Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Captian_Kenai t1_j1ixj0z wrote

Definitely. People in rual areas live vastly different lives than city dwellers and as a result vote very differently and for valid reasons.

We’re seeing this issue all over the country (New York and NYC, Illinois and Chicago, California and LA, Texas and Dallas, and Oregon and Portland) where these giant cities are essentially silencing the rest of the state they’re in. Regardless of what side you’re on it’s a major issue that should be addressed

−7

banjokazooie23 t1_j1jf267 wrote

But...it's not a "city" that's voting, it's individual people. There are more people there. Most of the people in the state are voting a certain way, they just happen to live geographically near each other.

If anything the argument is that states are too geographically large, but if they were divided up then it's actually the rural areas that would suffer more from loss of tax dollars coming from the cities.

There's really no perfect solution to this issue.

8

andthedevilissix t1_j1jhoaz wrote

Trump's administration was a good lesson in how the devolution of power can provide a powerful check to dumb shit. Put another way - the less centralized power we have, at the state level and the federal level, and the more local governments are empowered to act the more responsive democracy becomes and the less vulnerable to people like Trump the system is.

Reducing the power that the executive branch has, whether at the state or federal level, is beneficial to everyone regardless of politics.

1

banjokazooie23 t1_j1jrqnk wrote

I mean I definitely agree that our current system doesn't work. Republicans have a disproportionate amount of power in comparison to their percentage of the country's population. It gives us a government that is wildly more conservative than the populace as we've shifted toward more extreme candidates rather than mostly moderates across the board. Ultimately, most people are moderates and our country is more stable with moderates at the helm.

3

Yuvneas t1_j1j8yff wrote

Ah yes, valid reasons like bigotry, hatred, and christian nationalism leading them to vote to try and ban books, strip rights from others, and enforce their delusional beliefs about a magical sky daddy on the rest of us.

6

andthedevilissix t1_j1j9s8q wrote

This is a bit of a caricature, and about as accurate as people who think Seattle is full of Antifa Super Soldiers who want to mandate dildo education for 3 year olds

3

banjokazooie23 t1_j1jfl0y wrote

While they could have been more tactful it's sort of disingenuous to argue a "both sides" thing here when one side is actually trying to make laws about banning books/forbidding genuine medical care/etc. and the other side is not actually trying to show toddlers how to use sex toys.

7

andthedevilissix t1_j1jj4i7 wrote

>actually trying to make laws about banning books

Which states are making laws banning books? If you're referring to individual school districts, you should know that many leftwing districts have banned books as well...books like Huckleberry Fin and To Kill a Mockingbird (the first because of the n word, the second because of "white saviorism")

It seems to me that you inhabit a media bubble, and that's ok it's your life, but it's probably good to check outside of it once in a while.

0

banjokazooie23 t1_j1jr47v wrote

Eh, honestly, it became too difficult to get news sources that weren't sensationalized so I stopped consuming news. Been a lot happier since lol. But back when I used to see news the right-wing sources were far worse as far as misleading info goes and I've never found myself agreeing with Republicans on their policies from what I've seen from them. Not to say I always agree with the Dems either--because I don't--but unfortunately with our system there are only two options, and the Dems are less uh...objectively evil and cruel than the Republicans.

2

andthedevilissix t1_j1k88ef wrote

If you decide to look at news again in the future I'd recommend something with an obvious, but minimal, bias. So, for instance, The Economist is obviously pro-business as is The Financial Times - but their reporting is factual and reliable. They may point out the downsides to a unionization drive they cover, but you already know going in that they're coming from that perspective.

1

Captian_Kenai t1_j1jce5h wrote

Bingo. This clown is part of the problem. This tribal belief that your party is the second coming of Christ and can do no wrong, and the other party is the reincarnation of Statan himself. But in reality both sides are valid and have good points and both have their negatives. Nobody is 100% perfect and neither are political parties.

After all, The only true enemy is the government itself.

0

andthedevilissix t1_j1jjdk8 wrote

>This tribal belief that your party is the second coming of Christ and can do no wrong, and the other party is the reincarnation of Statan himself.

I just don't understand why people don't see how cringe it is to base their personalities around politicians. It would be so much better if we could all go back to understanding that politicians are all pieces of shit.

1

JustNilt t1_j1kcrcy wrote

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a pretty shit take on anything. The vast majority of people don't base their personalities around politicians. They support politicians who support things they also support.

2

andthedevilissix t1_j1np9ui wrote

> The vast majority of people don't base their personalities around politicians.

Yea, there's definitely not a cult of personality around Trump. You're right and very smart.

2

JustNilt t1_j1ntl36 wrote

Yeah but that's not the vast majority of people, now is it?

0

WikiSummarizerBot t1_j1kcsiz wrote

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

>Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: 'after this, therefore because of this') is an informal fallacy that states: "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is often shortened simply to post hoc fallacy. A logical fallacy of the questionable cause variety, it is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc ('with this, therefore because of this'), in which two events occur simultaneously or the chronological ordering is insignificant or unknown. Post hoc is a logical fallacy in which one event seems to be the cause of a later event because it occurred earlier.

^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)

1

edc582 t1_j1jkkpp wrote

And the rural dwellers of Mississippi, Tennessee, Missouri, Louisiana, Kentucky, Kansas, etc... all outvote urban interests in their states.

Congrats. You've noticed the dividing line in US politics is now Urban vs. Rural with suburbs being the kingmakers. This is not how it always was and likely is not how it will always be. If people are unhappy with the current division, all they need to do is wait for a political realignment. We are probably due for one anyway, and are likely seeing one happen in real time.

5

bernyzilla t1_j1jhcv2 wrote

Poor people live very different lives than rich people, black people live very different lives then white people, women live different lives than men. All those groups are vastly underrepresented politically, should they also get extra votes?

If the status of living in Wyoming get you three votes for president to everyone one a Washingtonian gets, should not like people get two? Poor Middle Eastern women get four?

The issue that needs to be addressed is some people get more votes than others. Living in a different area should not get you an extra vote, and land mass should not get to vote either.

Right now 60 to 75% of the country supports Medicare for all, But senators that represent only a small percent of the nation are able to prevent it because of the outdated way the United States government represents people.

The only fair way to do it is one person one vote. We need to change our laws to acknowledge that and move from a flawed democracy to a true democracy.

4

UncommonSense12345 t1_j1jtw2t wrote

Yep legal gun owners in rural areas (and urban as well) are stripped of their constitutional rights (see recent Supreme Court Bruen decision) by urban liberal voters in this state because many city/suburbs dwellers don’t use guns in their day to day life and think banning them will solve gun violence. Show me where banning drugs stopped drug violence? Banning alcohol , alcohol violence (dui, domestic violence, etc)? Difference is guns are protected by our Federal and State constitution but WA lawmakers don’t care because gun owners are in the minority so they can pass whatever law they want constitutional or not. Have these “common sense gun laws” worked so far? Most gun owners are all for background checks and training on safety and safe storage. But banning the very tools needed for hunting, self defense, defense of our communities is straight up a violation of the second amendment. It bugs me so much to live in a state where we are doing this. And I know I will be downvoted into infinity but I ask you look up the origins of gun control…. Like lots of things came out of racism…. See black panthers… and see how gun laws are rarely enforced and when they are they are disproportionally used on the poor and minorities. So our dear overlords sell “gun laws” for safety to their white liberal voters and the result is more and poor and minorities in jail and no real reduction in gun violence. If you don’t fix the reasons for violence you will never ever stop it.

And the reason they want gun control is control of the population and to tighten their grip on power and lessen chance of citizens holding them accountable and to make us more dependent on them. It baffles me that the party that does not lien the police writes laws where the police are exempt from the gun control laws…. So only criminals and police will have: “high capacity” (really standard capacity) magazines and semi automatic rifles. While law abiding citizens will be forced to be handcuffed with nerfed weapons…. All for our safety???? Make it make sense…. If they want mandatory safety training… sign me up. Mandatory background checks… sign me up. But banning common defense tools but exempting themselves and criminals???? Come on now people wake up…

4

Lost_Sasquatch t1_j1izkfp wrote

This is the last 10 years of gun control legislation in the state.

We have state preemption, which means it's all or nothing, the entire state has to have the same gun laws.

WA has had a system of ballot initiatives since 1912, where you can bypass the state legislature by gathering enough signatures to get the initiative on the ballot. If it passes it becomes law.

So Seattle billionaires have been bankrolling initiative campaigns in King county (paying signature gatherers, media campaigns, paying for transportation to polling stations, etc.)

−1

Captian_Kenai t1_j1iztc8 wrote

Wow, I didn’t know it was this bad. My hatred for Seattle grows once more

−2

Lost_Sasquatch t1_j1j1qqk wrote

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014/

Check out this article by one of the billionaires doing it, Nick Hanauer. It's basically an open letter to other 0.1%ers saying "We need to disarm the peasants to they can't rise up against us."

Ironically, the left leaning population that claim to hate billionaires are the tool he's using to disarm the public.

3

theblackchin t1_j1og7fw wrote

How is that your takeaway from the article? It’s literally saying change the economics or pitchforks will come, but your takeaway was that it was about guns? Seriously???

1

Lost_Sasquatch t1_j1p15w7 wrote

He has spent his money on gun control campaigns, not economic reform, kind of telling.

1