Fortunately what you describe isn't happening in California any more than it is happening in the deep South. Being governed by a political party that one doesnt support isn't oppression, it's literally just something that is going to happen in a representative democracy.
I typed up a big thing about the electoral college and then realized that we're not really talking about that and your post is irrelevant. Nothing you say refutes my core point
"While we have far more protections for small voter blocks than any other first world country (minorities, although not necessarily in the racial sense) the simple fact is that generally speaking the few don't get to govern, the many do."
You just seem to be talking about what you want to talk about.
Maybe that's because the Left understands how majoritive governance works?
California being split in two stands about as much chance as Texas being split in two. Those people spending money to fund a movement for a split California might as well be flushing their money down the toilet.
"The problem is, a couple densely populated areas are steering the entire state"
That's not a bug, that's a feature. Welcome to voting and republican democracy. While we have far more protections for small voter blocks than any other first world country (minorities, although not necessarily in the racial sense) the simple fact is that generally speaking the few don't get to govern, the many do.
What you seem to advocating for is governance by a minority.
If we're going to do this then maybe we should trim the liberal parts of Texas off to create another state as well to keep things even. Otherwise a plan like this is just tilting the federal government to the Right.
"Only in the last 20 years or so, most people don't actually use that bastardization in that sense in political circles even *in* the US."
Nope
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... "Modern American liberalism is the dominant version of liberalism in the United States. It is characterized by social liberalism,[1] and combines ideas of civil liberty and equality with support for social justice and a mixed economy
That's literally describing the modern American Left.
"Think you've got your people mixed up on that one. That's Paul Ryan, not Rand Paul."
Nope, again.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... "Paul has said that he identifies as both a "constitutional conservative"[5][6] and a "libertarian conservative."[6"
He is most certainly a self declared libertarian. Couldn't find anything in regards to Paul Ryan about that.
"Your own post said he "wasn't very conservative."
Irrelevant, still no one has said that he wasn't a conservative.
"The people who would call him a RINO(at least get the term right), would be the same people who think that McCain is a stalwart Republican"
No it's literally the opposite of that. McCain, just like Reagan, has shown time and time again he's willing to forgo conservative absolutes to get something done with the other side. Moderate conservatism is not having an absolute bias against taxes like Reagan or by not having an absolute bias against government action in healthcare like McCain.
Since you've brought us to the point of diminishing the other, your understanding of modern US politics is no better than your reading comprehension or ability to stay on point.
You're still talking about the economic boom that has nothing to do with anything being talked about, that's great.
And no one in this forum thread has said he wasn't a Conservative. You're just making things up.
What has been said that there any many players in the Republican trying to push it towards the fringes who would call him a RHINO if he were some how an active player in today's politics. I don't think I can be any clearer this second time explaining things to you.
Not a single thing you said challenged what the above post said. What Democrats did in any context is irrelevant. The fact that he prosided over a moderatly sized economic boom is irrelevant. The modern poor shape of the economy is irrelevant.
The point is that Reagan certainly wasn't very conservative by the standards many want to put on the party today and that is clearly demomstrated by his 11 tax hikes (amoung a lot of other things, like say negotiating with Democrats)
"Paul is far closer to an actual Liberal(not the modern corrupted version)...."
Sigh...
In America a liberal is some one associated with the political Left. If you want the classical deffinition to be used, go elsewhere but please stop with the convoluted word play.
We also call what the rest of the world calls football, soccer.
Furthermore, your claim that a self declared Libertarian would vote for a strong federal government program that helped people get health care if only it were simpler is rediculous.
I'm sorry for you that you want to see exclusion in a group devoted to raising up an individual group who has suffered discrimination. In pushing a category of people towards proper equity all you want to see is discrimination rather than progress.
You're either an alien or some one who is so committed to denying the virtue of civil rights groups that you've poked your own eyes out.
Where would America be without the very specific effort to get women the vote? Where would America be without the civil rights revolution that brought social equity to blacks? America is quite obviously a far more egalitarian society because of these movements
How about you explain how those movements are bad to me?
And yet there have been any number of female high profile media personality that work comparable hours to men and earn vastly less. A good example is one that just popped up today for me: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
But still do a quick search and look up the average wages of Hollywood celebrities.
The top earners are all men and the top earners for the lady's are all half that of the men.
And media is the easy one to view this in as all these people have megaphones.
No, you're woefully out of touch. While the poor in generally should get a leg up from society, the Hispanic and especially our black communities are disproportionately poor. If we start with the premise that all people start out fundamentally equal then there is a problem within these categories that they are so out of proportion to whites.
There will always be a those who don't want to put in an honest day of labor in any society but unless you believe in white racial superiority there shouldn't be such a massive differentiation between whites and non-whites and poverty in our country.
"A: "We're here to help people." B: "Great. I'm a person in need of help." A: "Ha ha, no. You're a B. Fuck you.""
But it's not that at all. All you want to see is exclusion. To put it in the language you just used, what the scenario really is that If category B enjoys a score of 10 in terms of civil rights and category A enjoys only a 6 then helping category B get to 10 is the very definition of egalitarianism. If category A comes up comes up and asks for help in terms of civil rights then yes, they would be rejected. They don't need the help
Now if a category C person along, who also gets a 6 in civil rights, then they are referred to groups for C. Now that I'm thinking about it this is probably where you see the exclusion but really it's just focusing on doing one thing really well as opposed to spreading yourself too thin. Major corporations do this type of thing all the time to improve focus on core agendas.
Your soup kitchen analogy is terrible by the way which is why I ignored it. Their category of specialization is feed the poor, not everyone. This is why you don't find soup kitchens in upscale neighborhoods. If everyone came to them they wouldn't be able to afford to operate.
I'm pretty much done with you after this as you seem to just want to perceive that pursuing something means diminishing something else.
If an issue like civil rights for minorities is failing to meet the standards of egalitarianism then it should be pursued. If individuals fail to meet the standards of egalitarianism in pursuit of the movement for civil rights that does not mean that the movement is not moving towards proper egalitarianism. It only means it is imperfect, like all things. Also...
HOW THE FUCK ELSE WOULD AN ISSUE LIKE CIVIL RIGHTS BE RESOLVED IF PEOPLE DIDN'T PURSUE IT.
You've completely failed to answer this question multiple times. Please, before you respond in any other way to me, explain to me how the American civil rights movement that ended segregation should have gone. I ask because to me it literally represents the beauty of our republic in which inadequacies were brought to bare and our great country rallied behind the purity of our country's vision and sought to resolve them as best they could. Was the movement pure? of course not, your example is spot on. Is our country better off for it? Absolutely yes it is.
Honestly it's like you're from some other planet to me. Pursuing the equity of a minority group is the very definition of pursuing the goal of egalitarianism. Can there be negative side effects from this? Of course there can but that does not mean it isn't further the cause of proper equity.
I really don't see how you can read that definition and see "2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests" as non-egalitarian. Narrowly pursuing the goal of improving women's rights does not have to come at the loss of any one else's any more than those who narrowly pursued the civil rights movement were.
No one can pursue any individual agenda (civil rights, gay rights, women's rights) without falling neatly into "organized activity on behalf of _________ rights and interests." Sure a person can pursue any social movement at the expense of others but it is absolutely not a requirement.
Deffinitly. When i dip salted tortilla chips in store bought salsa it's far too salty for me nowadays.
I generally buy unsalted tortilla chips and make my own salsa with little to no salt depending on the quality of the ingredients and the type I'm making.
Slashdot Mirror
Or a civil rights movement.
Fortunately what you describe isn't happening in California any more than it is happening in the deep South. Being governed by a political party that one doesnt support isn't oppression, it's literally just something that is going to happen in a representative democracy.
I typed up a big thing about the electoral college and then realized that we're not really talking about that and your post is irrelevant. Nothing you say refutes my core point
"While we have far more protections for small voter blocks than any other first world country (minorities, although not necessarily in the racial sense) the simple fact is that generally speaking the few don't get to govern, the many do."
You just seem to be talking about what you want to talk about.
Maybe that's because the Left understands how majoritive governance works?
California being split in two stands about as much chance as Texas being split in two. Those people spending money to fund a movement for a split California might as well be flushing their money down the toilet.
"The problem is, a couple densely populated areas are steering the entire state"
That's not a bug, that's a feature. Welcome to voting and republican democracy. While we have far more protections for small voter blocks than any other first world country (minorities, although not necessarily in the racial sense) the simple fact is that generally speaking the few don't get to govern, the many do.
What you seem to advocating for is governance by a minority.
Senators my friend, every state gets two.
Oh man, "commifornia".
It's no wonder there are very few conservative professional comedians
I bet the Liberals in every major Southern urban area get tired of their right wing state governments too.
Please note that unlike yourself, I have chosen to not confabulate a political point of view I often disagree with, with an extremeist ideology.
If we're going to do this then maybe we should trim the liberal parts of Texas off to create another state as well to keep things even. Otherwise a plan like this is just tilting the federal government to the Right.
"Only in the last 20 years or so, most people don't actually use that bastardization in that sense in political circles even *in* the US."
Nope
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Modern American liberalism is the dominant version of liberalism in the United States. It is characterized by social liberalism,[1] and combines ideas of civil liberty and equality with support for social justice and a mixed economy
That's literally describing the modern American Left.
"Think you've got your people mixed up on that one. That's Paul Ryan, not Rand Paul."
Nope, again.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Paul has said that he identifies as both a "constitutional conservative"[5][6] and a "libertarian conservative."[6"
He is most certainly a self declared libertarian. Couldn't find anything in regards to Paul Ryan about that.
"Your own post said he "wasn't very conservative."
Irrelevant, still no one has said that he wasn't a conservative.
"The people who would call him a RINO(at least get the term right), would be the same people who think that McCain is a stalwart Republican"
No it's literally the opposite of that. McCain, just like Reagan, has shown time and time again he's willing to forgo conservative absolutes to get something done with the other side. Moderate conservatism is not having an absolute bias against taxes like Reagan or by not having an absolute bias against government action in healthcare like McCain.
Since you've brought us to the point of diminishing the other, your understanding of modern US politics is no better than your reading comprehension or ability to stay on point.
You're still talking about the economic boom that has nothing to do with anything being talked about, that's great.
And no one in this forum thread has said he wasn't a Conservative. You're just making things up.
What has been said that there any many players in the Republican trying to push it towards the fringes who would call him a RHINO if he were some how an active player in today's politics. I don't think I can be any clearer this second time explaining things to you.
Not a single thing you said challenged what the above post said. What Democrats did in any context is irrelevant. The fact that he prosided over a moderatly sized economic boom is irrelevant. The modern poor shape of the economy is irrelevant.
The point is that Reagan certainly wasn't very conservative by the standards many want to put on the party today and that is clearly demomstrated by his 11 tax hikes (amoung a lot of other things, like say negotiating with Democrats)
"Paul is far closer to an actual Liberal(not the modern corrupted version)...."
Sigh...
In America a liberal is some one associated with the political Left. If you want the classical deffinition to be used, go elsewhere but please stop with the convoluted word play.
We also call what the rest of the world calls football, soccer.
Furthermore, your claim that a self declared Libertarian would vote for a strong federal government program that helped people get health care if only it were simpler is rediculous.
I'm sorry for you that you want to see exclusion in a group devoted to raising up an individual group who has suffered discrimination. In pushing a category of people towards proper equity all you want to see is discrimination rather than progress.
You're either an alien or some one who is so committed to denying the virtue of civil rights groups that you've poked your own eyes out.
Where would America be without the very specific effort to get women the vote? Where would America be without the civil rights revolution that brought social equity to blacks? America is quite obviously a far more egalitarian society because of these movements
How about you explain how those movements are bad to me?
And yet there have been any number of female high profile media personality that work comparable hours to men and earn vastly less. A good example is one that just popped up today for me: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
But still do a quick search and look up the average wages of Hollywood celebrities.
The top earners are all men and the top earners for the lady's are all half that of the men.
And media is the easy one to view this in as all these people have megaphones.
No, you're woefully out of touch. While the poor in generally should get a leg up from society, the Hispanic and especially our black communities are disproportionately poor. If we start with the premise that all people start out fundamentally equal then there is a problem within these categories that they are so out of proportion to whites.
There will always be a those who don't want to put in an honest day of labor in any society but unless you believe in white racial superiority there shouldn't be such a massive differentiation between whites and non-whites and poverty in our country.
"A: "We're here to help people."
B: "Great. I'm a person in need of help."
A: "Ha ha, no. You're a B. Fuck you.""
But it's not that at all. All you want to see is exclusion. To put it in the language you just used, what the scenario really is that If category B enjoys a score of 10 in terms of civil rights and category A enjoys only a 6 then helping category B get to 10 is the very definition of egalitarianism. If category A comes up comes up and asks for help in terms of civil rights then yes, they would be rejected. They don't need the help
Now if a category C person along, who also gets a 6 in civil rights, then they are referred to groups for C. Now that I'm thinking about it this is probably where you see the exclusion but really it's just focusing on doing one thing really well as opposed to spreading yourself too thin. Major corporations do this type of thing all the time to improve focus on core agendas.
Your soup kitchen analogy is terrible by the way which is why I ignored it. Their category of specialization is feed the poor, not everyone. This is why you don't find soup kitchens in upscale neighborhoods. If everyone came to them they wouldn't be able to afford to operate.
I'm pretty much done with you after this as you seem to just want to perceive that pursuing something means diminishing something else.
If an issue like civil rights for minorities is failing to meet the standards of egalitarianism then it should be pursued. If individuals fail to meet the standards of egalitarianism in pursuit of the movement for civil rights that does not mean that the movement is not moving towards proper egalitarianism. It only means it is imperfect, like all things. Also...
HOW THE FUCK ELSE WOULD AN ISSUE LIKE CIVIL RIGHTS BE RESOLVED IF PEOPLE DIDN'T PURSUE IT.
You've completely failed to answer this question multiple times. Please, before you respond in any other way to me, explain to me how the American civil rights movement that ended segregation should have gone. I ask because to me it literally represents the beauty of our republic in which inadequacies were brought to bare and our great country rallied behind the purity of our country's vision and sought to resolve them as best they could. Was the movement pure? of course not, your example is spot on. Is our country better off for it? Absolutely yes it is.
Honestly it's like you're from some other planet to me. Pursuing the equity of a minority group is the very definition of pursuing the goal of egalitarianism. Can there be negative side effects from this? Of course there can but that does not mean it isn't further the cause of proper equity.
Yeah, type 2 diabetes has nothing to do with sugar intake. What an intelligent person you are.
Of course those aren't the same thing. The term "artificial" seems to have flown right over your head.
Don't worry though, in spite of your sniping commentary I don't mind holding your hand and walking you through basic reading comprehension.
We're all in this together my friend. We'll get you reading like a champ in no time.
I really don't see how you can read that definition and see "2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests" as non-egalitarian. Narrowly pursuing the goal of improving women's rights does not have to come at the loss of any one else's any more than those who narrowly pursued the civil rights movement were.
No one can pursue any individual agenda (civil rights, gay rights, women's rights) without falling neatly into "organized activity on behalf of _________ rights and interests." Sure a person can pursue any social movement at the expense of others but it is absolutely not a requirement.
Deffinitly. When i dip salted tortilla chips in store bought salsa it's far too salty for me nowadays.
I generally buy unsalted tortilla chips and make my own salsa with little to no salt depending on the quality of the ingredients and the type I'm making.
Was tried. Failed.
FTS
"Trehalose, a sugar that is added to a wide range of food products, could have allowed certain strain..."
Sorry, correction.
"In this case we may have just discovered Trehalose's hidden "price".