So it's what I thought.. "Minority rule" is just a misleading catch phrase you whip it when the majority is stymied by systemic limits to its power. The minority isn't actually ruling, they're not getting their laws passed against the wishes of the majority.
Yeah. That was intentional. In our system, sometimes it requires more than a simple majority to get your way. Sorry if you don't like that. But it's not "minority rule"..
Why do you guys choose this argument? It seems so poorly thought out.
Who would those producing states sell to without the blue state consumers? Without the majority of people?
How about China? India, Russia, an entire Continent called South America along with another entire continent called 'Europe'. Most of Asia.... Maybe even (gasp!) Canada and Mexico
You know, I truly believe that if we could present this forum as evidence, every one of your Teachers would be fired. 4cereal
Not really. The majority of Americans are brainless tests with a room temperature IQ and No understanding of how this country was intended to run and why.
It’s the argument you made with your “war of northern aggression” nonsense.
The populations of red states are low because there isn’t enough prosperity to warrant further growth. That certainly isn’t the fault of blue states or the majority of people. It’s certainly not the responsibility of the majority to forfeit their ideas for progress to the minority.
You have already had several members tell you the difference in culture between resource extracting and farmer states, and resource consuming states.
That you refuse to acknowledge this difference, and the need for both types of states to have equal say in how the nation is governed? This is all the forum needs to see.
In 2016, these five states led the pack in mineral production, accounting for about one third of the total mineral production value for the entire country.
Click here to learn all about production for the lumber industry. Learn the largest sawmills in the USA, as well as top producing states & more.
www.yorksaw.com
Now, I suppose, if you are part of the WEF great reset crowd, that wishes to destroy America, and create a global police state, the best plan would be to get everyone to eat fake meat or bugs, and stop using electricity.
Yeah, then encouraging everyone to move to massive cities where you can indoctrinate them, and vote blue no matter who, sounds like a swell idear.
The changes you folks ***** about, and claim to want? They have to come at yoar end silly. They have to come from the cities and industry, supply and demand.. You just need to demand less supply. Not less representation of where that supply is coming from. Asking a leftist to understand economics is like asking a toddler to understand algebra though, isn't it?
The material basis of the global economy: Worldwide patterns of natural resource extraction and their implications for sustainable resource use policies
". . . A distinction must be made between absolute and relative dematerialisation. Absolute dematerialisation, also referred to as strong dematerialisation, occurs when total material input to an economy decreases in absolute terms. Relative dematerialisation, or weak dematerialisation, refers to a decrease in the intensity of use, requiring the ratio between material input and GDP to fall over time. This can only be achieved if growth in resource use is slower than economic growth (Moll et al., 2003).
The importance of improved material management for sustainable development is recognised by various institutions in international politics. Facilitating and stimulating economic growth while reducing environmental impacts associated with resource use in Europe and beyond is central to the European “Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources” (European Commission, 2005). Taking into consideration the entire life cycle of resource use, this strategy focuses on three main goals, summarised under the heading “more value – less impact – better alternatives”. These refer to increasing resource productivity, increasing eco-efficiency and – if cleaner use is not achievable – the substitution of currently used resources with more environmentally benign alternatives. The strategy defines a time horizon of 25 years, without, however, mentioning any quantitative reduction targets. The German Strategy for Sustainable Development (German Federal Government, 2002), on the other hand, includes targets with respect to energy and resource productivity. Aiming for an absolute reduction of resource use, this strategy calls for doubling the 1990 levels of energy productivity and the 1994 levels of resource productivity until 2020. In the long run, Germany aims for a “Factor 4” development — doubling wealth while halving resource use. A similar approach has been adopted in Japan, where a number of quantitative targets for material flow indicators to be reached until 2010 have been agreed upon in the national plan for a recycling-based society (Government of Japan, 2003). These include a 40% improvement in resource productivity calculated as GDP per Direct Material Input (DMI), a 40% increase in the cyclical use ratio, calculated as the amount of materials reused and/or recycled in total materials used, and a 50% reduction of the final disposal amount of waste (landfill). Targets refer to 2000 as the base year. Japan has also been leading the promotion of the “3R Initiative” (reduce, reuse and recycle) on the global level. Following agreement at the G8 Sea Island Summit in 2004, the initiative was formally launched in early 2005 and reaffirmed at the G8 Gleneagles Summit in 2005 (G8 Summit of Heads of State and of Government, 2005).. . . "
Senators are elected by the states they represent, moron. Apparently some blue senators didn't represent their states too well. That is how elections work. SMFH. Have you got a towel to dry behind your ears, junior?
......on issues like abortion, gun control, climate change, immigration, campaign finance reform, etc., why isn't the majority's wishes reflected in public policy?
I would argue it's because of the disproportionate representation of conservatives in the Senate, more gerrymandered districts in Repub controlled states than Dem controlled states, and the comically anachronistic Electoral College. If not for the latter we likely would not have had a Repub prez since Reagan. Hence, we'd have a liberal super majority in the SC. Nor would we have suffered through Mitch McTreason being the majority leader in the Senate if not for WY's 580K residents having equal representation to CA's 39M.
Can this be fixed to prevent the current tyranny of the minority?
You have already had several members tell you the difference in culture between resource extracting and farmer states, and resource consuming states.
That you refuse to acknowledge this difference, and the need for both types of states to have equal say in how the nation is governed? This is all the forum needs to see.
In 2016, these five states led the pack in mineral production, accounting for about one third of the total mineral production value for the entire country.
Now, I suppose, if you are part of the WEF great reset crowd, that wishes to destroy America, and create a global police state, the best plan would be to get everyone to eat fake meat or bugs, and stop using electricity.
Yeah, then encouraging everyone to move to massive cities where you can indoctrinate them, and vote blue no matter who, sounds like a swell idear.
The changes you folks ***** about, and claim to want? They have to come at yoar end silly. They have to come from the cities and industry, supply and demand.. You just need to demand less supply. Not less representation of where that supply is coming from. Asking a leftist to understand economics is like asking a toddler to understand algebra though, isn't it?
The material basis of the global economy: Worldwide patterns of natural resource extraction and their implications for sustainable resource use policies
". . . A distinction must be made between absolute and relative dematerialisation. Absolute dematerialisation, also referred to as strong dematerialisation, occurs when total material input to an economy decreases in absolute terms. Relative dematerialisation, or weak dematerialisation, refers to a decrease in the intensity of use, requiring the ratio between material input and GDP to fall over time. This can only be achieved if growth in resource use is slower than economic growth (Moll et al., 2003).
The importance of improved material management for sustainable development is recognised by various institutions in international politics. Facilitating and stimulating economic growth while reducing environmental impacts associated with resource use in Europe and beyond is central to the European “Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources” (European Commission, 2005). Taking into consideration the entire life cycle of resource use, this strategy focuses on three main goals, summarised under the heading “more value – less impact – better alternatives”. These refer to increasing resource productivity, increasing eco-efficiency and – if cleaner use is not achievable – the substitution of currently used resources with more environmentally benign alternatives. The strategy defines a time horizon of 25 years, without, however, mentioning any quantitative reduction targets. The German Strategy for Sustainable Development (German Federal Government, 2002), on the other hand, includes targets with respect to energy and resource productivity. Aiming for an absolute reduction of resource use, this strategy calls for doubling the 1990 levels of energy productivity and the 1994 levels of resource productivity until 2020. In the long run, Germany aims for a “Factor 4” development — doubling wealth while halving resource use. A similar approach has been adopted in Japan, where a number of quantitative targets for material flow indicators to be reached until 2010 have been agreed upon in the national plan for a recycling-based society (Government of Japan, 2003). These include a 40% improvement in resource productivity calculated as GDP per Direct Material Input (DMI), a 40% increase in the cyclical use ratio, calculated as the amount of materials reused and/or recycled in total materials used, and a 50% reduction of the final disposal amount of waste (landfill). Targets refer to 2000 as the base year. Japan has also been leading the promotion of the “3R Initiative” (reduce, reuse and recycle) on the global level. Following agreement at the G8 Sea Island Summit in 2004, the initiative was formally launched in early 2005 and reaffirmed at the G8 Gleneagles Summit in 2005 (G8 Summit of Heads of State and of Government, 2005).. . . "
As far as the senate is concerned--neither. Each state gets two regardless of size or population. In the house, representation is based on population as are electors in the electoral college.
We are America.
Red states don’t innovate or create anything new or drive economic growth. Many aren’t much better off than they were after the civil war.
So it's what I thought.. "Minority rule" is just a misleading catch phrase you whip it when the majority is stymied by systemic limits to its power. The minority isn't actually ruling, they're not getting their laws passed against the wishes of the majority.
Yeah. That was intentional. In our system, sometimes it requires more than a simple majority to get your way. Sorry if you don't like that. But it's not "minority rule"..
We are America.
Red states don’t innovate or create anything new or drive economic growth. Many aren’t much better off than they were after the civil war.
Laugh all you want, moron. That's the way it is and will stay. If you don't like it, don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you. Go to one of your commie shitholes and see how well you like it there. I hear Hamas is looking for volunteers--life insurance and 72 virgins provided.
How about China? India, Russia, an entire Continent called South America along with another entire continent called 'Europe'. Most of Asia.... Maybe even (gasp!) Canada and Mexico
You know, I truly believe that if we could present this forum as evidence, every one of your Teachers would be fired. 4cereal
Too funny…
The market is already at equilibrium. Certainly eliminating such a large part of your consumer base would have a negative impact. Especially when considering that there isn’t enough extra demand to accommodate you or that many of your states are landlocked.
We are America.
Red states don’t innovate or create anything new or drive economic growth. Many aren’t much better off than they were after the civil war.
www.lawnstarter.com
sustainablog.org
education.nationalgeographic.org
www.yorksaw.com
www.usgs.gov
