Controversial Opinions (For Everything Other Than DC Comics)

[DrNewGod]

Okay let's talk infrastructure and Education. Democrats would like to rebuild our failing infrastructure and keep public Education funded. Republicans idea is to turn over infrastructure to private companies and allow them to charge whatever they want for people to drive on them. NOT improve and rebuild on the ones we have. They also want to de-fund Amtrak. Trump has proposed one project, his asinine Wall.
On Education, the GOP wants to take money from Public Schools and give it to Religious Schools or for profit Charter Schools, which have not shown to improve education, just makes poor schools poorer. I will say that the Democratic idea of free public college is controversial.

Where is the middle ground?

I'm forced to agree. Privatization of what should be public services inequitably distributes access to those services.

The problem is there are too many people who believe if you're on the other side of the political divide, you must be either evil, stupid, and/or crazy. It's impossible to have a meaningful conversation at that point. Mot that you're point doesn't have merit, of course.

Agreed. I've decided to avoid the Politics thread after reading someone say that a differing opinion does not deserve civility. I agree with their position on the issue, but mutual eye-gouging loses its utility pretty fast.

[Jack Dracula]

I am not going to list everything the Republicans have done wrong. i have stated that they have. i know that they have. I know the Dems have the better track record on many things. I am not defending the Republican party. I am just saying that there are many things about the Dems I dont like. I am saying that many Republicans have a view of Dems that make them unwilling to work with the dems because they assume all Dems are like that. And I am saying that the Dmes think that all Republicans are the same and therefor are unwilling to work with any of them, even those who are in the middle.

My point was that both sides have a view of the other and because of that refuse to work with each other. I was not defending one party over the other. I was not comparing their human rights records. I was pointing out that both sides have closed minded people when it comes to members of the other party.

To be fair, a lot of the negativity from Republicans towards Democrats stems from a purposeful disinformation campaign by conservative think tanks and organizations funded by corporations and billionaires.

[DrNewGod]

To be fair, a lot of the negativity from Republicans towards Democrats stems from a purposeful disinformation campaign by conservative think tanks and organizations funded by corporations and billionaires.

This is also true.

[Zauriel]

What I am saying is it the GOP who will not work with Democrats. Obama chose to base the ACA on Republican ideas instead of Medicare for all, and then watered it down further to get any GOP support, and not a single GOP Senator voted for it.
The House Democrats have passed hundreds of bills, with bi-partisan support on most, and McConnell has refused to bring up one in the Senate.
It is one side destroying the country.

If the people are not satisfied with the Congress, then they should vote them out of office. The problem is they are too dumb to realize the fact so they keep voting to reelect the same politicians in office

[Kirby101]

If the people are not satisfied with the Congress, then they should vote them out of office. The problem is they are too dumb to realize the fact so they keep voting to reelect the same politicians in office

They did the last election, even though the GOP has gerrymandered many States. In the Senate each State gets 2, so small States like Wyoming with 600,000 people gets the same representation as California, with 50 million. The Senate Democrats have gotten 18 million more votes for them than the GOP. But they control the Senate. And I must remind you Trump lost by 3 million votes.

[Moon Ronin]

They did the last election, even though the GOP has gerrymandered many States. In the Senate each State gets 2, so small States like Wyoming with 600,000 people gets the same representation as California, with 50 million. The Senate Democrats have gotten 18 million more votes for them than the GOP. But they control the Senate. And I must remind you Trump lost by 3 million votes.

I was set up as such because the United States is a union of sovereign state and that in the Senate each state had equal representation no matter of size. When the United States was founded, many worried about the populous states having an undue influence on legislation that might be passed by the new Congress. So, a bicameral legislature was created. One part, the House of Representatives was based on the concept of "one person, one vote." The number of House members each state got was based on that state's population. A second body in Congress - the Senate. Its membership was based on the idea that each state in this new United States would have equal representation, with two Senators from each state having seats in the Senate. The idea was balancing the power of the citizen against the power of the separate states. Both bodies were required to pass all new legislation. That was designed to prevent either body from misusing its power to control things.

If the senate were also based on population it would negate the original intent of the separate houses of Congress. Congress is the combination of a representative republic and a democratic republic. It did change slightly with the 17th amendment putting the appointment of a senator to the people of the stat rather than the state's legislature but the underlying idea is still the same for state/people representation.

Wyoming has 1 House member and California has 53

[DrNewGod]

I was set up as such because the United States is a union of sovereign state and that in the Senate each state had equal representation no matter of size. When the United States was founded, many worried about the populous states having an undue influence on legislation that might be passed by the new Congress. So, a bicameral legislature was created. One part, the House of Representatives was based on the concept of "one person, one vote." The number of House members each state got was based on that state's population. A second body in Congress - the Senate. Its membership was based on the idea that each state in this new United States would have equal representation, with two Senators from each state having seats in the Senate. The idea was balancing the power of the citizen against the power of the separate states. Both bodies were required to pass all new legislation. That was designed to prevent either body from misusing its power to control things.

If the senate were also based on population it would negate the original intent of the separate houses of Congress. Congress is the combination of a representative republic and a democratic republic. It did change slightly with the 17th amendment putting the appointment of a senator to the people of the stat rather than the state's legislature but the underlying idea is still the same for state/people representation.

Wyoming has 1 House member and California has 53

Your interpretation of the formative logic is correct, and the constitution has not yet been amended to change that. All that said, the formative logic predates the technologies that allow massive centralization of wealth and economic opportunity, as well as the influence of federal government on states, and even individual states on one another. The original logic also prevented the winner-take all power distribution of today's presidential elections by requiring the second place electoral recipient to become vice president. Under the original logic, the individual states had more power, to include that senators were appointed agents of their states, and not directly elected officials.

What is more, the House has lost ground as an offset for the Senate because more executive power has centralized in the hands of appointed officials whose presidential nomination is approved by the Senate, and not the House. That condition has further worsened as Congress has been increasingly reluctant to pass real legislation, passing the buck to the courts, whose decision makers are - again - Senate appointees.

There still needs to be a way to protect the interests of small states against domination of the larger states, but a method that allows a candidate to ascend to the presidency while losing by a substantial plurality probably isn't the way.

[Moon Ronin]

Your interpretation of the formative logic is correct, and the constitution has not yet been amended to change that.

It would take multiple amendments to do so. It would seem that the equal suffrage of the states was a big deal to the framers of the constitution as they put in Article V “that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” . With that a simple (which is not very simple) amendment could not change it. First an amendment changing Article V would need to be completed before one could be done to change Article II and then one that address the language in the 17th amendment. So the idea of "has not yet been" is more like "will never be" as it will be states voting to lessen there own influence in the federal government.

[DrNewGod]

It would take multiple amendments to do so. It would seem that the equal suffrage of the states was a big deal to the framers of the constitution as they put in Article V “that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” . With that a simple (which is not very simple) amendment could not change it. First an amendment changing Article V would need to be completed before one could be done to change Article II and then one that address the language in the 17th amendment. So the idea of "has not yet been" is more like "will never be" as it will be states voting to lessen there own influence in the federal government.

Never say never. There are too many original assumptions that simply are not suited to today's reality. Easy, no. Impossible, also no.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Never say never. There are too many original assumptions that simply are not suited to today's reality. Easy, no. Impossible, also no.

It's looking more like impossible considering getting one amendment passed would take a miracle in congress. It'll start to look easier once that barrier is shown to be conquerable.

[anyajenkins]

Okay let's talk infrastructure and Education. Democrats would like to rebuild our failing infrastructure and keep public Education funded. Republicans idea is to turn over infrastructure to private companies and allow them to charge whatever they want for people to drive on them. NOT improve and rebuild on the ones we have. They also want to de-fund Amtrak. Trump has proposed one project, his asinine Wall.
On Education, the GOP wants to take money from Public Schools and give it to Religious Schools or for profit Charter Schools, which have not shown to improve education, just makes poor schools poorer. I will say that the Democratic idea of free public college is controversial.

Where is the middle ground?

Well, I live in a red state right now and none of the republicans are trying to do that or even talking about. I’m sure you can found some knuckleheads talking about it, that isn’t something a ‘majority’ of republicans want/ are pushing for. The roads are always under construction and none of them are being turned into privately owned/ toll roads. So hey, some middle ground.

[Kirby101]

Well, I live in a red state right now and none of the republicans are trying to do that or even talking about. I’m sure you can found some knuckleheads talking about it, that isn’t something a ‘majority’ of republicans want/ are pushing for. The roads are always under construction and none of them are being turned into privately owned/ toll roads. So hey, some middle ground.

That's good to hear. Though what I referred to was what is coming out of the GOP in Washington. There they have turned away major infrastructure spending for decades. And the Trump plan is laughable.

https://www.citylab.com/transportati...ucture/553856/

[Moon Ronin]

It's looking more like impossible considering getting one amendment passed would take a miracle in congress. It'll start to look easier once that barrier is shown to be conquerable.

Other than the 16th the amendments mainly limit the power of the central government or define the rights and freedoms of citizenship. Again I don't ever see 2/3s of the states voting to give them self less representation in the senate. I'm sure that if you ask the people of Wyoming (they are always picked on in this example) if their state is less important than California because of population and should have less power in the senate the vast majority (if not all of them) will give a resounding NO to that question. So even if any other amendment is passed (which is doubtful given the political polarization currently) the sun will more likely raise in the West before an amendment to lesson states senate sets compared to other states sees ratification.

[Jim Kelly]

It seems to me that if the common people see that the instruments of democracy fail to effect change when change is wanted, then they will lose faith in the democratic system. If government isn't going to help them, and it's a case of survival, then people will take direct action to get what they need to survive.

In 1848, there were revolutions all across Europe. After that, governments instituted changes to give the people a greater voice and better support. Democracy isn't something that the rich give to the poor out of Christian charity. It's something that rightly needs to exist or else the only alternative is open rebellion. If you give people what they need to survive, then they're less likely to riot, steal and murder.

So it's in the self-interest of the rich to support a functioning democracy--it saves them money. They don't need to spend as much on security. The workforce is strong and healthy. There are less diseases (rich people can't safeguard themselves against all communicable diseases, unless they help prevent diseases among the poor). Environmental disasters shouldn't pose a threat to the economy, so long as everyone takes care of the Earth.

[Moon Ronin]

That's good to hear. Though what I referred to was what is coming out of the GOP in Washington. There they have turned away major infrastructure spending for decades. And the Trump plan is laughable.

https://www.citylab.com/transportati...ucture/553856/

The article actually says that turning over some areas of infrastructure to private companies is good, such as "privatizing management of the airport(s)" and that "Private capital would benefit money-making projects in prosperous areas..." and that "states and cities will need to do more to build on these measures by finding new revenue streams to fund their own investments." And that "the Trump administration’s infrastructure plan is only a starting point". It basically says that all levels of government needs to invest more to the funding in regards to infrastructure and it really does not trash Trumps plan as "laughable" but that it needs to be "tweaked".