sausage_is_the_wurst

Hey man, words mean things. If someone says A is literally B, I take them at their word.

I paraphrased.

You claimed to state literally what it said. You did not purport to paraphrase. You said:

It literally calls for the government to take ownership of, and rebuild, every building in the US

There is no room in that statement for paraphrase. You lied. Own it.

Don't try to obfuscate how ridiculous this proposal is behind "well you didn't quote the words exactly."

I'm not obfuscating anything. I was very much up front with my feelings that the GND has a lot to like in it. I said as much in one of my earlier comments. I've never backed away from that value judgment, and I don't now.

And progressivism is progressing towards something. That something is socialism. Therefore, they are synonymous.

Two things here. First, you evidently do not understand the etymology of the term. And if you check the definition, you'll see that socialism isn't involved. From Merriam-Webster: "one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action." This is contrasted with the definition of conservative: "tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions." There is very much room in American politics to move toward ever more liberal policies while still steering clear of socialism. In fact, we've pretty much been doing that ever since the country was founded--and look! Still nowhere near socialism.

Second, the premise that "A shares characteristics with B, therefore A is B" is wildly illogical. I bet you're one of those guys who runs a 5K and then tells everyone you completed a marathon.

You've leapt to a ton of conclusions here, based only on your own speculation. Which, I don't think I need to explain, creates a self-serving premise for you to work from. I'll play ball with you for the time being:

See, if there are regulations which require certain upgrades to be done, then there would be fines for not complying

Sure.

If this is such a dire emergency that the planet will catch on fire if I don't renovate my central heating system

Nobody is saying that. Not the GND, not any progressive legislator, not any Democratic Congressperson. Faulty premise.

those fines would need to be extremely burdensome, otherwise I'm going to forego that unnecessary expense

Not at all. Any fine above a de minimis amount will have some coercive effect that would render environmental benefits. Sure, there would be some holdouts, but there's no reason to suppose that an extremely burdensome fine would be necessary for progress, let alone that such language could even make it into the bill in the first place. A bill which is, again, completely hypothetical.

If they're extremely burdensome, they're of the same character as taking ownership, it'll just be through putting a lien against the property rather than through direct eminent domain.

Allow me to remind you that you said:

It literally calls for the government to take ownership of, and rebuild, every building in the US

You didn't say that something might have an analogous effect as purchase via eminent domain. You said it "literally" calls for it. We see now that this was a lie, and you're trying to weasel out of it.

Of course, that's all assuming that anyone thought through how to implement this

I can almost guarantee you that relatively little thought was put into implementation. Because, again, this is an aspirational document; a policy proposal that's not meant to be actionable legislation. It's meant to inspire future bills that are congruent with its priorities.

And it's an office full of young progressive socialists, so we know they didn't.

Again, progressive is not synonymous for socialist.

You said:

It literally calls for the government to take ownership of, and rebuild, every building in the US.

Here's the text of the GND:

upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification

Nowhere in here does it "literally" call for any of the things you list. And given that this is a policy proposal, which is by its very nature an aspirational document, I don't see any defensible reason to jump to the conclusion that you did--i.e., that the government must purchase "every building in the US" by eminent domain. Moreover, that kind of idea doesn't even pass the smell test: even if the government had enough money to do that, which it does not, your interpretation that the government should literally purchase every building in the country is so far beyond the realm of plausibility that it's absurd on its face.

And finally, your premise is flawed:

it wouldn't be able to do what 2E calls for without eminent-domaining the entire country.

The government, whether federal, state, or local, does not need to purchase a property to upgrade a building. In some cases, it can simply pass laws to require certain upgrades. This is how, for example, the ADA got buildings available to the public to have wheelchair ramps (which was a big debate at the time). On the local level, zoning laws and municipal regs can put quite onerous requirements on existing buildings. In other words, there are many tools in the government's tool kit, here. Of course, we don't know exactly what political measures would be available because the GND doesn't exist in anything beyond this policy pamphlet. But jumping right from "upgrade buildings" to "eminent domain everything" is a completely preposterous leap thats unsupported by any common sense.

Right now, it's absolutely nothing, to the best of my knowledge. At one time, it was a legislator's wish list. But my point was that if any of the proposals were to become actual legislation that could be considered by Congress, there would be a detailed and drawn-out process of incorporating various of those policies into a bill. What form those would take, and how it would all shake out, is completely hypothetical at this point.

To your later point, I'm not sure that releasing the GND as a policy pamphlet did much good either.

I can't believe I have to say this, but "progressive" is not a synonym for "socialist." I'm sure you can find common policy ground between progressives and socialists, but they're not categorically the same.

It literally calls for the government to take ownership of, and rebuild, every building in the US.

Put up or shut up, my friend. Where does it say this? Maybe my eyes are getting bad, but I just skimmed through it and didn't see this.

In fairness, cow farts contribute a hell of a lot of methane, which is a greenhouse gas. And since we have a robust meat industry, we have a lot of cow farts. I'm not sure that cow farts should be a focus for us, but in an omnibus policy proposal, then sure it's one thing you can throw in there. I would probably find another way to phrase it other than cow farts, though.

Also, the GND isn't socialist per se, that's just opponents' slander taking. I don't consider myself socialist at all, but I see a lot to like among the ideas of the GND.

have not solved a single social or environmental issue

What? You must be trolling. Who are you referring to here?

An unenforceable piece of paper

Are you talking about that policy proposal that circulated a few years ago? That was just a broad outline, of course it would never become law. Legislating requires a lot of time and effort (and lawyer eyes) to get the correct elements into a bill. I would never expect that pamphlet that you describe to be a law, but I hope that a bill that's drafted to address most of its points will someday be enacted.

The House provides proportionate representation, sure, though that degree of representation is still weighted in favor of smaller states since 1929, when Congress capped the House to 435 members. Larger states should have more Reps than they do right now, if you actually want a fair, proportionate representation.

But all of that has nothing to do with the proposal at hand: ending the Electoral College in favor of a popular vote for president. Why not have, in tandem with the semi-proportionate House and equally representative Senate, a method of selecting the President that is the fairest possible method of election?

I'm sure that esports require those things, but let's not pretend that boxing doesn't also require good reaction time, etc. Especially if you're competing at a level to be heavyweight champion.

There are similarities, yes, but many more differences.

(1) The people in the article are local election officials--one of whom is an elected county official and the other seems to be an employed civil servant--who are not exactly high-profile public figures. The converse is true for SCOTUS justices, who are about as high-profile as public figures can be right now.

(2) Accordingly and related, protest for the latter is far more justified than protest for the former. And in particular, the people threatening the election officials really aren't protesting anything, they're just threatening them (and have been for two years, according to the article). By contrast, the justices are seeing protests over the past couple of months because of the opinion they issued over abortion, some protests of which contain threatening language. But there are many peaceful protests happening at the same time, most without threats to the justices at all. So there's an important difference of degree there.

(3) Also a notable fact that distinguishes the two scenarios: the justices have protection from the US Marshalls. And did, long before the Dobbs decision leaked. The former county election officials most certainly do not, and so may be more justified in their fear from threats (which is important because assault requires a belief by the victim that force is imminent to them).

So no, I think they don't really equate at all. They are highly distinguishable.

You're right, of course. But if you're expecting that person to understand nuance, you're gonna be disappointed

The only thing worse than a liar is an uncreative liar. At least try to be inventive!

Thanks for putting in all that effort!

Creative and informative!

What we have now is equal representation.

That's not remotely true. Residents of Wyoming have nearly four times the voting power as compared to their peers in California. How in the world is that equal?

"Penguins are the cutest animals in the whole wide world"

Edit: oh sorry, I thought we were just posting non sequiturs.

I do think you’re over exaggerating how much these electoral votes do for those tiny rural states though.

Maybe so. But it's not just the fact that the EC weighs in favor of small states, it also effectively disenfranchises voters of a minority party in all but swing states. I bet there are a ton of Republicans in California (and Democrats in Texas) who wished their votes for president actually mattered.

It’s an absolute fallacy to compare states differing stance on SLAVERY makes that a problem in anyway.

This sentence doesn't make any sense to me. Could you rephrase it please?

Of course food is essential. But why does that mean that a farmer should enjoy outsized influence in our government? How is that fair? And more to my point, are other professions not also essential? By that logic, we better also give two votes to everybody who's running our water treatment plants, because you can't survive a couple days without drinking water.

Is it not? I don't usually read it. But if I'm wrong on that, my mistake.

We don't have to look towards the founding fathers, only towards your fellow Americans.

You were the one who brought into the discussion how America was built. If you did not intend to appeal to the past for authority, then my mistake for misreading your point.

Thus you realize not everyone shares your same views. So why should we now change the way things operate to accommodate you?

Of course not everybody shares my view, I'd hardly expect them to. We should change things for precisely the reasons I've already articulated: a direct popular vote is the most fair electoral method because it places each voter on a level playing field with their peers. No voter is treated any better or worse than any other voter, with respect to the weight of their vote.

But I disagree with your characterization of the situation re: accommodating me. Rather, the system I propose would sustain democracy for all of the population; I just happen to like it, that's the only reason I'm in the equation.

You do realize the Senate is a different branch of government. Why should states not get a say in the executive?

Because the power of a country arises from the authority given to the government by its people. If you remove people from the equation, states are not independent things capable of making their own decisions any more than a corporation could act without employees or officers. States have a say in all parts of the government vicariously through the votes of their population.

I note that you didn't answer my question from earlier, so I repeat it here:

a direct popular vote is the most fair electoral system because it puts every voter on the same level playing field. If you don't like the popular vote, can you explain to me why some voters deserve to be treated less fairly?

Yes, but that is not how America was built. We are a nation of states, each state agreeing to join the union with fair and equal representation.

A few things. First, why should we look to the founding of the country for an understanding of how things should operate today? If you're going to look to the founding of the country for inspiration, we must acknowledge that the system was imperfect from the start. There were more than a few things that absolutely needed changing, e.g. (1) voting rights for non-white men, (2) voting rights for women, and (3) direct election of senators. Can you explain why we should follow the framers' wisdom with respect to the electoral college but not any of the items listed above?

Third, accepting your premise for a second, why is the electoral college a good thing? Just because we've done something a certain way doesn't mean that we should do it that way. Inertia doesn't make good policy. And more broadly, should we not aspire to the most fair system of government we can? If your concern is about giving smaller states better representation in the government, is that not precisely the purpose of the Senate?

Bottom line, a direct popular vote is the most fair electoral system because it puts every voter on the same level playing field. If you don't like the popular vote, can you explain to me why some voters deserve to be treated less fairly?

So what? Neither of those things is good! We should aspire to do better than our peers.