working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

I think Straight Up's dialogue with The Critical Critic undermines your assertion. OPP would benefit from more discussions like those posters provided.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Yes, it (OPP) would.

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

I tried to “quote reply” to your original post, but it wouldn’t fit.

I understood what you were saying. I was just hoping that you would have provided an example of this illusion in the context of Mr. England’s speech. But it’s neither here nor there, I understand your point, we don’t need to split any hairs over this because, for the most part I agree with you. Thank you for taking the time to explain.

Fair enough. I just wanted to point out that that isn’t the sole publication to which he contributes. Others, to include Christian Science Monitor, and The Washington Times, are hardly bastions of conservative policy, especially the latter, at least not to the same extent as HF. But again, your point is fair.

Lol! Funny, and true. Though I still think it’s a little unfair not to apply the same standard. But again, not a hair worth the time to split.

In total agreement with the bias aspect. But not very clear as to where Mr. England encouraged any false impression in his speech. It’s obviously your choice if you wish to clarify, I’d like to read it, but it’s not a big hang up for me.

Who he is as an individual is what makes him attractive to HF, his involvement with HF didn’t make him the individual he is. Nor does his involvement with CSM, or The Washington Times. Again, no big deal, I’m not really even arguing your point, just wanted to express how I see it in my mind.

Absolutely agree. But I still can’t see where in his speech even a covert or even a subliminal message of suppression of free will. I think where we might be crossing lines of thought is in the area of who in the EC process elects the president. It’s not the people per say, but the states. The people have the free will to vote for whom ever they want. Even the electors themselves are not bound to vote inline with the people. Such as the case for example, Colorado in 2016. But I think we’ll touch further on this below.

Yes, I understand your logic as to how the distribution of representatives suppresses free will. I just don’t agree. Again, I think we’ll touch further on this part, below.

Indeed you have. I just disagree that Mr. England is implying covertly, advocating for the suppression of free will. For the reason I mentioned above.

Absolutely! To add even maintaining its existence. Which I believe is the intent behind his speech.

Well, I was confused in the beginning, but your skills in articulating your point(s) has cleared that up. I think we’re good now; thank you.

This is where I’m still a little hazy on your position. What, exactly, is the problem with the current distribution? Each state receives an electoral vote per the number of their representatives. Using the states you used earlier, California has 55, Wyoming has 3. Are you suggesting that it’s unfair for California to contribute to 20.37 % of the electoral college, while Wyoming contributes 1.1 %? This would make for a fun discussion, unless I’m completely misunderstanding what your problem is...

It is rather bizarre, lol.

Agreed! Slogans, as well as labeling the ”others”.

I have a theory about this, but I would like to wait and see your response to my questions in regards to this up above. The only thing I can say here is, again, the people don’t directly elect the president. (Obviously) And since you have no issues with the EC in and of itself, I would need further clarification. I think we’re close to something, I just want to be more sure.

I agree with the premise, just not in agreement with your view about his support for voter suppression. Again, here, I think we can agree to disagree.

It doesn’t, but you said he was implying something. All I was asking is for you to state what his underlying implication was, and you did, by saying, voter suppression. And it’s fine with me that you see this, I just don’t agree is all.

True. Which is why it would require a search history. If someone decided last week that it was going to be their foundational belief, then that would hold less weight with me as opposed to someone like England who, in my experience, has always held such a belief. And he actually supports it.

I think the missing element here is the difference between what the elections are for. For example, elections for POTUS, and elections for representatives. The former is won by winning states, the latter by majority vote (post 1913 and the ratification of the 17 amendment, modifying Article I, Section III). Prior to that, the Senate was picked by legislatures.

No. I’m saying that states decide presidential elections. But all voters take part in voting.

Amen to that!

True, we would. But, something must’ve got lost in translation. Yes, technically, the flip side of the coin to tyranny of the majority is tyranny of the minority, but that’s not what I’m saying is happening, or advocating. I’m saying that one of the foundational American traditions is protecting the minority, and the smallest minority is the individual. We mustn’t let the majority vote away the rights of the minority. Nor should we let the minority vote away the rights of the majority. But we sort of do today when we let the SCOTUS legislate from the bench, regarding mostly societal issues. But that’s a separate issue, I don’t want to distract from our conversation.

That’s a fair point to make in justification of your problem. (the one you stated above). But that hasn’t been an issue (technically) for more than 150 years. (But I’m not arguing your point)

Interesting, and I agree. I believe it was Bastiat though that stated our system was as near a miracle as a nation could get. I happen to like our system. Would I like to make a few changes? Sure. But for now I’m good.

This is the further down part I mentioned above. To reiterate: it’s not the voters (or population) that directly elect the POTUS, but the electors, as I’m sure you know. So here’s my counter problem... at 55 electors, California influences 20.37% of the EC vote, while Wyoming with 3 electors, influences 1.1% - the disproportionate influence by representation of each state’s population is almost nil in the grand scheme of it all. The difference being a little more than 100k people. That may seem significant to some, but in respect to electing the president, I’m not one them.

I agree to the approach of a case by case basis. Regional conflicts have subsets, they may be political, economic, environmental, or social. So I’ll present a political one, that seems to have also morphed into a social one as well: The right to keep and bare arms, and how that right is not to be infringed.

Agreed.

Excellent! Repeal the 17th amendment, right?
(Continued below)

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

(Continued from above, apparently it didn’t fit here either, lol)


I’m almost on board....


I totally agree and understand. Honestly, I don’t see much argument between us, some minor details maybe, but overall I’d say we agree more than disagree.

StraightUp.... I would just like to say, I think you’re probably the most articulate person I’ve ever met on a forum like this. You’re bright, respectful, blunt, and honest. If for whatever reason we don’t continue this discussion, it has been my great pleasure to make your acquaintance. Thank you.

(I apologize for the delay, I was called away for work purposes that involved a two day drive or there about. I’m all done here and heading back home, so if I don’t get back to you on this for a couple days, you know why. And thanks for your patience these past couple of days.)

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

Thanks for that, my friend. Hope you’re making arrangements for your impending weather. Be safe!

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

You too. Be careful out there.

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

I hope you will be ok too,WCS...I didnt realized that you lived in North Carolina!!!....Please be safe...

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

Yes, ma'am. I'm not on the coast, so we will be spared the brunt of it. I worry about the folks in the coastal lowlands. They are prone to major flooding.

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

I will pray for all of you....

straightUp Loc: California

So did you go to Bonner county? I'm not sure what your business was but was the cheaper startup cost worth it? Or was the advantage lost to a smaller revenue over the long term? These are questions I know entrepreneurs need to ask and I know that for many of them, despite their complaining about the cost, wind up staying in California anyway because of the consumer markets.

I ran a consulting business for a while... chartered in California the start up cost was minimal it took us about three weeks to get the business up and running. Mind you it was 100% service, there was no brick and mortar and no physical impact to property or public land. Most of those three weeks was consumed by purchasing equipment and drawing up contracts that had nothing to do with government regulation.


Not so sure you can blame the State of California for that... Cities have a fair amount of autonomy in California. As for the Desert Hot Springs... good for them. As far as I am concerned, if you want to build something that is going to have an impact on the environment, you should provide the funding to cover whatever measures are necessary to minimize that impact. If you don't have what it takes or you just don't want to spend the cash that's fine, just take your cheap, dirty crap somewhere else. ;)

Seriously, I have yet to see a regulation shut down an entire industry and that's probably because for every company that can't rise to the challenge, there is another one that can. As long as there is a demand, there will be an entrepreneur that is innovative and adaptable enough to meet the challenge and make business happen.

We all hear the crying about regulations... all the boo-hoo-hoo's from losers that want it to be easier. But that's actually the sound of what Reagan called creative-destruction. The weak leave and the strong take over. Not such a bad deal... cleaner environment AND smarter businesses. So, yeah... regulations drive a LOT of potential business away but to be honest we aren't hurting from it.


I doubt if it was arbitrary. Here's how that tax is spent...



I'm actually living in PA right now and I commute about the same distance that I did when I was still living in California about a year ago. I actually spend more on tolls every month than I did on the gas tax in California that provided me with a FREE-way that took me to work and back without having to file through toll gates or hassle with the utter incompetence of companies like EZ-Pass.


In California I pay $5,000 in property tax annually for a 3,800 sq ft house on a half-acre of land. My parents pay about the same for their house in Bucks County, PA but they also have to pay additional tax for local school districts, which in San Deigo county is already covered by the property tax. Meanwhile, my brother pays $1600/mo in property tax for his house in New York. Again , I feel I'm getting the better deal in California.


So 99% are on the lowest tier? There's not a lot of slide in that scale is there? ;)


5 acres = $300 per year... that just sounds rural. Keep in mind property tax isn't a state thing either. In California, property tax is a county-government issue, so it can vary. My father, my brother and I are all engineers that find employment in urban regions where taxes are going to be higher anyway. I can probably find cheaper property tax in some rural part of California like Inyo County.

Congratulations on your house BTW.


You can do that in California - you just gotta shop around, the healthcare market is a LOT more competitive in California than most other states, except maybe New York. That's why Obamacare works better here than all those red states that allowed their markets to be monopolized.


That seems a little exaggerated to me. I've lived in four different states and I've done business in about 12 (extended stays) and I find it really depends on what food item you're talking about and where you're shopping. I was definitely getting fruits and vegetables for cheaper in CA at the farmers markets than I can get here in PA. I about fell over when I saw an avocado in a Philadelphia market the other day for $5. I was getting fish for less too. If you're into fast food, then I think California is a little higher... Maybe that's what you're talking about.


Yeah, there's a lot of products, services and localities creating a vast array of comparisons so I'm sure you could. ;)


Thanks for mentioning that.


Fair enough... I don't think it's winnable without a comprehensive market basket analysis that neither of us have time for anyway. And when it comes down to it, the cost of living is primarily driven by supply and demand which varies more between local regions than states. Go to Modesto CA and it won't be much more expensive than Waco TX. But go to San Francisco and it's a whole different thing... mostly because of the demand created by the very wealthy people that live there... Oh, and if you're hitting the tourist spots like most visitors to California do... forget it. ;)

jeff smith

your a foolish person . you keep believing in the main street bimbocratic propaganda news media . them people lied for over two years " there is proof , we have evidence , he must feel the walls closing in " on and on an on . ALL proven to be LIES . even after 4 investigations that showed NO COLLUSION and you still do your best to try to think they are "honest " reporters , telling you the truth . wake up some day . they are doing nothing but pushing bimbocrat lies so they "bimbos." can regain control and start back on their agenda to destroy America . push for a one world government . is this what you want ? what are you willing to give up for your wan-a-be world ? do you really think that a , o w g , will give nations the same rights as we have here to nations that do not have the right of free speech , the right to bear arms , the right of free choice of Faith ? NOT ! but the countries that do have these rights will loose them ,so every one will be the same . what's wrong with this country ?

straightUp Loc: California

And yet you can't reference a single thing main street media said about Trump that's been disproven. Main stream media is where the real journalism is and people like you just can't handle the reality that they are exposing so you run and hide behind the conspiracy mongers in the fringe media where everything is an unsubstantiated opinion.


No qualified journalist has ever stated that there WAS collusion. This is the part that blows my mind about how gullible you people are. "Collusion" is a term the Trump administration started using as part of their denial of any wrongdoing.

Trump wasn't even the subject of the Mueller investigation... that effort was 100% focused on Russian influence in the 2016 elections. It wasn't until Trump started obstructing the investigation that he became involved at all and of course the media started speculating and the people started wondering why Trump was acting so guilty.

Few of us have the confidence that Trump could even BE involved in collusion in the first place. Most of us don't think he has the brains for it. It's far more likely that Trump is a pawn in a bigger game. As for "obstruction" - the word you conveniently forgot to mention, that HAS been proven and the only reason why Trump isn't being convicted for obstruction of justice is because of a 1974 rule that says the sitting president CAN'T be convicted. It has NOTHING to do with the lack of proof.

Seriously, if you didn't already know this, you haven't been paying attention because it was the main thrust of William Barr's decision on the matter.


You're delusional.


It's already been done. The UN has been playing the role of a OWG for the past 80 years and it HAS shown to be effective in doing just what you say a OWG won't do.

Very early in its history, the UN established something called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This legal document declares that all humans have basic universal rights to freedom and fair justice. This is something we can't even find in the U.S. Constitution and yes, the UN WAS effective in promoting human rights in countries where it didn't exist before...


...and no, the UN did NOT inhibit the rights already enjoyed by people in more liberal countries like the U.S.


I would say an inability for its people to reconcile with reality.

Look, a all-inclusive OWG is virtually an impossibility. It would be a lesser waste of your time to fret about the potential invasion of Martians.

I'm sure the media that feeds this specific fear of yours stems in large part from the commercial interests that are frustrated by the multilateral agreements of the neoliberal order, yet another American-led attempt at a OWG but driven by capital instead of the idealism that drives the UN and by that very virtue a much greater force in the age of capitalism than the UN could ever hope to be.

The neoliberal order is a story that takes us from Truman to Trump and until recently, the GOP was the staunchest of supporters all the way up to NAFTA which was drafted by Bush I and vigorously supported by Bush II.

The problem is that the unfair advantages that the neoliberal order gives to the largest capital holdings worked to our advantage at a time when the largest capital holdings were American, so it was all good back in the 50's but times change.

America has already burned through most of its resource peaks including labor and so relative to the emerging economies in what used to be called the "Third World" our unfair advantage has naturally diminished. You can almost measure this trend by the amount of capital that America hemorrhages every quarter.

Trump has part of this right. He is recognizing the diminished advantages in our trade agreements and I am sure he knows this will become an issue capable of populist reaction, which is his ticket to power. But to call these existing trade agreements "unfair" is basically saying it's unfair that we can't have an advantage as unfair to everyone else as we used to have.

It's also a mistake to have ANY faith in Trump's ability to renegotiate our way back to the unfair advantages that we mistakenly confuse for "greatness". First of all, the diminished advantages are not political so the POTUS is the wrong office for the job, even if it overextends it's power to interfere in commerce. Manipulating taxes, either by cutting them or by raising them with tariffs, can't do enough to offset the differences in resources.

If anything, Trump's tax hikes on imports is weakening the American consumer which has kept our economy alive for the past 20 years. He is also encouraging retaliation from other countries like China which is hurting our exporters. There is literally no advantage to how he is managing international affairs and his presidency has truly devolved into a media circus.

straightUp Loc: California

Thank you for your kind words CC... You're a gentleman.

There was quite a bit we covered and I've also been distracted with work so naturally, the conversation loses steam. Just to catch a few points you made...

First,the issue of the false impression... I'll start with a definitive... An impression is not created by the speaker but by the audience, otherwise it would be called an expression. What the speaker CAN do is encourage the audience to form an impression.

Ya know when stand-up comedians say just enough to suggest a funny situation without actually pointing it out? They wait with a smile as the audience catches up and starts laughing. It's a comic technique. Political rhetoric often does the same thing, presenting just enough facts to suggest a situation without actually pointing to it. So, it wouldn't be possible for me to isolate any particular part of Mr. England's speech where he was making a false impression. All we can see in his speech is what he has expressed. The impression I am referring to is the view that people in a given context are likely to take given the expressions of his speech.

His presentation of facts (things he expressed), paired with the omission of other facts (things he did not express) generates a one-sided picture, that isn't untrue, but it's not complete either and for an audience that assumes the picture *IS* complete a false impression results... in this case, the list of stated facts including the constitutional establishment of the EC (fact) that came about at the same time there was an agreement to mitigate the democratic disadvantage to smaller populations in southern states (fact) and the (fact) that population parity still creates democratic disadvantages to states with smaller populations, would make one think all three are linked by a common problem so that one validates the other.

It's the omitted facts that would tell us otherwise, including the fact that even though the EC was established at the same time as the agreement to mitigate the democratic disadvantage to southern states, the two resolutions were not actually concerned with the same problem (omitted fact). The EC was concerned with the perceived issue of corruption among the representatives and the candidates they might vote for (omitted fact). The problem of democratic disadvantage to southern states was resolved with the agreement to count every slave in the southern states as 3/5th of a human to bring the number of representatives to a more competitive level (omitted fact). Absolutely no direct relation!(omitted fact). Then there is the (omitted fact) that 3/5th humans are no longer officially recognized which invalidates the resolution to count them leaving us with a population parity problem who's only resolution was disregarded in 1913 when the government stopped adding representatives to maintain a constant ratio of representatives to citizens (omitted fact)

The fog of confusion is encouraged by the (fact) that the number of EC votes is determined by the number of representatives which in the days before abolition was affected by the agreement to count slaves as 3/5th humans. But if you take all the facts admitted and omitted, you will more likely realize that the EC doesn't actually do anything to resolve population disparity at all, the agreement to mitigate population disparity is dead and there is currently not a single active law in our republic that does. The impression that there is, is what I am calling false.

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

Thank you.

Yes, we certainly did cover quite a bit. Perhaps in the future our personal lives won’t interrupt us. I re-read our posts in an effort to regain my train of thought. I tried leaving myself a few clues in my response to you in order to remind myself but, have failed. I’m not too bothered though, as I mostly do agree with you.

All logical, and well reasoned points. As I said before, I don’t see much to argue over. Thanks for taking the time, StraightUp. Don’t take this the wrong way but, in the future, I hope we find something substantial to debate. Your style of speaking plainly, alone, would be worth having any discussion. Enjoy the rest of your weekend, sir.

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

If anyone is still not convinced of AOC’s Constitutional ignorance, here’s a short video correcting hers, as well as, Chris Hayes’ lack of understanding. At one point, Hayes makes a statement about a presidential authority being the ability to appoint SCOTUS judges, the narrator fails to catch this error, but as we know, the POTUS has the ability to only nominate a person to such a position, the Senate must confirm. With that said, hope you enjoy the video....

https://youtu.be/1XFIIVScvls