Actually I’m not sure we agree on that.

What sort of guns do you feel would be appropriate for pest control in rural areas?

I agree.

I think the filibuster is vitally important as a last-ditch way to stop really bad laws. But there SHOULD be a high cost to using it. It SHOULD gum up the works. Because if it doesn’t, then it becomes status quo that getting something through the Senate takes 60 votes instead of 50 because the losing party will always filibuster. That’s not a good way to run things.

Ever consider where your food comes from?

With respect sir (or madam), you are personifying the ‘ivory tower elite’ attitude that so many conservatives make fun of. 'I matter, others don’t.

You think there’s no culture in rural areas? That you need a giant festival to have culture?
That corner shop that has 100 transactions an hour… where do you think the bread they sell comes from? The flour? The avocadoes on the avocado toast? (sorry, I had to :P ) Sure as fuck doesn’t come from the city. You can write the rest of the nation off as unimportant and then see how unimportant they are when your fridge is empty. They matter.

the idea that nowhere-utah is just as important as Queens is insane.

And the idea that Queens should be able to dictate policy that applies nationally including Nowhere, UT is just as insane.

Especially when that minority seems fixated on terrible ideas like climate change denial and xenophobia.

I’ll give you that- most of the conservative platform these days is a bit on the batshit side.

But there’s other parts that make sense. Take guns for example. A liberal in NYC has the 11th largest army in the world 3 digits away. Police response time is seconds or minutes. So ‘nobody needs a gun’ is a common urban liberal position.
Go out in rural areas, there might be two deputies for an entire county with police response time in the range of 30-120 minutes if at all. And that county may have 4-legged predators like bears, wolves, etc that can threaten humans. So that guy wants a GOOD gun to defend himself and his family, because if there is a problem nobody else is gonna arrive until it’s too late.
The urban liberal doesn’t consider the rural conservative POV, and they want to apply their position nationally. Should the rural conservative have no useful defense against that?

Guns are just an example, but that overall is why I think the electoral college has a place. House is based on population, Senate based on statehood, Presidency is in the middle with influences both from statehood and population. That’s a good way to go.

And FWIW, I also support INCREASING the population representative in the House. The current cap of 437 has not served us well with the expanding US population, and there’s now over 700k citizens per representative. That’s far too many to get voices heard, and one rep covers far too many disparate people. And it also in the House increases influence of smaller states (to a minimum of 1/437th).
I believe the cap should be raised to a very large number, perhaps several thousand. It may no longer be possible to have the entire House convene in one building, but technology has solved that problem. If you have one representative for every say 10,000-25,000 citizens, it becomes much easier for a representative to truly represent their citizens in detail and gives a citizen much greater access to his or her representatives.

I am not trying to invalidate anyone’s ideas.

But rural voters and urban voters have different needs. Neither is ‘wrong’.

For example- the urban voter might have a lot of gangland gun violence, so they push for strong gun control.
The rural voter OTOH has a police response time of 20+ minutes or more, and real threats to life and property from four-legged predators so they want real useful guns to defend themselves.

Neither is wrong for pushing their particular needs. They just don’t acknowledge the other exists.

Quite frankly if you’re going to say urban people are ‘normal people’ and rural people are ‘backward and insane’, then I’m quite in favor of reducing your own influence (and I say that as a liberal voter and registered Democrat). Good government recognizes that one size doesn’t fit all.

And what of the House? It’s largely based on population. If the White House and the House of Representatives are both population heavy then the Senate is entirely outnumbered.

The point is supposed to be that the House is population based, the Senate is state based, and the Presidency is somewhere in the middle.

Then how do you stop urban concerns from completely trouncing rural concerns? Voters from rural areas have valid concerns which are largely opposite of urban voters. If you get rid of electoral college, candidates will campaign in major cities and that’s it. Nobody else will matter.

For anyone downvoting me- you should know I’m a liberal-libertarian registered Democrat from Connecticut, who’s very much against Trump and most of the BS today’s GOP is peddling. I just don’t think disenfranchising anyone who doesn’t live in a city is the answer.

I don’t always side with either Republicans or Democrats. I just want good government. And I am 100% in favor of repealing the procedural filibuster. I think the filibuster is a valuable tool that is important for defeating certain bad legislation, but it should not exist as a way to make sure any and every contentious legislation requires 60 votes.

If someone feels that strongly about something, let them get up there and read the phone book into the record for six hours.

So sorry to see you leave. Do you need a ride to the airport?

Or just use canned video of him talking, complete with date/time/location stamp and a QR code to the full video so nobody accuses them of taking things out of context.

Not surprising even a little bit. McDonald’s is not and never will be a premium burger. That is not their market segment. But they have priced themselves at and above many premium burger offerings. I get the desire to move out of the absolute lowest budget, but they’ve done it too much. There’s no point in going to McDonald’s when you can get a significantly better burger for the same or less money.

Republicans only have a couple footballs left before they have to resort to red herrings.

They already have. Voter ID laws and election integrity I think might be the most obvious, suggesting that there are millions of illegal voters on the books and that reducing poll sites and making it harder to register to vote is somehow going to fix that.

This exactly. Abortion is to Democrats what guns are to Republicans. It’s the football issue they can constantly hold over the base as a reason why it’s desperately important to elect them. But they would never ever actually solve the issue for good, because then they lose their football.

Democrats didn’t codify abortion when they had the chance. Republicans made no effort on guns when they had the chance. It wasn’t an accident.

They’re always needs to be an ‘elect us or else’ issue because neither party does enough useful stuff to win hearts and minds on their own. Especially when their nominees are totally uncompelling.

party leadership would rather nominate Trump to run against Trump than nominate a progressive.

Absolutely. I honestly think they would rather just not run a candidate (or pick somebody they know will lose and give them no money) than have an actual progressive win. There’s a lot of establishment there. And a lot of desire to keep pounding the same stupid drums of social justice and abortion and gun control rather than deal with real problems like the bottom 99.9% getting fucked over by the top 0.1%, or the effective state of regulatory capture in many industries.

There is a divide and conquer strategy being used against the American people and it is working. We are at each other’s throats over wedge issues that, while important and worthy of discussion, are not even close to the biggest problems facing our nation.
We now have two generations that gave up on having kids because wages are stagnant and housing prices are insane and rather than discuss the breakdown of the overall social contract and loss of upward mobility, we are at each other’s throats over whether we should ban this gun or that gun or which bathroom we should be allowed to use. It’s the modern-day version of the Arena in Rome- The population is distracted by gladiators while the nation is being run into the ground.

Yeah there is zero chance for Hillary. She lost to Trump the first time, what would make anybody think she could beat him again? Besides even the left doesn’t like her much. And the way she ran her campaign against Trump suggests she should be managing a hot dog cart not a country.

Oh please no. Not more establishment bullshit.

Find somebody young and energetic to bring some fresh ideas and new energy. A young Bernie Sanders type. They will mop the floor with Trump.

I’m strongly in favor of laws restricting how many 1-3 family homes a company can own. I think that limit should go up and down the chain of corporate ownership including parents and subsidiaries. There should be exceptions for things like worker housing, but single family homes should not be an investment opportunity for large corporations. All that does is drive up the prices and makes it harder for average people to own a home. There is no overall benefit to society.

Squatters should have civil rights. Rights to the property that belongs to somebody else which they are squatting in should not be among their rights. If you are squatting on a property and that property owner wants you gone, you should be removed immediately.

I would agree with something like this, but focusing on residential properties. I also think there should be limits to how many residential properties a single company can own. I don’t mean like apartment buildings, I mean like single-family or two / three family houses.

1 to 3 family homes are a resource that should be for the good of the American people. I’m not against somebody making money as part of that, but when the opportunity for investing starts pricing people out of the market then we need to have a hard think about whether the investing market is more important than the people or not. I don’t think it should be.

Where the hell are you getting that from? I didn’t say anything about immigrants.
This has nothing to do with race or nationality or citizenship. I am saying if you have no rights to a building, as in you don’t own the building and you don’t have a lease there, then barging in and locking the door behind you should not automatically grant you any sort of special treatment. You are an illegal intruder, and the police should go in and arrest you. I think that should apply in situations like this and it should apply in situations even if the owner of the building hasn’t been around in a month.