• Obama’s post-presidency political focus: Redistricting
    41 replies, posted
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51221774]So Rhode Island should be told to get fucked and their opinion doesn't mean dick? Regardless a municipality with a large population should represent itself and not the much smaller municipalities surrounding it as well.[/QUOTE] Rhode Island shouldn't have that much voting power in proportion towards the rest of the USA. Keep in mind that the USA does have a federal system so their opinion does matter. It would be if Luxembourg had as many seats in the European Parliament as Germany for example. It would be super unfair towards the vast majority of people.
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;51218980]Poltical dynasticism also gave us the Roosevelts, who were arguably some of our best presidents. There's nothing wrong with it as long as the candidate is qualified.[/QUOTE] Theodore Roosevelt was in office from 1901 to 1909, 115 to 107 years ago. Franklin Roosevelt was in office (and Eleanor alongside him as First Lady) from 1933 to 1945, 83 to 71 years ago. The fact you have to resort to using people who lived and died that many years ([i]decades[/i], more accurately) ago for this argument and only have a handful of examples of good ones compared to the examples of all the bad ones (especially the Bush Dynasty from recent memory) shows how this idea that it can be a good thing doesn't hold up under scrutiny. It's not impossible for it to produce good, qualified candidates; more often than not though, it does not-- it just produces the same old moneyed, American aristocrat types who clique together and don't do anything to help us or to help the country, they only do what they can to further enrich themselves at our expense. They do what they can to entrench themselves in our political system, they build careers out of it, and they just pass the torch from one generation to the next by banking off of having a well-known name. That is not a good thing, it's bad.
[QUOTE=Govna;51222735]Theodore Roosevelt was in office from 1901 to 1909, 115 to 107 years ago. Franklin Roosevelt was in office (and Eleanor alongside him as First Lady) from 1933 to 1945, 83 to 71 years ago. The fact you have to resort to using people who lived and died that many years ([I]decades[/I], more accurately) ago for this argument and only have a handful of examples of good ones compared to the examples of all the bad ones (especially the Bush Dynasty from recent memory) shows how this idea that it can be a good thing doesn't hold up under scrutiny. It's not impossible for it to produce good, qualified candidates; more often than not though, it does not-- it just produces the same old moneyed, American aristocrat types who clique together and don't do anything to help us or to help the country, they only do what they can to further enrich themselves at our expense. They do what they can to entrench themselves in our political system, they build careers out of it, and they just pass the torch from one generation to the next by banking off of having a well-known name. That is not a good thing, it's bad.[/QUOTE] I have no problem with political dynasties as long as they're all candidates that are independent thinkers with their own damn minds. Not carbon copies of the family member that came before them.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51221774]So Rhode Island should be told to get fucked and their opinion doesn't mean dick? Regardless a municipality with a large population should represent itself and not the much smaller municipalities surrounding it as well.[/QUOTE] it's extremely unfair because it gives people in smaller districts a lot of power. This is power that politicians will appeal to more than those voters with less power - hence places like Rhode Island will benefit much more than California or Texas generally when voters are extremely powerful compared to those in other districts they get undue attention so as to get their votes. it's why swing seats get all of the attention and benefits due to their importance in an election while nobody gives a toss about safe ones. [editline]18th October 2016[/editline] if rhode island wasn't created from the start, you'd probably just have a single "New England" state in the northeast similar in size and population to one of the bigger states instead of a cluster of former city-states that have undue power because they just so happened to have those borders at that time
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51221374]what's your point? how is it even alike?[/QUOTE] It's the same logic and political dynasties and dictatorships are both undemocratic.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51221374]what's your point? how is it even alike?[/QUOTE] I'm trying to point out that having an abusable practice isn't excused by the fact that it has the potential to bring us some good. It's analagous to bragging about the speed of unsafe workplace habits.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51221774]So Rhode Island should be told to get fucked and their opinion doesn't mean dick? Regardless a municipality with a large population should represent itself and not the much smaller municipalities surrounding it as well.[/QUOTE] Geographic representation is why we have the senate. While less populated states will have less house representation, everyone has equal representation in the senate
[QUOTE=space1;51221363]So a dictator is also good so long as they're a good dictator right?[/QUOTE] That's a hell of a non sequitur. What do dictators have to do with this discussion? I'm also generally opposed to political dynasties, because I believe they lead to stagnation, but they have shit all to do with dictatorships. [editline]19th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Talishmar;51223990]It's the same logic and political dynasties and dictatorships are both undemocratic.[/QUOTE] ... How is a political dynasty undemocratic? Is Hillary Clinton not running for president in an open public election? Did Bush Jr not? Did Jeb Bush not? Have I missed something? [editline]19th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Govna;51218913]This is a valid concern. Political dynasticism needs to be done away with in this country. Careerism in general should be clamped down on to prevent old guards from becoming too well-entrenched as they are today. For what decent individuals are occasionally produced and maintained by it, it causes more problems for our country than it gives benefits.[/QUOTE] I agree with the general sentiment here, to be honest. There were few people as irritated as I was back when I thought this election was going to be Jeb Bush vs Hillary Clinton, because I believe that having so much power consolidated within only two families for so long is an inherently bad thing. It leads to stagnation, and sets an ugly precedent. The presidency shouldn't be an [I]inherited[/I] position, obviously, but how can you "clamp down" on family legacy in a democratic society? You can't rightfully prevent members of the same family from being politically involved, and so long as they are being democratically elected by the people, you can't rightfully refuse them office.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51225357]That's a hell of a non sequitur. What do dictators have to do with this discussion? I'm also generally opposed to political dynasties, because I believe they lead to stagnation, but they have shit all to do with dictatorships. [/QUOTE] My point was not to compare or equate political dynasties to a dictatorship, but to show them the problems with their line of thinking. Demonstrating that a political dynasty can end up with good leaders reliably taking the helm does not mean that it is somehow not an abusable practice.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.