Look man, at a certain point it's best to just stop replying. Minds aren't being changed and people don't seem sympathetic to your point of view. You'll probably feel better doing something else
Look man, at a certain point it's best to just stop replying. Minds aren't being changed and people don't seem sympathetic to your point of view. You'll probably feel better doing something else
But I enjoy arguing. Why do you think I'm here? I teach argument for a living, and this gives good practice. It's a way to test out what rhetoric works, what ideas get developed, and how to clarify and counter good points that others make. And several of them have been good! It's not all trolling.
But you have not articulate one rational argument yet? What the hell do you teach, dimwit?
But you aren't being persuasive and you are being provocative. Even if you don't intend it, you come off as very mean spirited and that's not productive
I'm not persuasive to you. I've gotten plenty of positive comments along the way, as well as new followers, and I've come to a consensus with a few folks in other threads where we started out disagreeing but met in the middle.
(1/2) I've been following this discussion less actively and I agree that a functional political system has better tools of collective accountability. That is, a party articulates agenda, wins, implements agenda, people vote on how that feels). But most policymaking isn't - can't be that clean.
(2/2) A second problem is that geographic discriminators, especially ones as complex as district lines, aren't great tools for partisan collective accountability, and policy outcomes as serious as lifesaving healthcare have a moral component to them that, say, tax rates or road projects do not.
...that is to say, I agree that our system needs better mechanisms to bring home real life impact of voter decisions and party agendas, and those feedback mechanisms are dangerously clogged right now. The question for me is whether courting mass death and immiseration in rural TN is the right fix.
While that’s all true, I think it’s more that I just want Democrats to prioritize their constituents, and obviously, that will include many rural districts such as WA-03 if they gain a trifecta. And Republicans can join in, too, if they actually agree to vote for these bills instead of attacking 1/
them. The practice that needs to end is a bill including pork for districts whose politicians then simultaneously run against the bill and then show up at the ribbon-cutting. Wanting the benefits of a safety net means supporting, not undermining, the safety net. 2/2
Yes, I agree with bills prioritizing constituents - that's a part of the job of a representative in a SMD! One question, though, is which programs/expenditures are amenable to selective constituent focused expenditure w/o losing overall efficacy. Bridges, sure. Medical insurance programs? Probs not.
And yes, credit-claiming against the record (IE for projects funded by bills you voted against or programs you voted to cut) is a huge problem. But that's an electoral question, not one easily solved through policy or chamber rules. A good opponent can skewer you on negative ads about that stuff.
Oh, I see the problem. You're Christian. That explains the lack of morals and the irrational faith in your own absurdities.
Pandering to feckless quisling filth doesn't indicate good arguments.
👍
IDK man. running on "Fuck those rural fuckos who I must think are all conservative fuckos " and then end up attacking rural dems and democratic leaning voters (far left) aliening them to lose cause Republicans in powrr have an excuse to blame blue states for conspiracy to murder rural citizens.
Not helpful at all. You would be much better served buying a gun and going skeet shooting for fascists.