Way to riposte! That’s showing 'em.
In what why did anyone manipulate the system?
The partisans when they write such things are so funny in believing them…
as if this would be some kind of a convincing argument?
Well, you tell me why the democrats did not remove agricultural subsidies when they had power? Why did they waste money on programs to retrain rural workers whos factory or mine closed? Why do they support welfare and ACA, when it is those in rural areas who get the greatest benefit out of it?
Yes, when progressives are in power, they are looking to make life better for everyone in the country and as a secondary effect, the world. Even those who are ideologically opposed to those improvements are considered when it comes to improving the standard of living.
When conservatives are in power, they look to benefit their own team, their tribe.
Take guns for example. There are very few democrats who are saying that you can’t have a gn on your farm, or in your little rural town, they really don’t care. They only ask that you not bring your gun into the city.
Those in rural areas, who do not live in cities, say “No, you may not make laws about keeping guns out of your cities.” If cities could make gun laws that would affect only the city, then they wouldn’t care about the rest of the state or country, and we wouldn’t have to have this argument.
This is but one of many many examples of rural ares forcing their way on urban areas.
It was the SCOTUS that said you can’t ban guns in cities (a bit of an oversimplification, but it addresses the error in your assertion). See Heller v. DC.
And that was not a unanimous decision, was it?
Did it not get decided along party lines?
Is this not specifically what I am talking about, conservatives demanding that those in urban areas conform to their desires?
You are not refuting my point, or addressing any errors in my assertion.
AND, BTW, where did this lawsuit originate?
This falls pretty well under the idea of conservatives demanding that urban areas follow their rules.
Is that strictly true? AIUI, the Constitution establishes the Electoral College and sets up its membership as the sum of the number of Senators plus the number of Reps. But the total number of Reps is established by a different law.
So one way to change it would be to change the law so that the cap on the number of Reps goes away. Admittedly that would make the HofR somewhat cumbersome, but I think it would be fairer in general. Not just the EC issue – but why should Wyoming have proportionately more power in the House than, say, Illinois?
It’s a stretch beyond logic to claim that a SCOTUS decision is somehow rural people telling urban people what to do. Not to minion that one of the dissenting opinions was from a justice appointed by a Republican president. And I made a mistake in nomenclature: It’s District of Columbia v. Heller.
But if you want to play that game, you’re going to have to explain Roe v Wade.
It is really the rural people giving conservatives the power to tell liberals, who live in urban areas, how to live their lives. Who brought the lawsuit? Was it just some guy that wanted his gun in the city? No, it was a wealthy libertarian funded by the Koch brothers who had no personal stake in the game (didn’t even own a gun), who personally financed the lawsuit. He wanted other people to live by the rules that he wanted them to live by.
Stevens you mean? after 35 years, he wasn’t really all that beholden to Nixon anymore.
I was quite aware of what you were talking about.
You are going to have to explain how limiting government intrusion into private medical matters is relevant to how rural areas demand government intrusion into urban affairs.
Oy. As if banning handguns is not a limit on personal freedom. If you don’t like SCOTUS cases, then why is it that in CA, the state MW is set well above the federal MW. Is that the Central Valley (Republicans) telling the folks in LA and SF (Democrats) what the MW must be?
Anyway, this is a hijack of the thread which asked about the Democratic party and whether they should be a big tent or not. Feel free to have the last word on this idea of yours about how evil rural people are always lording it over the urban folks, and never the other way around.
Within the confines of a specific city that has implemented laws governing the possession of weapons? Sure, it is a limit on the freedom of people in that city, but it in no way impacts anyone who is not in that city. If the people of the city elect those who feel that the people of the city are safer with some level of restrictions on the manner of owning and carrying guns within the limits of the city, why should people who do not live in that city have the ability to demand that not happen?
No, that is the people of the state deciding what the MW should be. The people of California elected representatives who decided what the state’s MW should be. It is not the city demanding it, it is the state itself.
A better example would be where a city in a state decides to raise its minum wage, and is told by the state that it cannot.
That is pretty much the definition of rural areas demanding that cities conform to their ideology.
I did not say anything like " evil rural people are always lording it over the urban folks", thank you very much. I am pointing out that the power disparity between rural and liberal areas means that rural interests are considered a higher priority than urban interests, even though more people live in urban areas than in rural. That doesn’t make them evil, just over represented. So, your “last word” throwaway line is exceedingly inaccurate.
As far as the thread goes, I do think that the way that the different parties represent different geographic areas with different advantages (economic prosperity, technological progress, social progress, and tremendous productivity producing goods and services in the city, and lots of land in the country) is very relevant to the required makeup of the democratic party.
Since the Democratic Party is by definition a part of diversity, there’s no way to have a Democratic Party and not have a big tent. Unless you assume that males, females, gays, straights, people of all ethnicities and faiths, all think alike. If we assume that people with different identities will think very differently about various issues, then the tent’s going to have to be pretty big. Republicans, by contrast, just have to figure out how to get white working class people without college degrees, white evangelicals, and rich business owners to agree. Which is challenging enough. Democrats have a far bigger challenge, and the outright rejection of Sanders’ candidacy by minority voters shows that the Democratic future is not necessarily a progressive future. Minority voters seem to like the “corporate” Democrats just fine, even prefer them.
Arguing your country’s specific politics is not my concern. But if you think your analysis is very effective and not the self-perception of the partisan…
white hats, black hats visions.
You make many very wrong assumptions with this accusation.
I live in conservative land. I talk to conservatives every day. My family is conservative, my clients are conservative, my employees, well, that’s a mixed bag.
I grew up as a conservative, and heard all about the evils of liberals all my life. I heard how if mondale was elected president, he would raise our taxes so much we’d lose our house. I heard all about how terrible dukakis and clinton were. I know conservatives very, very well, I used to be one.
That is, until I realized that the ideology of a conservative is to promote one’s self and one’s tribe above others. This was an ideology that I did not agree with, and so I left for an ideology that promotes betterment for all, even if it is at a small sacrifice to one’s self.
It took quite a bit of analysis and soul searching to come to the decision about what party I can support. It is not because I am part of a party that I support it. That is the opposite of being a partisan, thank you very much.
Any such change would require a Constitutional Amendment, which in turn requires the ratification of 2/3 of the states.
Actually, I’m pretty sure the size of the House is something Congress can change by simple statute. The Senate is fixed by the number of states of course.
Everything he listed was about in-group/out-group relations and plutocracy. That is what the modern GOP actually stands for. That and authoritarianism.
It is what it is.
First off, that’s an amazing whitewash. You’ve minimized a handgun ban as “some level of restrictions”. Secondly, it was people living in the city that demanded it not continue. Heller was a DC resident.
Very strange… no ‘assumptions’ were made, only observation. The passionate story is the very definition of the partians, “a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.”
Heller aside, I’m gonna guess there are substantially more pro-gun Democrats than anti-gun Republicans, in both the rank-and-file and the political machine. So the Democrats are still more of a “big tent” on that issue.