Jump to content

Welcome to Yugioh Card Maker Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account

vla1ne

vla1ne

Member Since 19 Feb 2013
Member ID: 659,748
Currently Not online
Offline Last Active Today, 05:38 AM
***--

In Topic: Three California Initiative Makes November Ballot

Yesterday, 07:52 PM

your own response

 

Word is slower on my computer, and usually more annoying than either wordpad or notepad, (my computer is 8 years old now, and it’s age is starting to show a bit more) so I usually choose notepad over word to reduce the strain. But considering the length of the replies, and the tedium of spellchecking on notepad, yeah, I’ll use word for now.

 

Whether or not they can put a persuasive argument together right now is definitely in doubt, but he’s definitely getting better at making his divisions and arguments over time. It would give the democrats an extra seat alongside the republicans, and said seat would be yet another rather blue state overall, even if it could swing, so making the argument that it would remove supermajorities isn’t as false as it seems. California’s red voters are leaving it, meaning what’s left is going to be bluer overall. Yes, draper wants more red, but that’s called playing the long game, the plan, as well as I can see it, seems to be split the states, rework one of the three, leave the other to swing for the time being, and let the third collapse under the weight of its own altruism, rebirthing it from the ashes as either a swing state, or a completely red state. A good plan in theory, but terribly executed, because he’s not working hard enough on the most important part of it, aka, the division itself. No, giving a message to persuade democrats is the best option, because republicans, no matter how little they like the plan initially, already have more than enough motivation to move out. This provides a solution to said plan of moving that allows them to remain home, or at least move a shorter distance, and actually support the conservative candidates from their home state. The end game is similar, but has far more upsides for the conservative voter, and it still allows the liberal voter to do as they please, it simply prevents said desires from affecting as large a swath of people as it currently does. Even if it’s broken up, it’s still California.

’allow me to explain’

 

Even though it’s a republican based proposal, you only really need to win over the democrats, winning over the republicans is a bonus.

                                                                            

I agree, properly revising his arguments is key to winning, alongside lowering his biased lines. It’s necessary to cut into the state in a brand new way, and it’s fine to give more room to what would become ‘center California’, and he needs to realize this if he intends to succeed. My estimate is that it’ll take at least one more failed draft for him to figure it out though. Why he can’t understand such basic things, I don’t know.

 

It is perfectly fine to leave said rules up to the new governments, and kicking that stone down the road is understandable. That said, it’s definitely something he shouldn’t be doing. Not without at least putting down a framework to kick that can towards. He’s splitting the state into three new forms, the legal work needed to do that is immense, and I can understand why he wouldn’t want to go through it. That said, a framework covering what he would advise for each state would definitely go leagues in making the idea more palatable for both sides of the fence. Again though, leaving it open allows for each state to reform in their own self-image. A nice thought, if nothing else.

 

It isn’t though, there’s quite a few reasons to do so, but yeah, he hasn’t fully outlined them.

’So let me give three:’

 

I agree.  It affects the state heavily, but it’s too massive of a topic to actually keep within the current reply thread.

 

Losing said stronghold is nothing compared to collapsing it by hand. Reluctance to downsize when the state needs to break cleanly is no less reckless than the current proposal. The break may need work, but the fact that it needs to make said break sometime soon, is definitely a fact. They run the risk of destroying all 55 electoral votes they possess if they keep down the road they’re on now.

 

You don’t see why republicans leaving are a problem? Alright, first up, the republicans are still taxpayers, combine the taxpayers leaving with the current rules making California a sanctuary state, and you should understand why the numbers of people leaving matters. California is running off its funds in favor of the illegal sponges. It’s more than just losing votes, it’s losing people who are willing to work and pay taxes, in favor of those who work under the table, and cost far more money to keep than to remove. Republicans (and by extension democrats) leaving, is extremely damaging, when California’s entire sanctuary system runs off of the fuel that its legal, tax paying workers provide.

I believe I said it earlier, but the republicans are leaving in droves, the democrats outnumber them 4-1, convincing whomever will get it done is the most important part, the rest all comes later. You can consolidate the conservative faction in one state after you get the plan off the ground, and only democratic support will allow that to happen. It’s called playing the long game.


In Topic: Three California Initiative Makes November Ballot

17 June 2018 - 08:54 AM

Then I'm pretty sure that talk since 2016 would be from Tim Draper, and this is the result of that. But it only gained traction after Tim Draper has failed at least twice before.

 

I just found out that the Republican party had rejected this initiative back in April, so forgive me if I'm suddenly shifting my argument, but I'll try to distinguish what I believe Tim Draper wants from what the GOP wants, since it's clear that his Draper's plan runs against what the GOP wants. While it is more likely to help Democrats, it's too risky of a gamble that I get why Democrats want to sink it. Leaning Democrat is not the same as guaranteeing Democrat seats, and even if these may not create more Republican seats now, it does not rule out that possibility in subsequent elections. And if it would remove any future chance of a supermajority, considering how Democrats have already been losing that, do you really think it would be in their best interests to split their current majority across three states? I'm making up numbers for the sake of argument, but would you rather have three states where you're barely winning 5-4, or a single state where you're winning 15-12? Even if Democrats would have a majority no matter what, staying in a single state ensures that the majority.

 

It's attributing a pure arrogance to the Democratic Party, but when you're already in the lead, you're not going to want something that will make that lead less impressive. So I see this as damaging to both parties, or at least both parties fear it would be. Why create a volatile situation where you stand more to lose than try to take your victories where you can?

 

I didn't overlook the word "illegal", but you're right that it's a topic for another time, so I don't want to say anything more than that, or how much is spent on them. Plus I fear our responses to one another may be getting too long that it may be for the best to trim down on a few of our talking points, especially considering everything else I'm about to say.

 

Supposedly, Calexit is more popular than CAL 3. I have my own issues with Calexit, and that is another topic, but it does illustrate that, within California itself, there is a lot of opposition to it, seemingly from all saids. You're right that it's being shit on by all sides, but I don't think it has as much potential to win, because a third of the signatures supposedly gathered for this initiative were invalidated. That was key to Draper's strategy, since last time he tried this, so many signatures were invalidated that the ballot measure was disqualified. But there's also that the people who oppose this are not who you'd expect. Democrats, Republicans, and even Calexit all reject this? I just find it hard to believe that there will be many people who actually will end up wanting this.

 

I realize that we're last in quality of life. I'm afraid I really can't say anything to counter that, and I wish we could fix that. I'm dubious about how this initiative could create a scenario that would benefit that. It's certainly a problem that Draper wants to address, but so far it seems like lip service. Perhaps these new states would be best seen as a redistribution of resources, but that in and of itself does not improve our quality of life, especially when San Francisco and Los Angeles would be our worst offenders, and both are located in the state that would retain the standalone "California" name. Though attempting to improve that quality of life would be the strongest case for becoming a socialist state.

 

The second article seems to be a bit at adds with what you're saying. It tries to reconcile the unusual circumstance of a member of the upper class approving of socialism, and Joel Kotkin is suggesting that the ideal of "California socialism" more resembles feudalism. I know you said the "It's not real socialism" card isn't far behind, but… that kind of seems to be what he's arguing? That in trying to pursue socialism, California has instead become a feudalist meritocracy (I'm pretty sure that's not a thing, but you get what I mean).

 

It's not even an argument that the third is the weakest in terms of detailing California's growing socialist perspective. It mentions socialism, but only so far as saying "Let Jerry Brown do this." It's more about California maintaining its autonomy under the current United States administration.

 

I don't think I was saying that the trend of California is leading to anything red. It's more that I saw this initiative as an attempt create such a trend, and I'm glad the blue wave is driving out conservatives. If people choose to leave, and that is their own decision, and I don't fault them for it. After all, they've given up any and all say in pushing back against that blue wave. Tim Draper and Paul Preston (Though I will reiterate, not the GOP's) plans to split up California seems like trying to find a middle ground between staying in California while rejecting the "stronghold" for the blue wave. They don't want to leave California, so much as take the rest of the state away from the blue wave.

 

they rejected it for likely the same reasons winter outlined. but the difference is, this time it made it to the people, not just to the tops of the republican party. i'd agree if you asked me would it fail, but that's not to say it has no chance of success. it's not so hard to frame the ballot in different ways to make sure the most people possible vote for it. to the democrats, advertise this removing the ability of the republican parties to attain a supermajority, something that leftist news has been touting as a liberal nightmare for years, to the republicans, point out the chance to not only create a new red state

conveniently glossing the loss of supermajority

but to attempt the opposite of what california has been leaning towards ever so slowly.

 

agreed, we'll kick that can down the road.

 

same, it's got barely 20% support, but it's not like there aren't points you can push to make it appeal to more people each time. look at what he's reworked it to from 6 states. he's on the right track to pull it off, and there's 5 months to rework the publicity. will he do it? no, he's too ambitious with it, and i have yet to see him frame his arguments the way they'd be the strongest. it's not impossible but he's likely to flop this once again, and then get his balance right. california itself is helping him out with that though. their own legislation will likely be the deal breaker for republicans, unfortunately, many republicans that i've heard about have already left, so his ballot is likely to suffer the mexico problem, where the people who might be able to change things, are already too busy leaving.

 

put simply, it won't, at least not for the most liberal section of california. in fact, if i succeeds it'l probably speed up the most liberal area's self destruct. it's half lip service. and were he honest (if he can see it at all), he'd likely get away with it far easier. the most liberal sections of california are the sections he wants to break away from the most, you can see it in the way he splits the map. but i have to object to this statement strongly. "Though attempting to improve that quality of life would be the strongest case for becoming a socialist state" it would be the most well meaning looking attempt, but it would be the worst case possible. you cannot create a strong state from purely socialist policies, and were he to succeed in splitting the states, the effect of attempting such would be immediately obvious. a drop of socialism can help you, but pure socialism is legislative suicide for any state. where will you get the funds for the people you are attempting to financially support, when they have no funds to speak of? how will you house people when there is no money in your coffers for construction? how can you (humanely) curb the population, when the very policies you implement allow for everybody and their mother, from anywhere in the world, to come over and absorb resources? i could go on, but that's the gist of things. california is not going down a good path, and that very oversight, is what may well allow draper to scucceed in his attempt. why would you care about losing a supermajority, when your argument can include preventing the collapse of 2/3rds of your state from unwise policies? in addition, the argument that 55 the near guaranteed 55 electoral votes will get cut down greatly. there's potential arguments everywhere, so many that i could literally fill pages just thinking about it. hypotheticals from nearly every situation. even if i dont think he should succeed yet, it legitimately frustrates me that draper is making such poor arguments for his position, and such obvious lines across his state, when he could have drafted far more reasonable legislation, and made his clear disdain for the most liberal aspects of california less evident in his work.

 

Not that it's at odds, but that in the current style of califonia's socialist leanings, the way the upper class is attempting to maintain their riches, and close off other avenues, while the government is attempting to redistribute them via taxes, resembles more feudalism than the traditional socialst style. traditional usually ends up with a bunch of corrupt yahoos at the top of the ladder (Whether or not they actually care about keeping up the socialist appearance near the end of the collapse is optional, but the point stands) said structure often ends with money being inflated beyond usefulness, and a loss of supplies as the country slowly becomes worthless. california, cannot afford to do that, because they don't have complete control over american inflation, and as such, with the greed jar capped out, no more power to be had, and most of the people who've become rich in california having done so through actual honest work (though under the capitalist system), they opt for the feudalist power system. the lords being california legislature, and the taxed being not the common people, but those who actually came up through the system honestly. the entirety of the system is being kept alive through the draining of the rich, instead of the more standard draining of the average citizen, or the (unsuable in single states) printing of more money (not like we need more help there though.). the car does look more sheek with the feudal polish, but under the hood, you'll see all the same socialist policies, but many of the same possibilities remain, and all the weaknesses remain. they've just been worked into a feudal engine. breaking apart the state would demonstrate this far more swiftly, but as we've already agreed on, doing so would require a snake oil salesman for the democrats, and complete understanding of the implications, and brutal honesty for the republicans.

 

which is why i cited it, it remains an affirmation of california leaning socialist, but the main reason is that it says much of what i would have, likely in more words. allowing the states to break weakens democrats and republicans, but it opens up new windows into different political systems for at least 2 of the 3 states that would form from the ashes. one being a close lean into socialism, the other being a brand new red state, ruled almost entirely by republicans. and the third potentially holding value as a new swing state. it mixes up the bag just enough to give insight into 2 new systems, and breaking down powerful advantages for both parties (no more supermajority potential, and no more guaranteed 55 electoral votes) the argument for allowing california to break apart is as strong a support of socialism in california as it is against it. using it as an argument was just to round up the 3, but it remains a good point to make

 

the people leaving (red AND blue) are essentially dragging the problem to another state, which will likely undergo the exact same problem. running into the next state over isn't going to bring the problem to a head, it'll only make it worse in the long run as it expands through the other states. had the republicans stayed, they'd be able to combat the problem better, but as it is, while i think he could convert more than a few everyday democrats and undecided folk, i don't think there's enough red left in that state for draper's plan to have a strong base backing it.


In Topic: Super Smash Bros Ultimate

15 June 2018 - 07:15 PM

I wonder what sort of stages will become viable in competitive settings now that you can toggle hazards off.

odds are they'll be a filtered set, the ones that are too large (think great cave offensive, or new pork city), or that provide too many "cave of life" situations (thing underground in hyrule temple) will be removed no question. the rest will probably be based upon how many stages of similar variety exist. the basis of the counterpick meta will also change up greatly though, since choosing stages now comes before characters.


In Topic: Three California Initiative Makes November Ballot

15 June 2018 - 07:10 PM

If you've been hearing about it since late 2016, might I ask which plans you were referring to? As Striker noted, Tim Draper had previously tried to split up California into six states, so while Californians wanting to split up is indeed nothing new (Draper makes the point), more often than not these plans fail. People want a State of Jefferson, and it still hasn't happened yet. I agree that California Republicans would want to break apart because of that Democrat majority; that was the entire point of my previous posts, and it's why I believe they want this; they think it will give them a greater chance at gaining seats.

 

Most of these laws you're citing seem to specifically be angering Republicans/conservatives, which are a minority in this state, so it's hard to believe that it's only a "small majority" supporting laws when it's a minority that's frustrated with gun laws being restricted (Which we actually need, since the common evidence in response to mass shootings suggests that countries with stricter gun laws have significantly fewer mass shootings than we do), and "illegal immigrants" only ever seems to Mexicans, so the racial bias is blatantly apparent that I find it hard to sympathize with the conservatives who would be upset about it. Again, we as a state wanted this; while it may not sit well with conservatives, plenty of people who resent our leniency towards immigration and offering sanctuary states already do not live here to begin with, so they have no real say in whether or not the state should be split.

 

Has California actually been pushing towards socialism? As far as I can tell, that's only ever been a third party interpretation, usually describing "policies in California that I personally don't like" as socialism, and is reducing the ideology to a buzzword that means nothing over than to attach a negative connotation to make California sound more evil than it actually is. Not to mention that quite frankly, the majority of these complaints all stem back to Jerry Brown, whose term is finally coming to end this year anyway, yet he's treated as if he'll somehow still be around for years to come, to the point that Yes California has been trying to designate him as their president. I don't see much merit in basing your entire strategy rejecting one person when the passage of time is more likely to oust him. I know that you and I have talked about STI's before, so I'm not going to repeat that.

 

California has a budget surplus, so your claim that the state is going broke is categorically false, as is your claim that immigrants don't put anything back, as evidenced by them collectively paying $1.53B. So I will argue against a clean break, because if your reasoning for breaking up California is based on completely false claims, then you are offering no persuasive reason to divide the state. Forgive me if I'm not going to sympathize with whatever red California finds reprehensible, and this is not an issue about mitigating conflict, especially when they lack a perspective worth compromising with.

since late 2016, there was talk of republicans wanting to split the state into three. while it did get some vocal support from a few people in california, it was little more than a rumor mill at the time. wasn't expecting it to actually gain traction enough to get proposed. it may well be their attempt to get more seats, but it does the same for democrats to a far greater extent, the most populated sections of the new california would lean heavily democrat, so if this were simply to get more seats, that would be somewhat foolish, since while the change would give them more seats, it would have little if any impact of substance. possibly enough to backfire into their faces, as winter's post claims it removes any future chance of a super majority

 

 

Not getting into the gun debate here, that's it's own topic, especially when you get tangled up in the "what can kill more people faster" part of it, where everything get's thrown into the ring and nobody listens to reason till you lay it out bare. as for illegal immigration, you said the exact word yourself, yet possibly overlooked it: ILLEGAL. and don't play the "we only target mexico" card, we are right next to mexico, can you name another country that's close enough to swim here from in droves to the extent mexico can? or another country close to us that can smuggle in immigrants, guns, and drugs at the rate mexico does? of course we target mostly mexicans, because it's mostly mexicans who come here illegally, and it's extremely simple to deport illegal mexicans in far greater numbers, because they're right next to us. unless you know of a large number of illegal canadians breaking across the border that i'm unaware of?  as for resenting leniency, i can't name one person who has said they want less legal immigration, and nobody has been against making the legal immigration process smoother and less cluttered than it is now. it's the fact that california is actually allowing illegal immigrants, with no background checks, to come over in any numbers they can, and hindering cooperation for safe and efficient removal of said illegal immigrants, which hurts mexico as much, if not more than america, but is also another discussion that i can make another thread for if you'd like. as far as californians not liking the ballot, that'll be demonstrated by the vote in november. arguing about what people want here is pointless when we'll have a guaranteed answer in a few months time. it's like brexit, or trump, incredibly unpopular coverage, and shit on by all sides at first, but has more than enough potential to make a surprise upset.

 

 

pushing towards socialism would be increasing the volume of public services that are sponsored by the state. does california do that? pretty sure it does. redistribution of wealth is another trait of socialism. yes, the government does it as well, but california's state laws push this far harder than the government does. but i am insanely shit at arguing whether or not some country or another is socialist, especially since whenever socialism fails, the "it's not real socialism" card is never far behind. so have some links, all read through and double checked by yours truly:

the first, pointing out that california, for all it's glory, has been losing quite a bit on the "quality of life" front: http://www.latimes.c...0201-story.html

the second, explaining, in better terms than i, why and how, california is becoming more and more socialist: https://www.ocregist...t-to-socialism/

the third details the desire for california to continue down it's currently sworn path, and details where exactly the end of that path may well lead. it's arguably the weakest of the 3 for the claim that it's socialist, but it outlines enough claims that the specifics can be held back in favor of the sentiment supporting the claim: http://thefederalist...cialist-utopia/

the passage of time may well oust jerry, but can you honestly say the trend of california is leading to anything remotely red? in fact, the blue surge has effectively helped drive out conservatives who lived there, aligning more than well enough with your claim that those who disagree don't live there (because many of them have either left, or are planning to)

 

 

yeah, that's nice, they put back over a billion dollars yearly... too bad they take out about 20 billion yearly. what you forgot to factor with your argument isn't what they contribute, but what they cost, i'm willing to change my mind if you've got that 20 billion link stashed in the back to counter the claim, but one billion is pennies on the dollar compared to what it costs to keep illegal immigrants. sure, they pay taxes when they buy goods and services, but where do they get the money to buy said goods? what services do they provide to afford said services? what taxes are they paying when they get those under-the-table checks? there's a lot going into them, that they do not reciprocate, by simple virtue of not being legally registered. 


In Topic: Three California Initiative Makes November Ballot

14 June 2018 - 10:57 PM

californians wanting to split apart is not anything new at least, i've been hearing about it since late 2016, but there's quite a few reasons californians would want to break apart, for one, the majority of the people in charge there are democrats, and the ability to actually gain seats as a republican is next to null due to the population difference between the conservative countryside, and the liberal cities. it's been an issue that republican californians have had for a while, but was considered tolerable because they at least were passing laws that were within the spirit of the constitution, and were arguably with the public's best interests in mind. that is no longer the case.

 

 

among the more recent laws to be passed in california, we have two or three that relate to either heavy restrictions on the 2nd amendment, or even stricter regulations on ammo capacity, not doing the gun argument here, i'll make a thread if you want, but needless to say, conservatives, and even a few liberals, are against both of those laws. then we have the law regulating cow flatulence (pretty sure it's been struck down since, but i haven't actually heard anything) this, of course, upsetting the countryside farmers who happen to already have enough trouble raising cows (would you like to remain in a state that's regulating the amount of farts your cows can make?). and next up we've got barring law enforcement from working with border patrol, which as you might have guessed, is another extremely unpalatable law for anybody on the right, or anybody who doesn't like illegal immigration. speaking of which, california is incredibly lax on illegal immigration, something that i'm sure many liberals agree with, but simply does not sit well with most, if anybody, on the conservative side. then there's the continuous push towards socialism, which has done pretty much nothing for the country, and is doing even less for the people. on top of that, you have the fact that it's legal to knowingly pass on STI's, with no consequence whatsover, to people who might not even be able to find out properly whether they have them or not, because the laws of said state just so happen to be helping block the expansion of the valuable practitioner role, which plays yet another part in the steady decline of california's health and economy. i can keep going on that train of thought, but it's late and i'm tired.

 

call it whatever you like, but when the state's going broke at an astounding speed, illegal immigrants are, many times, draining the free resources of the state without putting anything back by way of either taxes, or in many cases work, the drug problem runs rampant due to unchecked borders, which remain unchecked because controlling immigration into the state is being hindered by the democrtats in power, the and the amount of hindering laws and binding restrictions grows by the year, and a complete overhaul of the rulers in said state would be neccecary to reverse the current path (not to mention the continuing divide between blue and red ideologies within that very state), would you not argue that a clean break is the best option? just about everything that blue california does, is reprehensible from a red standpoint, and vice-versa. breaking it off mitigates conflict, and holding it to a vote, gives everybody a fair say in it (not voting is in and of itself admission that you are fine with whatever outcome occurs imo). that's all i have to say on it for now though.