> The vast majority of people don't base their personalities around politicians.

Yea, there's definitely not a cult of personality around Trump. You're right and very smart.

A significant number of people who voted for Obama later voted for Trump.

Lots of Kemp voters also voted against Walker.

And, even if people vote for politicians you disagree with, if you dont' understand their reasoning or their perspective there's no possibility of any policy compromise and the whole thing just becomes a shittier version of team sports.

Truly think about it a bit more, though. The president doesn't make the laws which is why I'm concentrating on senate representation. Having each state with 2 senators makes sure that states can look out for their own interests rather than be subsumed by larger states. If the very large states like California and NY etc all became very Trumpian, and we had a Senate that was population-based, would you feel like Washington had much input?

This is important because people in Washington have different needs, priorities, and concerns than people in New Mexico...right down to natural resource management.

It may help to think of US states the same way that you'd think of individual EU countries.

If you decide to look at news again in the future I'd recommend something with an obvious, but minimal, bias. So, for instance, The Economist is obviously pro-business as is The Financial Times - but their reporting is factual and reliable. They may point out the downsides to a unionization drive they cover, but you already know going in that they're coming from that perspective.

>This tribal belief that your party is the second coming of Christ and can do no wrong, and the other party is the reincarnation of Statan himself.

I just don't understand why people don't see how cringe it is to base their personalities around politicians. It would be so much better if we could all go back to understanding that politicians are all pieces of shit.

>actually trying to make laws about banning books

Which states are making laws banning books? If you're referring to individual school districts, you should know that many leftwing districts have banned books as well...books like Huckleberry Fin and To Kill a Mockingbird (the first because of the n word, the second because of "white saviorism")

It seems to me that you inhabit a media bubble, and that's ok it's your life, but it's probably good to check outside of it once in a while.

The reason that the Senate is 2 for every state instead of by population is because the USA was formed as an alliance between independent states who didn't want to give up their autonomy and didn't want to empower a central government.

Why would a small population state with lots of natural resources join the union if it meant they'd never have a say in anything as a state?

To think about it another way, imagine another reality where California and most of the north eastern states were full of people who thought Trump was awesome and senate seats were awarded via population just like the house, would a liberal WA benefit from being part of a union where WA would never have a meaningful say vs. the pro-Trump states? If no matter what the states with the most population could set the agenda for everyone else, like deciding to build a wall on WA's border with Canada and because WA has a small population compared to CA or NY we'd never be ablet o say "no"...wouldn't it feel pointless and shitty that people thousands of miles away from WA could steamroll the people who live here and do stuff in our state we didnt' like?

Trump's administration was a good lesson in how the devolution of power can provide a powerful check to dumb shit. Put another way - the less centralized power we have, at the state level and the federal level, and the more local governments are empowered to act the more responsive democracy becomes and the less vulnerable to people like Trump the system is.

Reducing the power that the executive branch has, whether at the state or federal level, is beneficial to everyone regardless of politics.

You can't persuade people if you don't understand them, and you can't understand them if you engage in thought terminating cliches like mentally inserting "voting against their own interests" instead of trying to understand what those people regard as their interests.

Imagine a future where the major population areas are in favor of a populist Trump-style government and we had decided that senate positions should be population-based like the house. WA has remained pretty liberal, but because WA has a low population compared to Trumpist CA and NY (and the rest of the east coast), WA and other liberal states essentially have no say nationally. Do you think the population of WA would benefit from such an arrangement?

Things can change rapidly, it may seem far fetched to imagine a future where a populist rightwing government becomes wildly popular in the big cities - but I'm sure that many people living in the Weimar Republic also thought it'd be pretty far fetched.

Oddly specific thing to be angry about, where's the evidence that it's a major problem? Furthermore, where's the evidence that permitting violations are more common per capita in rural areas than metro areas?

Can you be more specific?

This is a bit of a caricature, and about as accurate as people who think Seattle is full of Antifa Super Soldiers who want to mandate dildo education for 3 year olds

That's not really true.

I saw more trump 2020 signs in Bremerton and Kent than I do in Spokane.

Which laws would you like to see enforced in rural areas that are not being enforced in rural areas?

Kinda need people to make food tho, and then you need people to work providing services to the people who make food.

In terms of the EC (and the Senate), its' because the US is a Republic, and state's participation in said Republic is in part based on the promise that they won't just be steamrolled by larger population states.

To put this another way, the EU would have a very difficult time getting low pop or small countries to join if they weren't assured of some ability to advance their interests even if those interests were not shared by the high pop or large countries.

It's almost as though it's right and good to be suspicious of a dictatorial country that's currently committing genocide!

>but we know capitalism will eventually take over and ruin it.

The app is an example of the capitalist system producing goods that people want.