Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Champion Of Gender Equality, Dies At 87

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I mostly frequent conservative oriented sites/forums so CP is the most left leaning forum that I view and I have to say that this thread has been eye-opening to me in some ways.

Originally Posted by BoLevi

You're quite correct, this forum is actually very left-leaning.

So is that good or bad? See this is the problem when people use these types of labels that basically serve no purpose other than to divide people by the lowest common denominator, you end up making a comment but don’t actually provide an opinion or really make any point at all.

The similarities between those that identify as Democrats and those that identify as Republicans really is surprising

It’s surprising that they’re all people and a number of them have similar gaps in their logic and are not just ideologically driven based on where there DNA ended up landing them on a political spectrum ranking system that people made up? If that’s eye opening to then congratulation on finally cracking the code.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by troutman

A forum comprised mostly of men that work in Oil and Gas

What are you basing this off of?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by troutman

A forum comprised mostly of men that work in Oil and Gas is very left-leaning? LOL

If one only reads threads related to US politics, I could see how one could arrive at the conclusion that CalgaryPuck is left-leaning, but that's more of an indictment of just how far mainstream conservative politics have shifted to right-wing extremism in the United States in recent years such that even conservative Canadians appear to be leftists in comparison. Spend any amount of time in the Canadian Federal Politics thread or the thread for last year's 2019 federal election and then tell me that this forum skews right. What a ridiculous assertion.

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

You're quite correct, this forum is actually very left-leaning.

Also, identifying the issues with the current climate or the overall system by using the words "both sides" invalidates the argument for reasons that are unrelated to logic.

If you think conservatives that believe in common human decency as "left leaning", so be it. You must not have paid much attention to the political thread here during the last federal election.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

If one only reads threads related to US politics, I could see how one could arrive at the conclusion that CalgaryPuck is left-leaning, but that's more of an indictment of just how far mainstream conservative politics have shifted to right-wing extremism in the United States in recent years such that even conservative Canadians appear to be leftists in comparison. Spend any amount of time in the Canadian Federal Politics thread or the thread for last year's 2019 federal election and then tell me that this forum skews right. What a ridiculous assertion.

Actually if you look at any political thread here it skews the opposite of who is in power. Canadian fed - right. Alberta gov - left. US politics - left. Which makes sense when you think about it.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

So is that good or bad? See this is the problem when people use these types of labels that basically serve no purpose other than to divide people by the lowest common denominator, you end up making a comment but don’t actually provide an opinion or really make any point at all.

Sorry, I should have dumbed my post down for you. My point is that people aren't really as divided as they think they are.

It’s surprising that they’re all people and a number of them have similar gaps in their logic and are not just ideologically driven based on where there DNA ended up landing them on a political spectrum ranking system that people made up? If that’s eye opening to then congratulation on finally cracking the code.

This is borderline incoherent so I guess I'll just say "thanks".

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Sorry, I should have dumbed my post down for you. My point is that people aren't really as divided as they think they are.

Aw did I hurt your feelings so bad that you had to resort to petty personal attacks? Take a few deep breaths and you’ll be ok.

This is borderline incoherent so I guess I'll just say "thanks".

Would it help if I dumbed it down for you?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

This site is NOT left-leaning politically.

One of my favorite things about reading politics on this site is the respectful nature that posters have discussing in good faith (mostly), but with a more right-leaning perspective than I'm used to.

For me personally, there are some things I'm very conservative about. There are other things I'm very liberal about. When I take those "where do you fall" quizes/analysis questionnaires online I tend to hit nearly dead centre (maybe they're designed that way?).

This thread would only seem left leaning if you think anything other than a fascist dictatorship is too far left.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Those that hate the EC would likely be singing the praises of the founding father's wisdom had the 2016 presidential election been reversed and Trump had won the popular vote but lost the EC. This isn't directed at you, but I think for most people, their issue with the electoral college is the result, not the method itself.

Fair comment, but I think inaccurate. Americans really do not like the EC, regardless of the side of the divide they reside. They view it as unreasonable. This is because most Americans (and Canadians for that matter) believe we are a democracy, which the United States is not. We are a republic, and as such, the EC is a mechanism to maintain order within that republic. Unfortunately, the EC was established at a time when it made sense, but the expectations of the people and the attitudes within society have rendered the EC moot.

Seriously, the EC was put in place to provide a balancing mechanism for the least populated states to have fair representation in the selection of the president. The senate was established for equal and effective power in the legislative function for those same low population states. What has evolved is a two headed monster that has swung the balance of power to the small population states over those with the majority of the population and economic means driving the nation. I added the latter part in there so you can approach this from a bottom line perspective as well. Those who provide the least, have the smallest numbers, now have the greatest sway in deciding the political will of the nation.

Here are some chilling numbers and thoughts to go with it. President Trump loves to #### all over California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and New York (the blue states) and threatens them with non-support. That is 13,055,442 people who voted for Trump that he is going to be shafting. Did you know that in California 4,483,810 people voted for Trump. That is more than Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Iowa combined (4,387,714). So in the balance of power that is 20 senators to 2. Now can you begin to see why people don't like the current system. Add in that the last two presidents to fail to win the popular vote (Bush and Trump), but got in on the EC, have done so much damage to this country, it is easy to see why people hate the EC.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Would it help if I dumbed it down for you?

No thanks, that was dumb enough.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Aw did I hurt your feelings so bad that you had to resort to petty personal attacks?

Originally Posted by Ark2

No thanks, that was dumb enough.

I will take that as a yes

[Plett25]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

You're quite correct, this forum is actually very left-leaning.

There you go! That settles it!

Indisputable proof that this forum is not left-leaning.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by New Era

Fair comment, but I think inaccurate. Americans really do not like the EC, regardless of the side of the divide they reside. They view it as unreasonable. This is because most Americans (and Canadians for that matter) believe we are a democracy, which the United States is not. We are a republic, and as such, the EC is a mechanism to maintain order within that republic. Unfortunately, the EC was established at a time when it made sense, but the expectations of the people and the attitudes within society have rendered the EC moot.

Seriously, the EC was put in place to provide a balancing mechanism for the least populated states to have fair representation in the selection of the president. The senate was established for equal and effective power in the legislative function for those same low population states. What has evolved is a two headed monster that has swung the balance of power to the small population states over those with the majority of the population and economic means driving the nation. I added the latter part in there so you can approach this from a bottom line perspective as well. Those who provide the least, have the smallest numbers, now have the greatest sway in deciding the political will of the nation.

Here are some chilling numbers and thoughts to go with it. President Trump loves to #### all over California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and New York (the blue states) and threatens them with non-support. That is 13,055,442 people who voted for Trump that he is going to be shafting. Did you know that in California 4,483,810 people voted for Trump. That is more than Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Iowa combined (4,387,714). So in the balance of power that is 20 senators to 2. Now can you begin to see why people don't like the current system. Add in that the last two presidents to fail to win the popular vote (Bush and Trump), but got in on the EC, have done so much damage to this country, it is easy to see why people hate the EC.

Well Trump is a stupid, vindictive President, that's not an argument against the EC. Again, increasing seats in the House would increase EC. You could increase Wyoming to 4 and increase California to 70.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

There are a number of options that should be considered, but abolishing the EC altogether isn't the right move. If that were the case, Presidential elections would be contested solely in New York, LA, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Miami etc. The current system clearly needs fixing but that's a bad fix.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

There are a number of options that should be considered, but abolishing the EC altogether isn't the right move. If that were the case, Presidential elections would be contested solely in New York, LA, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Miami etc. The current system clearly needs fixing but that's a bad fix.

I don't believe this would be the case.

Right now, presidential elections are only contested in a small number of swing states: Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, etc. If the EC were abolished, every vote would matter equally. A vote from rural Wyoming, which is currently not contested at all, would count the same as a vote from urban New York City, which is also currently not contested at all. It would turn the election into a truly national race were every vote matters and candidates from both major parties would campaign everywhere. It would also make minority-party voters who live in states that always overwhelming support one party (e.g. Republicans in Rhode Island or Democrats in Mississippi) feel like their vote actually matters.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Actually if you look at any political thread here it skews the opposite of who is in power. Canadian fed - right. Alberta gov - left. US politics - left. Which makes sense when you think about it.

It's more divided along the posters that participate in the threads. I shouldn't have said this forum is left-leaning, but certainly the US political threads are very left leaning. It was the same back in 2016 during the election thread and OBama was President at the time.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I don't believe this would be the case.

Right now, presidential elections are only contested in a small number of swing states: Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, etc. If the EC were abolished, every vote would matter equally. A vote from rural Wyoming, which is currently not contested at all, would count the same as a vote from urban New York City, which is also currently not contested at all. It would turn the election into a truly national race were every vote matters and candidates from both major parties would campaign everywhere. It would also make minority-party voters who live in states that always overwhelming support one party (e.g. Republicans in Rhode Island or Democrats in Mississippi) feel like their vote actually matters.

It would turn even more into a turn out your base concept. The cheapest way to increase votes would be to improve voter turnout in high density areas. If this is the case you would see a push to even more polarizing policy then you have now.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

It's more divided along the posters that participate in the threads. I shouldn't have said this forum is left-leaning, but certainly the US political threads are very left leaning. It was the same back in 2016 during the election thread and OBama was President at the time.

Left relative to who? The US or Canada or Calgary? You can go back in polls vs results and this board is fairly representative of results in Calgary with a bit of a fetish for unelectable candidates. People see what they want to see. I agree with the comment that people are more vocal against the party currently in power.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

So is that good or bad? See this is the problem when people use these types of labels that basically serve no purpose other than to divide people by the lowest common denominator, you end up making a comment but don’t actually provide an opinion or really make any point at all.

The structure of online communities tends to drive a consolidation of opinions - dissenters depart as the mob mentality rules. Result: an echo chamber. Additional result: people think they are centrist when they are not centrist. People prefer to be surrounded by like minded individuals rather than not.

That's why people react so negatively when presented with reasonable views that differ from theirs. (In fact, they find this more difficult than UNreasonable views that differ from theirs, which they can simply marginalize).

The unfortunate thing about echo chambers, is that it is hard to identify when you are in one. You just assume you are right a lot.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

The structure of online communities tends to drive a consolidation of opinions - dissenters depart as the mob mentality rules. Result: an echo chamber. Additional result: people think they are centrist when they are not centrist. People prefer to be surrounded by like minded individuals rather than not.

That's why people react so negatively when presented with reasonable views that differ from theirs. (In fact, they find this more difficult than UNreasonable views that differ from theirs, which they can simply marginalize).

The unfortunate thing about echo chambers, is that it is hard to identify when you are in one. You just assume you are right a lot.

Considering this seems to be a problem of the select few, and not the problem for the countless number of posters who reasonably disagree across political, moral, and social lines in countless threads, perhaps this is not an "online community" problem here, and more a personal problem.

Have you ever asked yourself why you have so much trouble expressing what you believe to be reasonable centrist positions without negative reactions, and why many others who actually do this (even reasonable right-leaning or left-leaning positions) do not have any trouble doing so? Or is it all just "echo chambers" and "group think" to blame, with zero self-reflection required?