All Activity

1) There is no formal definition of DEI. It's a principle that each entity who uses it interprets and applies differently. You really need to do a better job of knowing knowing about the things you criticize. In general, DEI is focused eliminating discrimination based on difference, most commonly race, religion, gender, etc... The Senate also eliminates discrimination based on difference, the difference being population size. No matter how large the population is, each state gets the same amount of representatives.

If one believes in DEI and one believes that the Senate is DEI, then how could one want to remove the Senate?

'if you don't put forth a fully accurate picture of every topic, I am within my right to consider your information as cherry picked"

I was wondering if you would be so kind to answer some of the questions I asked you. Thanks.

5th graders can't own property either. Your dumb analogy, own it.

Because while it is technically possible it is practically impossible. It will take two-thirds of Congress to propose amendments and three-fourths to ratify. So many amendments would need updated that it would perhaps be easier to create a new constitution.

26' is good with Dom and Waters. And, they might add another big 26' kid. If they get Burnett, Shepherd and Singer from the 27' class..... Watch out. They almost got Wolbert!

Just like no county should have more power than another county. Tax rates should be the same everywhere all should have equal benefits. One man one vote no need for boundaries and local issues. All power to the majority. We should have majority vote on income and everyone gets the same annual income. Maybe Socialism or a Dictatorship would be easier and better.

What is the formally drafted definitions of DEI, the formally drafted goals of DEI, and how is it applied in practice? Now how does the Senate fit into those formal definitions and in practice? What is going wrong with DEI in practice (lowering standards for example) and how is that applying to the Senate?

Why is it pedantic. It's either an American principle or it's not. You just don't like getting caught being a hypocrite.

Thought Stopper Alert What I take from you saying that is, 'if you don't put forth a fully accurate picture of every topic, to my satisfaction, I am within my right to dismiss your information as false and not consider it at all.' Where do we go from there? You are setting it up so you can move the goal posts as much as you want whenever you want. My toddler does the same thing when not getting their way. You're all branding yourselves as biased, dishonest, and unable/unwilling to even consider information as true that challenges your opinion. Why should anyone take you seriously? And do you even care? Every attempt to pivot, muddy, and shift goal posts is a defense mechanism your brain forces you to type so your opinions are not challenged in a meaningful way.

It also isn't guaranteed to be prevented by the Senate either. What actually protects from that issue is the Judicial Branch. That's why we have checks and balances.

the first graders don't have the majority, they would need the majority of the other classes to be on their side. Same with the kindergarten they can't choose they get their one.

So your are both correct and pedantic. The federated republic is core to the country's government and nigh impossible to change unless a king overthrew us.

The purpose of state government is to legislate local issues. The purpose of federal government is to legislate federal issues. Again, you're ignoring how the Senate works today. The same power imbalance that gives Wyoming unearned power to block a certain law (say anti-rural for example) is the exact same imbalance that gives Rhode Island unearned power to enact that exact same law. Neither Wyoming nor Rhode Island should have that undue power.

In other words you got yours and screw everyone else with no sense of social contract or belonging to a society.

But not with your 1 man 1 vote approach.

But if states should not have a say then why have state government? One man one vote so no need for state boundaries or government. In fact why counties or local government we can all vote on the internet for laws that affect everyone equally. A true democracy where everyone pays the same gas, property, income etc taxes and access to the same library cards ... ok maybe we dont need libraries ... but all have equal access to the Mayo Clinic.

I already have. It's redistributing power based on fairness, not purely population.

But 1st graders do? You used that analogy idiot.

Agreed. It's a good start. I don't really see the team members all moving to the same city... but something to tie it together will help. Even just labeling the roster a bit more would be good. Maybe graduating university and year? Highest place at NCAAs/Worlds would be cool too but that might get a little busy. Just thinking out loud. Luke Surber (OSU '24)

It's not a group. It's an ideology which many disparate groups - with different tactics and priorities - believe in. Just like conservative/liberal. The Proud Boys are conservative. So is the Federalist Society. Are those the same group? Or are they two different groups who share some common principles?

last i knew the kindergarten didn't have the knowledge or experience to own property.

Explain why.

Ryan Deakin vs Austin O'Connor Myles Amine vs Parker Keckeisen Nick Suriano vs Seth Gross Zain vs Yianni Real Woods vs Andrew Alirez Pat Glory vs Vito Quincy Monday vs Jason Nolf Tanner Sloan vs Jacob Warner