everybody free of charge should they need it. This accomplishes all the same purposes as the legalization of abortion, but does not kill children with substancial brain and nervous system development.

Look, your last post was about 50% "fuck you" by volume. I'm not sure you're in a position to complain about name-calling. Especially because nobody's called you anything.

[Karilyn]

I'm guessing he's talking about

She

Holy fucking crap, you're female? Not sure if changes my opinion of you or not. Gawd, I'm so misandrist if I'm seriously considering raising my opinion of you purely because you're female.

That being said, yeah that nonsensical polarization is idiotic. But there does happen to be middle ground you know. There are options besides A or B.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Well, since we HAVE established that you don't pay attention to the news, perhaps you haven't seen the so-called anti abortion laws Republicans are passing?

I don't approve of abortion. I'm allowed to not approve of abortion despite being a woman. It is a massive stretch of the imagination to call anti-abortion laws "torturing women."

You miss the point. Anti-abortion bills are not, as a whole, torture. However, there is a specific bill within that group that would coerce women seeking abortions to have non-medically-indicated transvaginal ultrasounds. It is not at all a stretch to say that coercing someone to undergo an invasive, nonindicated medical procedure is torture, or at least a close analogue.

[jpers36]

Um, if you'd actually read it all the way, you'd see that a full recount would have shown Gore the winner. Part of the legal issue was the argument that the type of recount Gore was asking for wasn't legal and that to recount, it'd require a full state recount, which, as the article points out, would have been a Gore win.

I did read. And you apparently missed this line:

Note these figures also do not take into account a dispute over 500 asbentee ballots that Bush requested to be added to the certified totals. If found to be legal votes that would put Gore totally out of reach regardless of any manual recount standard.

Again: your source, not mine, counters your claims.

That's an if, and a big if at that.

No more so than any of the other hypotheticals you're using to get to Gore's win. Again, we're down to you pushing your false ideology as fact.

[RoberII]

It's probably worth noting that trans-vaginal ultrasound are done using this. And that there is no reason at all why it should be a trans-vaginal ultrasound - it's just state-condoned slutshaming. And honestly - fuck that.

[Kaylakaze]

Well, since we HAVE established that you don't pay attention to the news, perhaps you haven't seen the so-called anti abortion laws Republicans are passing?

I don't approve of abortion. I'm allowed to not approve of abortion despite being a woman. It is a massive stretch of the imagination to call anti-abortion laws "torturing women."

I think at the point where abortion surgeries are performed are far too late in the development of a fetus (after about 1 month is too far), and it becomes murder. And I do not think anything justifies murder of a person who has not committed a crime. While of COURSE I agree that my body is my body, and I have the right to do with it what I want, an abortion involves two bodies, not just one body. And a right to do what I want with my body, does not give me the right to do what I want with someone else's body, simply because they aren't born yet.

Before you start flinging names at me again you should know this. Despite all of the above, I am a huge supporter of the morning-after pill, and think that the morning-after pill should be subsidized by the government to be provided to everybody free of charge should they need it. This accomplishes all the same purposes as the legalization of abortion, but does not kill children with substancial brain and nervous system development.

I don't believe I've flung any names at you. You're completely wrong on human development, but I'm not going to call you names over it. I also don't see how any sane person can read those laws and not call them torture. Also, again, most abortions are chemical, not surgical. Actually MOST abortions are spontaneous before a woman even knows she's pregnant in the first place.

And though you're right about the morning after pill, you're wrong on abortion killing children with substantial brain and nervous system development. Of course, I think it requires cognitive abilities for a creature to be classified as human in the first place but I know most people disagree with me.

[Karilyn]

Well, since we HAVE established that you don't pay attention to the news, perhaps you haven't seen the so-called anti abortion laws Republicans are passing?

I don't approve of abortion. I'm allowed to not approve of abortion despite being a woman. It is a massive stretch of the imagination to call anti-abortion laws "torturing women."

You miss the point. Anti-abortion bills are not, as a whole, torture. However, there is a specific bill within that group that would coerce women seeking abortions to have non-medically-indicated transvaginal ultrasounds. It is not at all a stretch to say that coercing someone to undergo an invasive, nonindicated medical procedure is torture, or at least a close analogue.

I would still call "torture" a ridiculously hyperbolic word to use, even if that bill is unacceptable and has no business being made into law. In the same breath, I would also question the claim that this one specific bill, in one specific part of the country, by a small group of people, means that ALL Republicans support the torture of women. All of it is incredibly hyperbolic and counterproductive to discussion.

No woman should have a transvaginal ultrasound forced on her, BUT a transvaginal ultrasound doesn't even compare to the "torture" of a gynecology visit. Then again, no woman should be forced to go to the gynecologist either. There's nothing inherently torture about a transvaginal ultrasound. The problem is not that the medical treatment is cruel and unusual, it's that the treatment is being mandated by law. And being mandated when it should not be, is not even close to enough to be a qualifier for being considered torture.

It's probably worth noting that trans-vaginal ultrasound are done using this.

Let me introduce you to a gynecologist's best friend. That thing of yours suddenly looks a lot less scary doesn't it?

[PeteP]

In the current system, my vote in my state is approximately 1 out of 5,398,365. In a popular vote system, my vote would be approximately 1 out of 171,375,554; in other words, a whopping 25 times less valuable. In a split delegate system, my vote would be 1 out of 359,891. Oh hey, now THAT is more like it. Suddenly we're starting to reach a range where a person's vote is actually having an impact. Or at least it's less than a 1 in a half million chance of being a vote that matters. Still playing the lottery there, but at least it's not as bad as 171 million.

Correct me if I understood you wrong: I will answer this part since that math is pretty bogus. Following that calculating, doubling the number of delegates in your state would bring the 359,891 down even further. The more we raise the number of delegates, the better the numbers get, till we reach 1 delegate per voter, which essentially is a popular vote. Which is the system where you say your vote has the least value.
Naturally it's obvious what's wrong with the calculation, it ignores that the influence of a delegate goes down if there are more delegates. That is the problem with you original calculation: It doesn't factor in how important a single delegate is compare to the person they elect.