Liberals silent on "popular vote" - I wonder why
-
-
Congress does not run their individual districts. Congress (and the President) run the entire country. Based on that, we need to go to the popular vote to keep in line with the liberal mantra.
As for @hubrys, he loves to call me names every chance he gets. When discussing the fact that graphic porn books were in elementary schools (at least 2) he called me an asshole, liar and other things, despite me being right. His excuse is that no 6yo checked out the book from the school library, so it doesn't matter. My point was that it was available to be checked out by 6yos.
-
@raphjd Ah, civic's is important!
Congress as a whole runs the country. How it does that is a system called representative democracy. All of the representatives from all of the districts around the country meet in the House of Representatives where as a whole body debate and pass laws that govern the country. The body runs the country, however each individual representative is there to represent their district. Lauren Boebert was elected by the voters in Colorado's 3rd district to represent them in the House, where she could bring up issues and a point of view that represents her constituents - the members of her district.
This is done because the needs of Colorado's 3rd district are often quite different than the needs of New York's 14th district. All the member's of the house can represent the needs of the their district in discussions about how to run the whole country.
This representative democracy is common in many places. In Canada they elect members of the House of Parliament. Each member then represents the people in their area in debates and passing laws in the House of Parliament.
So, again, there is no "popular vote" for the House of Representatives as a whole. That would be quite impossible as it would defeat the point of this "representative" democracy. There are 435 individual popular votes that elect the 435 Representatives in the house.
I don't know if this is helping at all. I feel like you just want to "own the libs" and this is your attempt - and it's hard to back down from that position. This is why I was trying to ask you more questions about what you think a better system might be, perhaps one that actually does help represent the will of the people in a representative democracy a bit more - one that could help aleviate the problems of gerrymandering perhaps.
If you just want to "own the libs" then I think it's imporant to get the basics right here. So far you have demonstrated a lack of understanding of basic civics but honestly, not much else.
Here is some information about Representative Democracy, this might help you hone your arguments in the future. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
-
@raphjd As far as @hubrys, well when you said "only" personal attacks, in this discussion there was one personal attack in a full, detailed post. So it really looks like you are wrong on that part. But the way you said "only personal attacks" was a nice way to deflect from the rest of the argument so you didn't have to deal with the arguments in the rest of the post. Then you could claim "because it proves me right" without actually saying anything of value in the discussion. Maybe try to actually engage with the points you ignored - if you can.
-
I know how the US government works.
Clearly, you don't get my point and I can't be assed to keep trying to explain it to you.
I have no time for people like @hubrys. He's just a troll.
-
"Clearly, you don't get my point and I can't be assed to keep trying to explain it to you." - This is shorthand for "I have clearly lost this discussion and since I have no relevant point to stand on I need to find an exit quickly"
You can't keep trying to explain it? Perhaps try explaining it once. You haven't yet.
You have conflated representation with "running" as in "Congress runs the entire country". That is the closest you have come here to an explaination - a complete mischaracterization of how Congress works.
If your point is so weak that a basic explaination of your point eludes you, I think you might be missing the point competely.
-
-
@raphjd Where did I say that Congress has no say in how the US runs?
I will quote myself here:
"Congress as a whole runs the country. How it does that is a system called representative democracy. All of the representatives from all of the districts around the country meet in the House of Representatives where as a whole body debate and pass laws that govern the country."So where in that, or in anything I have said here, has given you any indication that I am saying "Congress has no say in how the US runs"?
I didn't, and you can't find that.
So now what you will say is "I can't be assed to point it out" - back to that one, am I right?
-
Ah, so Congress (with the President) does run the country. Fucking WOW.
Now back to the original point.
Liberals want the country run/controlled by the popular vote, except when the popular vote is red. I know that's a difficult concept for you.
You people do have a short attention span. It was that long ago you were advocating for it.
-
@raphjd said in Liberals silent on "popular vote" - I wonder why:
Liberals want the country run/controlled by the popular vote
facts not in evidence.
The president represents the entire country. Congress members represent their district. Within each area a popular vote makes sense.
You are conflating represent with "run" or "control" which is not something that "liberals" have done. You have done it but not liberals.
Let's break this down a bit:
Do you understand the difference between "control" and "represent"?
Do you understand that congress as a whole "runs" the country, but that the members of congress don't have that individual task. Their job contribues to the group task but is not the same.
-
-
@raphjd Ok, dearie. Is that the new "I can't be assed to point it out".
I guess I'll take that as a win. Fun chat!
-
-
@raphjd I mean, since you can't articulate your point, I guess it's not a win for me. I won't take this as a win.
I will take it as a loss for you. That seems a bit more fair. Would you agree, dearie?
-
Ah, so you are claiming that because liberals are stupid and don't realize how the government works (my original point) I lose because i can't defend the crackhead liberal logic.
Yeah, that's how it works.
-
@raphjd You have shown you don't know what Representative Democracy is. Dude. Take the L
-
Clearly you are too stupid to even understand.
-
@raphjd I thought you didn't like personal attacks? You vacuous toffee-nosed, malodorous pervert.
You can't even make a coherent point man. Stop replying, you look stupider and stupider on each reply. Save yourself.
This is why the country is so screwed. Idiots who don't even know what congress is are voting on members of congress.
Take a civics class! Ask around, you might find a kindergarden that would take you in. You can start with finger painting the capital.
-
You are clearly being a troll.
I call out the stupidity and hypocrisy of the left and you accuse me of it being my idea.
-
@raphjd said in Liberals silent on "popular vote" - I wonder why:
hypocrisy
Dude, you don't understand the difference between the congress and the president! You can't call out hypocrisy on something you don't understand. You are just being a troll. Grow and and take a civics lesson.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login