# What would you do as dictator?



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

WickerDeer said:


> I don't think this is true whatsoever. Big cities might tend to have a more educated populace, but it doesn't mean they would all "raid a treasury and spend it all" just because they've gone to college and might tend not to be quite as homogenous ethnically as rust-belt states.


I got some of what I said second hand so I may have to take it back unless some references are found. Answer this: You know about those $2,000 stimulus checks? What if there were a referendum to make the stimulus $20,000 or even $40,000 for every poor body? How do you think the vote would go? Every body would say "Yay" and "raid the treasury"?




WickerDeer said:


> California is a major agricultural producer btw.


Look how the BIG cities voted blue. Agri voted red:








Live election results: 2020 California results


Live 2020 California election results and maps by country and district. POLITICO's coverage of 2020 races for President, Senate, House, Governors and Key Ballot Measures.




www.politico.com








WickerDeer said:


> So perhaps we should give everyone who lives on a boat 20 votes ... Um...what about people who live in trees? I bet there are very very few of those--maybe only thirty of them. So perhaps we should give them all 300 votes, or would it be fairer to give them 3000 votes each? ... What about airplane pilots who spend most of their time in the air? There are few of them--perhaps they should each get 100,000 votes to equal the playing field. We don't want to be tyrranical over the pilots, since the land, boat, and tree people probably outnumber them? Someone needs to represent the air right?


Naw. Tree, boat and air people don't contribute to the country the way farm people do. Farm country people need more votes else they go broke. Eating is more important than climbing, swimming and flying don't you think?


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

BigApplePi said:


> I got some of what I said second hand so I may have to take it back unless some references are found. Answer this: You know about those $2,000 stimulus checks? What if there were a referendum to make the stimulus $20,000 or even $40,000 for every poor body? How do you think the vote would go? Every body would say "Yay" and "raid the treasury"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Huh--then perhaps California needs more votes since we are a huge farm producer. Perhaps you should change it to each California vote being 3 votes, rather than less than one. I personally have done farm work as have my family. I suppose I deserve a bigger vote than you, yes? Good to know where I stand.

Does it bother you that the majority of people who actually work on farms are illegal immigrants who aren't allowed to vote?

So your assumption is that somehow anyone who lives ina city would vote to send out 40,000$ stimulus checks, whereas anyone who lives in the country would not.

hm. Sounds kind of ridiculous.

Hmmm....how would it go if you sent out special votes to only farm workers, since people who work in agriculture's opinion is so much more important than everyone else's? I think it'd be interesting since the vast vast majority of farmworkers are Hispanic. Sure, there might be a couple land owners, who are going to vote their way--just like some rich people in cities will vote republican. But the majority of actual farm workers will probably not vote Republican.

You know that not everyone who lives in a rural area works in agriculture right? I imagine many of them might be unemployed--more so than those who live in cities (because it's much harder to live ina city while being unemployed--than to be unemployed in an area where housing is cheaper--like in a rural environment). I am pretty sure the vast majority of agricultural workers are hispanic--probably 9 out of every 10, so perhaps you should send out a special vote to them since you think that the people who produce food's voices are more important?

Would that make the system even more fair?

What does a hierarchy of jobs vote look like? You said that agricultural people desere higher votes, so the hispanic vote would already be higher than any other vote...

So what next...agricultural workers get the most votes--so clearly we'd get a democrat by your valuation.

Grocery store workers get the next most important vote? Because they also put food on our table.

What about truckers who ship the vegetables and fruits?

And what about cooks and chefs? Do they get the next most important?

Considering poverty and unemployment are higher in rural areas, would it not be the rural voters who would vote to "raid the treasury"? Or how does that work? Republicans do consistently blow up the deficit and leave the US in more debt every time they gain and leave an office--so is that because they and their rural constituents are "raiding the treasury"?


----------



## Sentimentality (Oct 9, 2020)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Resign immediately. I want nothing to do with being in power. It never ends well.


Sounds like something a good leader would say. If you were given the right to rule, how do you know you weren't destined for the position and that by declining it, you aren't giving it to someone who would ruin the world? If you're wise enough to recognize the inherent dangers of power and leadership, then why give it up to someone who is power hungry and wants the position?



ImpossibleHunt5 said:


> If I were a dictator, I would immediately use my power to (ironically) divide that power from myself and spread it to as many people as I could.
> I think that most governments have gotten way too bloated for their own good. I find that most politicians would be unwilling to part with that power if they had the choice to.
> But if you need something done, sometimes it's best to do it yourself. A dictatorship could present an opportunity (even though the situation would be largely negative).
> 
> ...


If you think most governments have become bloated, then why model your style of government after nations that have become the mode you claim to dislike? (In the sense that most modern governments do have some sort of balance of power in place right?)

I think that's a difficult balance. If areas are too different, then they might as well secede and become their own nations. If they are too much the "same", then there will be infighting as you mentioned. It's also said that if a populace is too different, then there comes a lack of unity. If they are too alike, then it becomes easier to unite the nation for various purposes (good and bad).


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

WickerDeer said:


> Huh--then perhaps California needs more votes since we are a huge farm producer. Perhaps you should change it to each California vote being 3 votes, rather than less than one. I personally have done farm work as have my family. I suppose I deserve a bigger vote than you, yes? Good to know where I stand.


You see? Being dictator is harder than one thinks. I'm thinking the electoral states thing. California is BOTH farm and urban. Kansas is almost all farm. I don't know what Wyoming is but maybe they deserve 2 electorals for just being there. Maybe Wyoming could be a place to store all that garbage and waste no one wants to recycle.




WickerDeer said:


> Does it bother you that the majority of people who actually work on farms are illegal immigrants who aren't allowed to vote?


Yes it does. (l personally don't know any illegal farm immigrants.) As far as I know they can't afford computers so they can't give their opinion here on PerC. Should we speak for them?




WickerDeer said:


> So your assumption is that somehow anyone who lives ina city would vote to send out 40,000$ stimulus checks, whereas anyone who lives in the country would not.


Yes I'm assuming that. No the country people would too. It's just that there are a lot lot fewer of them in the country. The treasury would still get raided. If you don't think that, how about a vote to reduce taxes? No taxes then can't pay for that vaccine. Bad planning for a pure democracy. The drug companies would rob us blind.




WickerDeer said:


> Hmmm....how would it go if you sent out special votes to only farm workers, since people who work in agriculture's opinion is so much more important than everyone else's? I think it'd be interesting since the vast vast majority of farmworkers are Hispanic. Sure, there might be a couple land owners, who are going to vote their way--just like some rich people in cities will vote republican. But the majority of actual farm workers will probably not vote Republican.


This is tricky. It's not that farmers deserve more votes because they are farmers. It's rather that a non-farmer person who wants an equal vote doesn't realize they want to eat. The farmer on the other hand doesn't care much for city dwellers and can do without.




WickerDeer said:


> You know that not everyone who lives in a rural area works in agriculture right? I imagine many of them might be unemployed--more so than those who live in cities (because it's much harder to live ina city while being unemployed--than to be unemployed in an area where housing is cheaper--like in a rural environment). I am pretty sure the vast majority of agricultural workers are hispanic--probably 9 out of every 10, so perhaps you should send out a special vote to them since you think that the people who produce food's voices are more important?
> 
> Would that make the system even more fair?


This is more than tricky. We may need to pull in to PerC members who know political science. (I never took a course.) The thing is if the electoral college gives a better shake to geographically big states with low populations, it doesn't have to divide that way. Instead of a Senate that gets geographical emphasis, we could create a labor branch or a research and development branch or a poor person's branch or a teacher-healthworker branch or a dog lovers branch. I didn't invent this system but the present system is suppose to prevent too much power in one place. The result is maybe the government has too little power as they are always deadlocked. Maybe it should be that way???




WickerDeer said:


> You know that not everyone who lives in a rural area works in agriculture right? I imagine many of them might be unemployed--more so than those who live in cities (because it's much harder to live ina city while being unemployed--than to be unemployed in an area where housing is cheaper--like in a rural environment). I am pretty sure the vast majority of agricultural workers are hispanic--probably 9 out of every 10, so perhaps you should send out a special vote to them since you think that the people who produce food's voices are more important?
> 
> Would that make the system even more fair?
> 
> ...


I think yer on to something. The people who own 12 room mansions are the real raiders of the treasury. The something yer onto is a good idea. The problem with any good idea is how to implement it? (We need INTJs and ENTJs to take a look and ISTJs and ESTJ to carry things out). Whenever we do a vote we can't vote on 300,000,000 different things to vote on. We are supposed to be a civilization, not a jungle. We have to set up the right things (and people) to vote on. Some people settle for a dictatorship and then regret it. Some people don't want to answer to ANY laws and regret that too.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Resign immediately. I want nothing to do with being in power. It never ends well.


Too late. This is the dictatorshop thread. You are being hired as chief consigliere ... and you don't even have to be Italian!


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

BigApplePi said:


> Too late. This is the dictatorshop thread. You are being hired as chief consigliere ... and you don't even have to be Italian!


That I might be willing to do.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

BigApplePi said:


> Maybe Wyoming could be a place to store all that garbage and waste no one wants to recycle.


Poor Wyoming. Jeez! I can see why you are suspicious that voters from other states would care for the needs of the smaller states, with that attitude!



> Yes it does. (l personally don't know any illegal farm immigrants.) As far as I know they can't afford computers so they can't give their opinion here on PerC. Should we speak for them?


Migrant laborers do face challenges like that--especially problematic right now when schools are all shut down and children must use technology to attend school. However, here schools have gotten around that by providing computers to loan as well as hotspots for families who cannot afford internet.

But your question of speaking for them brings up the ethical question of whether or not an exploited population should be spoken for by their exploiters.

We do need a political scientist in here, but my understanding is that the electoral college was originally designed for this purpose--so that slave owning states could get more votes for the people they owned, while the people they owned (slaves) would still not be able to vote.

So the modern day equivalent would be migrant field workers who lack citizenship I guess. Would it even be ethical to leave it up to the very people who benefit from their exploitation to speak for them? I think it's a really problematic idea.

I don't think that's really what is happening with the current electoral college votes, but it's interesting to think of the mentality that said "hey we should get move votes because we have slaves who can't vote."

I guess a modern question might be whether or not the head of a human trafficking organization deserves to get more votes than a single mother working two jobs in a city--because a human trafficker might be "responsible" for dozens of people, whereas a single mother maybe only five if she has a big family. Even if she works two jobs--should she have less of a vote than a human trafficker?





> Yes I'm assuming that. No the country people would too. It's just that there are a lot lot fewer of them in the country. The treasury would still get raided. If you don't think that, how about a vote to reduce taxes? No taxes then can't pay for that vaccine. Bad planning for a pure democracy. The drug companies would rob us blind.


I believe we should have increased taxes for the rich--similar to how we did in more productive periods of US history.










Here's an article that criticizes the notion that the rich payed far more taxes in the 50s, but it acknowledges that they did pay more and also that taxation was a bit different:








Taxes on the Rich Were Not That Much Higher in the 1950s


Despite high marginal income tax rates, the top 1% of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42% of their income in taxes. See more about taxes on the rich.




taxfoundation.org





Stephen King's opinion: I'm Rich Tax Me








Stephen King: I'm rich, tax me


In an expletive-filled condemnation of America's tax system, the bestselling novelist, who donates $4m a year to charity, says wealthy Americans have a 'moral imperative' to pay higher taxes




www.theguardian.com







> This is tricky. It's not that farmers deserve more votes because they are farmers. It's rather that a non-farmer person who wants an equal vote doesn't realize they want to eat. The farmer on the other hand doesn't care much for city dwellers and can do without.


As I said, I am pretty sure the vast majority of farmworkers in the US cannot vote because they aren't citizens. I doubt most of the people voting in those high electoral states are really farmers either.





> This is more than tricky. We may need to pull in to PerC members who know political science. (I never took a course.) The thing is if the electoral college gives a better shake to geographically big states with low populations, it doesn't have to divide that way. Instead of a Senate that gets geographical emphasis, we could create a labor branch or a research and development branch or a poor person's branch or a teacher-healthworker branch or a dog lovers branch. I didn't invent this system but the present system is suppose to prevent too much power in one place. The result is maybe the government has too little power as they are always deadlocked. Maybe it should be that way???
> 
> 
> 
> I think yer on to something. The people who own 12 room mansions are the real raiders of the treasury. The something yer onto is a good idea. The problem with any good idea is how to implement it? (We need INTJs and ENTJs to take a look and ISTJs and ESTJ to carry things out). Whenever we do a vote we can't vote on 300,000,000 different things to vote on. We are supposed to be a civilization, not a jungle. We have to set up the right things (and people) to vote on. Some people settle for a dictatorship and then regret it. Some people don't want to answer to ANY laws and regret that too.


I really do think the electoral college is a bunch of bs.

And tbh, so did Trump supporters before Trump was elected. He literally called for the abolishment of electoral college when he erroneously thought Obama won through it (Obama didn't--he won both popular and electoral vote.)

I don't think anyone but Republicans wanted to promote this idea that the electoral college has any role in democracy--it's only been Republican presidents who've ever benefitted from it (GW Bush and Trump) in the last like hundred years or something.

It's basically just abused to get the losing party to win, despite the pop vote. Without it, we wouldn't have had GW Bush who invaded Iraq and Trump who y'know...Trumped.

It really hasn't served any other purpose except to get those two elected, and I don't think that they've been particularly valuable to agriculture or anything. It's basically like an appendage that we didn't use since it was designed for slavery, which recent republicans have learned how to manipulate to get their party to win at the expense of what the actual American voters voted for.


----------



## ImpossibleHunt (May 30, 2020)

Sentimentality said:


> If you think most governments have become bloated, then why model your style of government after nations that have become the mode you claim to dislike? (In the sense that most modern governments do have some sort of balance of power in place right?)
> 
> I think that's a difficult balance. If areas are too different, then they might as well secede and become their own nations. If they are too much the "same", then there will be infighting as you mentioned. It's also said that if a populace is too different, then there comes a lack of unity. If they are too alike, then it becomes easier to unite the nation for various purposes (good and bad).


There's a reason why I directly modelled my government to how the US was originally formed. It was one of the first governments of its time to use so many checks and balances to prevent abuses of power.
Of course, Thomas Jefferson said that the US should be nation of farmers, which obviously isn't the case now. But I still think that model is one of the best models. It's not perfect by any means, but it's certainly better than how even the United States is today. I just think nations should be as small as possible, in order to better represent the population living in those nations. If the population (or regional area) gets too big, then you'll have the government only focusing on the specific areas of the nation that the population concentrates in. As such, the rest of the population feels left out. Resentment starts to brew. Just look at Canada and the _Wexit _movement in BC, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. Or, the "rust-bucket" states in the US. Lots of people may not agree with it, but resentment towards the more populated regions of those respective countries is growing. 

If those divisions want to become their own countries, I wouldn't stop them. I would just allow freedom of travel, so if people don't like how a particular nation is ran, they can just move somewhere else.
The federal government comes in when there is violence between those divisions. It would be there to keep the peace. It would also be there to keep co-division trading and commerce running smoothly.
That way, there is still exposure to different cultures and ways of life. But then there will always be that central sense of "community" that keeps people feeling meaningful in where they live.
Again, it's not a perfect solution. There are always problems. But I think it would be a step in the right direction, and people would have more freedom to live their lives how they see fit.


----------



## Sentimentality (Oct 9, 2020)

ImpossibleHunt5 said:


> There's a reason why I directly modelled my government to how the US was originally formed. It was one of the first governments of its time to use so many checks and balances to prevent abuses of power.
> Of course, Thomas Jefferson said that the US should be nation of farmers, which obviously isn't the case now. But I still think that model is one of the best models. It's not perfect by any means, but it's certainly better than how even the United States is today. I just think nations should be as small as possible, in order to better represent the population living in those nations. If the population (or regional area) gets too big, then you'll have the government only focusing on the specific areas of the nation that the population concentrates in. As such, the rest of the population feels left out. Resentment starts to brew. Just look at Canada and the _Wexit _movement in BC, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. Or, the "rust-bucket" states in the US. Lots of people may not agree with it, but resentment towards the more populated regions of those respective countries is growing.
> 
> If those divisions want to become their own countries, I wouldn't stop them. I would just allow freedom of travel, so if people don't like how a particular nation is ran, they can just move somewhere else.
> ...


You claimed that you dislike " the bloated governments of today". I can only imagine you include the USA in your list of "bloated governments". So If the original US became the US of today with a bloated government, what stops your "original US" government from becoming another US of today? If even the original USA became bloated as it is today, what makes yours any different?


----------



## ImpossibleHunt (May 30, 2020)

Sentimentality said:


> You claimed that you dislike " the bloated governments of today". I can only imagine you include the USA in your list of "bloated governments". So If the original US became the US of today with a bloated government, what stops your "original US" government from becoming another US of today? If even the original USA became bloated as it is today, what makes yours any different?


Well by that standard, you can't claim anything that eventually turned out bad was ever good to begin with.
The United States got to be the big, bloated mess it is today because the values the US was created on were not the same ones that are valued by politicians now.
Nowadays, more and more big decisions are being made by the government without being accountable to the people it represents. 

This mainly happened because people kept giving the Federal Government more and more power to make executive decisions. The individual states became less and less vital over time as well. 
Unfortunately, the United States was one of the first countries of its kind, that sort of foresight wasn't available to them. So with decisions like the _Patriot Act_ in 2001, people traded their freedoms for short-lived security because there was no precedent for this happening (with all of the technology and resources available to us now). 

But now that we know this lesson, we can take steps to prevent it from happening. Of course, I'm not a dictator though (and nor do I want to be). So this is only going to be a process that'll happen if more people are willing to push for it.


----------



## GummySage (Dec 18, 2020)

BigApplePi said:


> I got some of what I said second hand so I may have to take it back unless some references are found. Answer this: You know about those $2,000 stimulus checks? What if there were a referendum to make the stimulus $20,000 or even $40,000 for every poor body? How do you think the vote would go? Every body would say "Yay" and "raid the treasury"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As a dictater i dont know i hope to be president one day and fix everything hmmm i dont think i would wan tto be a dictater but id i have too lets see i would study all dictators and find all there fautls and fill thsoe in with things that would work then i would compare with every others perspectives and every possible thing that could go wrong layer among layer among layer of plan and then i would provide for the unexpected to simplify its not liek i havent thought of this before but their are only 5 ways to destroy america ok 4 if we dont destroy ourself first.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

WickerDeer said:


> Poor Wyoming. Jeez! I can see why you are suspicious that voters from other states would care for the needs of the smaller states, with that attitude!


About garbage to Wyoming. I've heard there is such a thing as a reverse auction. No state wants to receive more garbage and nuclear waste. Solution: the US government has a reverse auction. Each State chooses to pay not to take the waste. The State that offers the lowest price to pay gets the waste. This means the wealthier states pay a lot not take the waste.





WickerDeer said:


> So the modern day equivalent would be migrant field workers who lack citizenship I guess. Would it even be ethical to leave it up to the very people who benefit from their exploitation to speak for them? I think it's a really problematic idea.


This IS an ethical problem. Who is exploited or suffers more, the migrant field workers living in the US or the workers who are poor who can't get into the country? Do the workers in the US ever get a chance to upgrade their social status? Who besides the "exploiters" speaks for them? Do workers treated like slaves prefer the US?





WickerDeer said:


> I believe we should have increased taxes for the rich--similar to how we did in more productive periods of US history.


From earlier:


BigApplePi said:


> 4. Depending on answers, work on a new Constitution. I want a democracy with a capitalistic and socialistic balance.
> 5. Depending on the initial wealth of my country, work on how to tax to achieve this balance.


Fixing taxes so the *bottom 99 percent gets their fair share* could be the most important reform out there. So far no one has figured how to do this. Those who promote the laws live mostly in the top one percent. Is that unbiased justice?

This is usually overlooked. There are two biggie tax rates. One is *income tax*. (Yes put the rich in a higher bracket.) The other is *inheritance tax*. If you are poor you have nothing to give away. If you are rich, taking it away hurts. The poor can hope for more but the rich have what they don't want to give up. The poor are concerned with today. Death is for tomorrow and matters to the rich. How do we tax them so they can expect the pain and give it up? Here is an odd inconsistency:

The wealth of the poor lies in their children. No problem (except for population strangle.) The wealth of the rich already is held by their living children. Which children need to give it up and how?

This may not be very nice, but one could publicize select rich families who hold onto their absurd wealth by leaving it to their children. Make the children the scapegoats. Do the children of billionaires need billions they didn't earn? Let those children get only millions. Let them eat cake - Wikipedia





WickerDeer said:


> I don't think anyone but Republicans wanted to promote this idea that the electoral college ...


I haven't figured this electoral college thing. That Republican thing could be just luck of the times. The Democrats could benefit the same way another time. It's the principle of geographical fairness that is in my mind ... unless you think the popular vote is always the wisest vote.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

BigApplePi said:


> About garbage to Wyoming. I've heard there is such a thing as a reverse auction. No state wants to receive more garbage and nuclear waste. Solution: the US government has a reverse auction. Each State chooses to pay not to take the waste. The State that offers the lowest price to pay gets the waste. This means the wealthier states pay a lot not take the waste.


Maybe we, as a country, should prioritize finding ways to reduce or eliminate nuclear waste and garbage instead of trying to push it all off on a poor state? I remember yucca mountain. Another problem with nuclear waste is that it's incredibly difficult to transport--so even if you found a place to take it, getting it approved for transport on highways or any other method is difficult, since if there was an accident it could create a huge contamination that lasts for what...hundreds or thousands of years? 




> This IS an ethical problem. Who is exploited or suffers more, the migrant field workers living in the US or the workers who are poor who can't get into the country? Do the workers in the US ever get a chance to upgrade their social status? Who besides the "exploiters" speaks for them? Do workers treated like slaves prefer the US?


I think people will do anything for their family--at least a lot of the migrant or foreign workers I've met (not just Hispanic, but also Filipino) they really value family. So being able to get their family to a safer place or being able to help their family stay safe at home is usually what they would personally sacrifice for--and they do make personal sacrifices that it would be difficult for most Americans to really understand.

Even those they call "economic migrants" are probably trying to keep family safe, as you can't really draw more than an imaginary line between poverty and danger.

The worst the rest of the world gets--the more we bomb countries and destroy their infrastructure, leaving them open to violence and war lords. The more we destroy their democratic process and put our own capitalist puppets in power there, to create more favorable business deals for us (as in securing natural resources like oil from them or cheap human labor for factories)...the more we spread capitalism and fight against humanitarianism...the more we contribute to climate change that makes people homeless, or social instability that increases their birth rates and diseases....the more we do that to the rest of the world, the more desperate people will be seeking to move here and other countries that are more stable than their own home countries. 

So we really need to think globally and how we impact the rest of the world in a positive way. Because I can guarantee you that oil companies and weapons companies think about how they impact the rest of the world in that how they can exploit it, or get us to help them.




> From earlier:
> Fixing taxes so the *bottom 99 percent gets their fair share* could be the most important reform out there. So far no one has figured how to do this. Those who promote the laws live mostly in the top one percent. Is that unbiased justice?
> 
> This is usually overlooked. There are two biggie tax rates. One is *income tax*. (Yes put the rich in a higher bracket.) The other is *inheritance tax*. If you are poor you have nothing to give away. If you are rich, taking it away hurts. The poor can hope for more but the rich have what they don't want to give up. The poor are concerned with today. Death is for tomorrow and matters to the rich. How do we tax them so they can expect the pain and give it up? Here is an odd inconsistency:
> ...


Honestly, I think the rich just need to be forced. They are so disconnected from being poor that they have no idea what their wealth is worth, or what the people they exploit live like.

Obviously the rich shouldn't be put in poverty--but it would take astronomical taxes to do that. It's not going to happen. Being forced to consider not throwing a million dollar party or getting yet another yacht isn't the same as being forced to consider prostitution so that you and your child don't end up homeless and victims of street crimes while you are sleeping behind a dumpster. These choices are so out of whack--we need to stop acting like it's a huge burden to expect the rich to give up some of their monopoly money.

But that's a good point--there is a difference between income and inheritance. And then there is also different types of income--some is passive income, and I think it's quite common for probably the majority of rich people's income to be passive for the most part--just allowing their valuable assets collect more value as they are needed by the rest of society.

I'm not an economist though and I can't give that kind of specific tax plan with confidence.



> I haven't figured this electoral college thing. That Republican thing could be just luck of the times. The Democrats could benefit the same way another time. It's the principle of geographical fairness that is in my mind ... unless you think the popular vote is always the wisest vote.


There have only been 5--yes five--times that a president has gained office despite losing the popular vote. And three of those times were in the 1800s. For the entire century after that there was nothing. And now, in the last twenty years, we've had it happen twice...both wildly unpopular presidents (GW Bush and Trump) who did wildly unpopular things.

I really don't think that it's some important government check--I think it's an archaic system that is now found to be a loophole, which allows one party to win the office despite losing the popular vote, if they can just manipulate the right states and regions. 

It's not the biggest deal--but we might not have invaded Iraq if it weren't for presidents who lost the popular vote being given presidency--exclusively Republican presidents in the last century.

It seems to me it just encourages parties to manipulate certain key regions at the expense of what the entire country and the majority of US citizens want. I don't think that's how someone should win an election.









5 Presidents Who Lost the Popular Vote But Won the Election


These presidential candidates didn't need to secure more popular votes to win election, due to the Electoral College system.




www.history.com


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

@Rift. I tried to play the video below. I played as far as Canada and the United States going to war. Then I got sick.  Who won?


----------



## Rift (Mar 12, 2012)

BigApplePi said:


> About garbage to Wyoming. I've heard there is such a thing as a reverse auction. No state wants to receive more garbage and nuclear waste. Solution: the US government has a reverse auction. Each State chooses to pay not to take the waste. The State that offers the lowest price to pay gets the waste. This means the wealthier states pay a lot not take the waste.


some nations desire it...

in particular american garbage and nuclear waste.

of course, the concept of nuclear waste oversimplifies such material.. leading the naive and ignorant to focus solely on byproducts of nuclear energy.


* *


----------



## Sentimentality (Oct 9, 2020)

ImpossibleHunt5 said:


> But now that we know this lesson, we can take steps to prevent it from happening. Of course, I'm not a dictator though (and nor do I want to be). So this is only going to be a process that'll happen if more people are willing to push for it.


Oh can we? What are those steps? What would it matter if more people would be willing to push for it if most governments are bloated?


----------



## GummySage (Dec 18, 2020)

Sentimentality said:


> Oh can we? What are those steps? What would it matter if more people would be willing to push for it if most governments are bloated?


Im a freaking genious even though i mentioned what i would do as a dictator do u really think id give u my whole plan... How dence to peopel think i am im constantly amazed at how stupid everyone thinks i am. Look a master planner will never reveal his plans weather it be good or bad another way to say it is biblical don't let someone else take your crown.


----------



## Glittris (May 15, 2020)

What I would do as a dictator?

Really easy, I will in an instant (with my, supposed magical powers) create a totalitarian one world-regime based on one ideology that will rule this planet and hopefully very soon, countless other star systems, until the whole universe is conquered, mwu-ha-ha!... =w=

The whole world will be an Ideocracy, that is not the same thing as Idiocracy, although I, as the supreme ruler forever, will most probably be classified as "idiot" compared to everyone else, which will be much skilled than me in various fields, because each person will most probably have a hobby that they are passionate about, while I am passionate in only executing *referent power*.

So, what is this ideology, that will be the boot that will stomp your face forever? It is rather hard to explain, since this "magic" does not exist here anywhere. Back home in Glittertindra, we call it "Romance" and it could technically be described as "Natural biological instinct to seek connection with your ideal self" and I can elaborate on this, but I already know that I am only good at serving word-salads when trying to explain things. xD

Vote for me, I am a perfect fit to be your eternal cute overlord, nyaa~ =^_^=


----------



## ImpossibleHunt (May 30, 2020)

Sentimentality said:


> Oh can we? What are those steps? What would it matter if more people would be willing to push for it if most governments are bloated?


Well, it matters because that's how societies work. The views of the majority of people can shift how a society operates. 
If we can convince people that exchanging their rights and freedoms for minor security (from terrorism for example) is not entirely justified, then maybe we can prevent the same thing from happening again. 
If we can learn from previous examples, maybe we can make something different. If we can keep the governments more accountable to the people (which means leaving most of the power in the hands of provincial, municipal, or individual state governments). If we keep giving power to the federal government, they are not going to be held accountable nearly as effectively.

As for specific steps, I don't know. I wasn't aware that I needed to get that in-depth about it for a hypothetical question.
But since I'm a supposed dictator in this scenario, I can force most of my power back into those smaller governments. In real life, this would not be very simple to do.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

WickerDeer said:


> Maybe we, as a country, should prioritize finding ways to reduce or eliminate nuclear waste and garbage instead of trying to push it all off on a poor state?


That's big thinking. I was thinking small, lol.




WickerDeer said:


> ...the more we spread capitalism and fight against humanitarianism...


I don't see these things as necessarily opposed. They are different. Capitalism starts out giving and receiving according to supply and demand. It's only when it accumulates in one area that it goes against humanitarianism.




WickerDeer said:


> the more we contribute to climate change that makes people homeless, or social instability that increases their birth rates and diseases ...


I was just learning about the declining population of bees. It was explained that to feed the increasing billions of people crops are planted the same in large spaces that bees aren't interested in, pesticides are all over. Without bees there will be no food at the pollinate our fruits and veggies. It is population production and consumption that fed climate change in the first place. 








Pollinators at a Crossroads


Bees and other pollinators, including birds, bats, butterflies, moths, flies, wasps, beetles, and small mammals, play a critical role in our food production system. A healthy pollinator population is vital to producing marketable commodities. More than 100 U.S. grown crops rely on pollinators...




www.usda.gov








WickerDeer said:


> The worst the rest of the world gets--the more we bomb countries ... So we really need to think globally ...


The rich take advantage. The poor don't like it. I know I'm repeating myself, but if the rich (countries) aren't going to share, then science (pay it attention) ought to provide for population decline. (I got this idea from Trump vs Fauci, lol.)




WickerDeer said:


> Honestly, I think the rich just need to be forced. They are so disconnected from being poor that they have no idea what their wealth is worth, or what the people they exploit live like.


That's been done a few times. Think French and Russian revolutions. The outcome ain't so certain. 

How do you define "force"? I was playing this, this morning. Try minutes 30-33 as he is not the most exciting speaker. I can listen to only so much. 




One point he's making is corporations, not people have the control. I say it's easy to single out bad guys as scapegoats when the system should be addressed. Capitalism? That's an over-simplification I think. 

I'd like to see if any economic and lawyer people here know how to cook up a law to put a lid on wealth and distribute its excess.



WickerDeer said:


> I really don't think that it's [electoral college] some important government check--


Wait a minute. If yer gonna kill the electoral college, don't you have to take out the Senate also? The Senate is based on States and they are "supposed" to be state representatives.


----------

