Memes Official Meme Discussion Thread

[mal3volent]

Because there are no pics of aborted fetuses...duh...

Huh?

 

[TheLoveBandit]

Huh?

There should be plenty of abortion pics available for the meme. You're counter is pointing out they used a fetus pic from a stillborn, which may be true but is irrelevant if there are abortion pics that can fill that particular image. And, it also highlights that those who created it were lazy af in finding an image to use if they opened themselves up to your counter. Abortion pics exist, that was my point.

 

[alasdairm]

"that lie is acceptable because they could have just as easily told the truth"?



alasdair

 

[mal3volent]

There should be plenty of abortion pics available for the meme. You're counter is pointing out they used a fetus pic from a stillborn, which may be true but is irrelevant if there are abortion pics that can fill that particular image. And, it also highlights that those who created it were lazy af in finding an image to use if they opened themselves up to your counter. Abortion pics exist, that was my point.

well, my underlying point was that the meme creator used a stillborn baby and passed it off as an aborted fetus for nefarious purposes: to make it look as large, developed and human like as possible.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

better argument for splitting california into mulitple states imo

 

[alasdairm]

we could easily solve this problem with a bicameral system - balancing the senate with a second legislative chamber where the number of representatives is proportional to the population of each state.

wait. nevermind

alasdair

 

[mal3volent]

we could easily solve this problem with a bicameral system - balancing the senate with a second legislative chamber where the number of representatives is proportional to the population of each state.

wait. nevermind

alasdair

Ali, you admit the Senate by itself would be unfair. Well, no bill becomes law without passing through the Senate. So essentially it IS "only" the Senate. The House full of representatives of the People can send legislation the vast majority of people support, then it goes to the Senate and dies. Because now, that same legislation is facing a group of people that was disproportionately elected by a tiny minority of voters.

If the votes of four Senators representing 60 million people (NY and CA) can be cancelled out by four senators representing 2 million people (MT and RI)

AND

No legislation passed by the House becomes law without first being voted on in the Senate

How is that "a fair attempt at balance" ? I'm dying to know.

 

[alasdairm]

i didn't say it was perfect.

but it goes both ways. how can montana expect any pull in the house when california has 53 times as many representatives?

alasdair

 

[Deru]

Yeah, it works both ways, as Senate bills have to pass through the House, too. Nothing in government is perfect, but I have to say the model works, for all intents and purposes, no matter how frustrating sometimes.

 

[mal3volent]

i didn't say it was perfect.

but it goes both ways. how can montana expect any pull in the house when california has 53 times as many representatives?

alasdair

the system you are alluding to is outdated. Montana senators don't go to Washington as the "Voices of Montana" . They go as Republicans to add to the other Republicans. Hyper partisanship , the way it is now, means all campaigns are basically national . Montanans don't believe in anything inherently different than South Dakotans or Coloradans.

There is no benefit to having equal amount of representatives from each state. Representatives should be voted in by the district they represent. Their politics will match the politics of the people who voted for them. The idea that you should have more or less representation based on which side of an imaginary line you live on is fucking ABSURD.

Representation should be based on population full stop. Any argument to the contrary died AT LEAST fifty years ago. Give me a break.

 

[mal3volent]

Yeah, it works both ways, as Senate bills have to pass through the House, too. Nothing in government is perfect, but I have to say the model works, for all intents and purposes, no matter how frustrating sometimes.

Deru, the Senate chooses what makes it to the Presidents desk. If they aren't an accurate representation of the people, it doesn't matter what the House does. The House could hold a 80% democrat majority and a Republican controlled senate could still block anything they choose.

There is no way to justify the existence of the Senate in the modern world. People are people. We aren't defined by our states anymore.

 

[Deru]

Deru, the Senate chooses what makes it to the Presidents desk

Well, I think it's a bit more complex than this. It ultimately has to be agreed upon by both the House and Senate, regardless of where the bill is sponsored and where it winds up last.

The House could hold a 80% democrat majority and a Republican controlled senate could still block anything they choose

Correct. Checks and balances working as intended.

 

[mal3volent]

Well, I think it's a bit more complex than this. It ultimately has to be agreed upon by both the House and Senate, regardless of where the bill is sponsored and where it winds up last.

The Bill is sent to the Senate for approval, then to the White House.

 

[Deru]

I'm more concerned when one party holds the majority in all branches, as that prevents the ebb and flow between the extremes of the spectrum to balance out. Even as a Democrat, I would never want an all Democrat majority. Republicans drive me insane, especially extreme right, but damned if they don't serve a purpose to help keep the balance. With the potential exception of this upcoming election, an all Democrat majority is fine to fix the disaster Trump has caused

The Bill is sent to the Senate for approval, then to the White House.

There are Senate sponsored bills, that's what the prefix on the bill means, HR or S.

 

[mal3volent]

There are Senate sponsored bills, that's what the prefix on the bill means, HR or S.

I understand that. The fundamental problem is, one body is fundamentally representative of the people, and the other lends unbalanced power to rural, sparsely populated Republican states. My fundamental belief is that those who make the laws in Washington should be the best possible representation of US AS A WHOLE. As a country.

With the media how it is, and the Internet, and technology in general, there is no longer a need to give extra power to rural conservative states. If there is a reason PLEASE TELL ME WHAT IT IS. There was a whole thread dedicated to this a while ago and Ali never could answer me.

WHY is the system we have now BETTER than one that's directly representative of the PEOPLE?

WHY should the will of 60 million people (NY and CA) be cancelled out by the will of 2 million people (MT and RI) ?

That fundamental discrepancy MUST be addressed.

 

[Deru]

WHY is the system we have now BETTER than one that's directly representative of the PEOPLE?

WHY should the will of 60 million people (NY and CA) be cancelled out by the will of 2 million people (MT and RI) ?

I envision it in terms of process control.

You can have many, many complex processes that will have an enormous amount of variables and then tolerances to those variables. It's about defining the tolerance of the variables so that the accumulation of tolerances doesn't constantly lead to out of spec product downstream.

If you do it well, it will work most of the time. There will always be opposing forces or proceses, that when looked at on a granular level, appear to make no sense, be inefficient or just wrong. But, it's when you look at the product being manufacturered that it makes sense as to the why.

If you go and start tweaking those individual processes, we need to be very sure that it's not going to have severe negative impacts downstream.

Anything in government is never going to be perfect, that's just a fact. It can be better, but how and how will that affect our country as a whole?

 

[mal3volent]

All these vague allusions to complexities and variables.

Tell me fundamentally why less people should have more representation in Congress?

 

[Deru]

All these vague allusions to complexities and variables.

Tell me fundamentally why less people should have more representation in Congress?

Well, because it is complex. It's a system designed to govern human behavior. But, I did attempt my best to explain it. If you were to quantify how much each individual's will counts toward the country, you would never be able to achieve a baseline of 1. Some processes will inevitably be inefficient, I suppose is the best and most simple way to say it. But, it's not really even that simple lol.

 

[mal3volent]

Well, because it is complex. It's a system designed to govern human behavior. But, I did attempt my best to explain it. If you were to quantify how much each individual's will counts toward the country, you would never be able to achieve a baseline of 1.

I guess , to make it absolutely fundamental, why should one persons opinion count for more than another's, based on where they live geographically?

if it's complex, please take your time and explain it to me.

Because I know it may be controversial, but I think every single persons voice should be as meaningful as anyone else's. No matter which side of an imaginary boundary they live on.

What benefit does the current system provide that a 100% representative government couldn't provide? If three million more people wanted Hillary as President, what justification do you give Trump to override the will of the majority of US Citizens ?

 

[alasdairm]

Montana senators don't go to Washington as the "Voices of Montana" . They go as Republicans to add to the other Republicans.

except, of the two senators currently representing montana, one is a republican and the other is a democrat...

your comments make you appear rather agitated. i am - and as far as i can tell deru is also - simply discussing the current state of affairs. i'm not saying the system is perfect nor am i arguing other, more representative, systems wouldn't be an improvement.

alasdair