You(rBowman)Replied(to Crump):
> > "We" who don't vote for the collapse of civilization, if I have to spell it out.
>
> I have already voted. Let the collapse begin.

Did you vote for trump ?
I thought people here skipped that box.

Basically, the choice is: Diarrhea or Constipation ?;
nothing in between ( unless you count vomiting ).

On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 11:33:58 -0700 (Seattle), Relf wrote:

> You(rBowman)Replied(to Crump):
>> > "We" who don't vote for the collapse of civilization, if I have to
>> > spell it out.
>>
>> I have already voted. Let the collapse begin.
>
> Did you vote for trump ?
> I thought people here skipped that box.

Doesn't really matter. They'll be having hockey playoffs in hell before
Montana goes to Harris. The interesting stuff was down ticket,
particularly the Senate race.

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

>> I'm pretty sure she would've won the primaries, had they been open.
>> She's not what the naysayers so casually observe her to be, she's
>> intelligent and experienced as the incumbent vice president.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
>
>They were open. She was not a candidate. Biden was rubber-stamped despite
>low approval ratings and increasingly evident senility. Sometime between
>the close of the primaries in June and July 21 the Democrats noticed
>Biden's problems.

What other serious contenders were there, than Biden (and Harris by
being his running mate)?

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 20:29:52 -0400, Joel wrote:

> rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>
>>> I'm pretty sure she would've won the primaries, had they been open.
>>> She's not what the naysayers so casually observe her to be, she's
>>> intelligent and experienced as the incumbent vice president.
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
2024_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
>>
>>They were open. She was not a candidate. Biden was rubber-stamped
>>despite low approval ratings and increasingly evident senility. Sometime
>>between the close of the primaries in June and July 21 the Democrats
>>noticed Biden's problems.
>
>
> What other serious contenders were there, than Biden (and Harris by
> being his running mate)?

I am not responsible for the machinations of the DNC. Bernie got screwed
twice so he wasn't likely to try for three. Kennedy saw the writing on the
wall and went independent. I don't know if Williamson was even serious but
she didn't last long, nor did Phillips. Palmer (who?) won Samoa over
Biden. Did every Democratic governor, senator, and representative get the
memo that Biden was the selection and they shouldn't waste their time?

At least the Republicans had DeSantis, Haley, and Ramaswamy. The first two
were credible. Ramaswamy is too much a pharma bro for my taste to say
nothing of being apolitical until jumping in.

That's the best the US can do? 330+ million people and that's it?

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

>>>> I'm pretty sure she [Vice Pres. Harris] would've won the [2024 Democratic Party] primaries, had they been open.
>>>> She's not what the naysayers so casually observe her to be, she's
>>>> intelligent and experienced as the incumbent vice president.
>>>
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
>2024_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
>>>
>>>They were open. She was not a candidate. Biden was rubber-stamped
>>>despite low approval ratings and increasingly evident senility. Sometime
>>>between the close of the primaries in June and July 21 the Democrats
>>>noticed Biden's problems.
>>
>> What other serious contenders were there, than Biden (and Harris by
>> being his running mate)?
>
>I am not responsible for the machinations of the DNC. Bernie got screwed
>twice so he wasn't likely to try for three. Kennedy saw the writing on the
>wall and went independent. I don't know if Williamson was even serious but
>she didn't last long, nor did Phillips. Palmer (who?) won Samoa over
>Biden. Did every Democratic governor, senator, and representative get the
>memo that Biden was the selection and they shouldn't waste their time?
>
>At least the Republicans had DeSantis, Haley, and Ramaswamy. The first two
>were credible. Ramaswamy is too much a pharma bro for my taste to say
>nothing of being apolitical until jumping in.
>
>
>That's the best the US can do? 330+ million people and that's it?

Well, that's an interesting point, but ultimately the Republicans went
with DJT, and the Democrats went with the current VP. It makes sense,
if a bit out of the ordinary.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2024-10-22, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> On 2024-10-22 3:33 a.m., RonB wrote:
>> On 2024-10-22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 14:59:58 -0400, Joel wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would almost believe this if Trump were going to win, but he isn't.
>>>> Kamala will make him defeated again ...
>>>
>>> Harris seems guaranteed to win the popular vote over Trump. In a
>>> democracy, that would be enough. In the US, it isn’t.
>>
>> Thank goodness. But don't bet on her even winning the popular vote. She's
>> tied or trailing Trump in many polls, and these polls are always skewed by
>> the pollsters against Republicans. (They had both Clinton and Biden well
>> ahead of Trump at this time in the two previous elections.)
>>
>> The only way Harris can win is if they steal the election again.
>
> Apparently, there is going to be some major nationwide "cybersecurity
> test" on November 5th. I wouldn't be surprised if this is what will be
> used to steal the election for her in Georgie:
><https://atlanta.afceachapters.org/2024-homeland-security-critical-infrastructure-conference>

Didn't realize that, but you're probably right. I keep telling my brother,
who worries too much about politics, that they're artificially keeping the
polling numbers close so they can pick which one they'll call "president."
Probably depending on who kowtows more to them. ("Them" being the
Rothschilds and their ilk.)

>> And modern "democracy" worked "great" in France. Macron got decimated in the
>> vote, but he rigged it so he could stay in power. That's called "democracy."
>> Just like Harris, never winning a single delegate but somehow winning the
>> Democrat nomination is "democracy." Kind of myopic, don't you think?
>
> Much like Ahlstrom and fat vallor, Lawrence will disregard such things
> to support his Democrat party.

Lawerence is another non-American who thinks he understands America. He
hasn't got a clue. But, I guess, if he depends on the MSM for his "news,"
it's natural that he would be clueless.

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

On 2024-10-22, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> On 2024-10-22 3:34 a.m., RonB wrote:
>> On 2024-10-22, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>> On 2024-10-21 9:21 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 14:59:58 -0400, Joel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I would almost believe this if Trump were going to win, but he isn't.
>>>>> Kamala will make him defeated again ...
>>>>
>>>> Harris seems guaranteed to win the popular vote over Trump. In a
>>>> democracy, that would be enough. In the US, it isn’t.
>>>
>>> Even the dumbest citizen knows that it wouldn't make sense for the
>>> presidency to be decided by the metropolises of the country simply
>>> because the agricultural sectors feeding the parasites of those areas
>>> are sparsely populated. The Electoral College ensures that people doing
>>> the real work get to have a say, not just the welfare recipients living
>>> in slums having twenty children despite not being able to feed any of them.
>>>
>>> Without such a system, there would be no reason for agricultural states
>>> not to decide to secede, especially since the politics of the masses are
>>> wholly incompatible with every one of their values.
>>
>> Yep. That's why the U.S. has an electoral college, so that a few cities
>> can't run the whole country.
>
> Considering who lives in places like Los Angeles and New York City, I
> don't see why anyone would be willing to give them as much power as they
> want. People whose IQ never reaches anywhere near 100 and with no hope
> or ever owning property shouldn't have any power whatsoever over politics.
>
> Once again, I submit Rhodesia as an example of how to do things right.
> Despite being landlocked, the British there turned a sparsely-populated
> land into the breadbasket of Africa. Whites and blacks both had the
> right to vote as long as they owned property and while this was the
> case, the country prospered. Then, the Communists emerged from every
> side to destroy it, and with the support of the Soviet Union, China, the
> United Kingdom and the United States, they ended up bringing it down to
> become Zimbabwe. Now, those brilliant progressives are starving and
> desperately asking the Whites to return to feed their useless asses.
>
> The lesson here is simple: don't let progressivism into your country.

Not just Rhodesia. South Africa was slated to be one of the top five
powerful countries in the world at one point (in the 70s or 80s). But I
think race relations were better in Rhodesia than in South Africa, even back
then.

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

On 2024-10-22, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> On 2024-10-22 3:36 a.m., RonB wrote:
>> On 2024-10-22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:37:36 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>
>>>> Even the dumbest citizen knows that it wouldn't make sense for the
>>>> presidency to be decided by the metropolises of the country ...
>>>
>>> I’ve heard that nonsense from countless supporters of the Dumbfuckistani
>>> voting system, and I still don’t understand it.
>>>
>>> Don’t you take it as “self-evident” that all your people are created
>>> equal? If so, why shouldn’t their votes count equally too?
>>
>> Nope, that's mob rule. What's fair is the agreement the states made BEFORE
>> joining the Union. Now they want to renegotiate the contract.
>
> They don't even want to negotiate. They simply know that the mob will
> vote for the people who promise to give them free stuff, regardless of
> whether they actually get that stuff. Considering this mob is also
> usually composed of people whose IQ is inferior to 80 (blacks, spics,
> progressives), they know that their emotions are easily manipulated. The
> Electoral College prevents these barbarians from getting their way.

I don't know about blacks and latinos. They seem to be having trouble
reining them in this election. They realize that they were better off under
Trump than they are under Biden (or whoever pulls Biden's strings). There's
been a lot of whining going on about how they "must" vote for the faux black
candidate. (That's another thing blacks don't like, Kamala Harris being
called "black" when she's not. She used to call herself an Indian (from
India) but I guess that depends on which crowd she's pandering to at time.
Like her accent, she seems to change color like a chameleon.)

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

On 2024-10-22, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 03:26:28 -0400, Joel wrote:
>
>> I'm pretty sure she would've won the primaries, had they been open.
>> She's not what the naysayers so casually observe her to be, she's
>> intelligent and experienced as the incumbent vice president.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
>
> They were open. She was not a candidate. Biden was rubber-stamped despite
> low approval ratings and increasingly evident senility. Sometime between
> the close of the primaries in June and July 21 the Democrats noticed
> Biden's problems.

If they just "honestly" "noticed" Biden's "problems" in June or July that
means they had to be some of the stupidest people on God's green earth — and
they should be nowhere near positions of political power in the U.S. But if
Biden's "problems" (senility) made him unfit to RUN for president, why is he
"fit" to BE president now?

Truth of the matter is this was coup. The Congress (Pelosi) threatened Biden
with the 25th Amendment unless he stepped down. The people did NOT vote for
Kamala Harris — just like they didn't vote for this airhead in 2020.
Sleeping your way into politics doesn't qualify you to hold a political
position. It's just pure corruption. (And it's not like this brain-dead
airhead would actually run the country if she "won.")

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 09:09:09 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> Considering who lives in places like Los Angeles and New York City, I
> don't see why anyone would be willing to give them as much power as they
> want.

Why should the value of your vote depend on where you live?

On 22 Oct 2024 07:10:21 GMT, rbowman wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 04:43:15 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:37:36 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>
>>> Even the dumbest citizen knows that it wouldn't make sense for the
>>> presidency to be decided by the metropolises of the country ...
>>
>> I’ve heard that nonsense from countless supporters of the
>> Dumbfuckistani voting system, and I still don’t understand it.
>>
>> Don’t you take it as “self-evident” that all your people are created
>> equal? If so, why shouldn’t their votes count equally too?
>
> Never forget that even when that document was written so pigs were a lot
> more equal than others. 3/5 in fact.

I know. The “three-fifths compromise” was so that the slave-owning states
could have their slave population count towards their votes for the
President, without the slaves having the actual vote themselves. That’s
why the Electoral College exists -- it’s a holdover from the slavery era
that has long passed its dump-by date.

> Most of the rest of the document is a list of grievances against the
> king of Great Britain.

And don’t forget the fact that the Brits were already making the first
moves towards recognizing black folk as actual human beings. Abolishing
slavery was just a few decades away.

On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 03:15:30 -0400, Joel wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Don’t you take it as “self-evident” that all your people are created
>> equal? If so, why shouldn’t their votes count equally too?
>
> You're asking a lot of these people, if you saw the J6 committee
> hearings, you know that a uniformed, black Capitol police offer was
> called the N- word by a rioter, because he said he voted for Pres.
> Biden. This is the kind of lunacy the rural redneck voters display.

It seems to me, that would have been less of a problem if in fact every
vote counted equally. Because such vile bigots are always going to be in
the minority. It is the Electoral College that magnifies the importance of
votes such as theirs beyond their rightful value.

On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 09:11:10 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> They simply know that the mob will vote for the people who promise to
> give them free stuff ...

You mean the rural mob, from those former slave-owning states. The ones
who get outsize representation in the Electoral College.

On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 08:56:45 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> On 2024-10-22 12:43 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:37:36 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>
>>> Even the dumbest citizen knows that it wouldn't make sense for the
>>> presidency to be decided by the metropolises of the country ...
>>
>> I’ve heard that nonsense from countless supporters of the
>> Dumbfuckistani voting system, and I still don’t understand it.
>>
>> Don’t you take it as “self-evident” that all your people are created
>> equal? If so, why shouldn’t their votes count equally too?
>
> Because the very nature of agriculture means that it would be impossible
> for states doing the real work to have as many people as the areas where
> people collect welfare.

If you mean “large cities”, those are in fact the backbone of your
economy. The US isn’t an agrarian society any more.

Why should the value of someone’s vote depend on where they live?

On 23 Oct 2024 01:31:47 GMT, rbowman wrote:

> That's the best the US can do? 330+ million people and that's it?

All the good democracies offer voters a realistic choice of more than two
parties to pick from.

And those running for election are not the ones running the election.

RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 2024-10-22, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 03:26:28 -0400, Joel wrote:
>>
>>> I'm pretty sure she would've won the primaries, had they been open.
>>> She's not what the naysayers so casually observe her to be, she's
>>> intelligent and experienced as the incumbent vice president.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
>>
>> They were open. She was not a candidate. Biden was rubber-stamped despite
>> low approval ratings and increasingly evident senility. Sometime between
>> the close of the primaries in June and July 21 the Democrats noticed
>> Biden's problems.
>
>If they just "honestly" "noticed" Biden's "problems" in June or July that
>means they had to be some of the stupidest people on God's green earth — and
>they should be nowhere near positions of political power in the U.S. But if
>Biden's "problems" (senility) made him unfit to RUN for president, why is he
>"fit" to BE president now?

It's not about finishing this term, it's about starting another one.
He's OK, for the moment.

>Truth of the matter is this was coup. The Congress (Pelosi) threatened Biden
>with the 25th Amendment unless he stepped down. The people did NOT vote for
>Kamala Harris — just like they didn't vote for this airhead in 2020.
>Sleeping your way into politics doesn't qualify you to hold a political
>position. It's just pure corruption. (And it's not like this brain-dead
>airhead would actually run the country if she "won.")

You're a sexist, and a dumbshit.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

>>> Don’t you take it as “self-evident” that all your people are created
>>> equal? If so, why shouldn’t their votes count equally too?
>>
>> You're asking a lot of these people, if you saw the J6 committee
>> hearings, you know that a uniformed, black Capitol police offer was
>> called the N- word by a rioter, because he said he voted for Pres.
>> Biden. This is the kind of lunacy the rural redneck voters display.
>
>It seems to me, that would have been less of a problem if in fact every
>vote counted equally. Because such vile bigots are always going to be in
>the minority. It is the Electoral College that magnifies the importance of
>votes such as theirs beyond their rightful value.

Yeah, if we assume that the 2020 popular vote would've been about the
same in a true national election, Biden won by a good amount, and yet
it was still remarkably close in the state-by-state race.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2024-10-23 2:26 a.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2024-10-22, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>> On 2024-10-22 3:33 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>> On 2024-10-22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 14:59:58 -0400, Joel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I would almost believe this if Trump were going to win, but he isn't.
>>>>> Kamala will make him defeated again ...
>>>>
>>>> Harris seems guaranteed to win the popular vote over Trump. In a
>>>> democracy, that would be enough. In the US, it isn’t.
>>>
>>> Thank goodness. But don't bet on her even winning the popular vote. She's
>>> tied or trailing Trump in many polls, and these polls are always skewed by
>>> the pollsters against Republicans. (They had both Clinton and Biden well
>>> ahead of Trump at this time in the two previous elections.)
>>>
>>> The only way Harris can win is if they steal the election again.
>>
>> Apparently, there is going to be some major nationwide "cybersecurity
>> test" on November 5th. I wouldn't be surprised if this is what will be
>> used to steal the election for her in Georgie:
>> <https://atlanta.afceachapters.org/2024-homeland-security-critical-infrastructure-conference>
>
> Didn't realize that, but you're probably right. I keep telling my brother,
> who worries too much about politics, that they're artificially keeping the
> polling numbers close so they can pick which one they'll call "president."
> Probably depending on who kowtows more to them. ("Them" being the
> Rothschilds and their ilk.)

Even if they do use this as a method to cheat in Georgia, there is
basically nothing Trump or the Republicans can do to either stop it or
reverse what happened. The Democrats know it which is why it is likely
going to happen.

>>> And modern "democracy" worked "great" in France. Macron got decimated in the
>>> vote, but he rigged it so he could stay in power. That's called "democracy."
>>> Just like Harris, never winning a single delegate but somehow winning the
>>> Democrat nomination is "democracy." Kind of myopic, don't you think?
>>
>> Much like Ahlstrom and fat vallor, Lawrence will disregard such things
>> to support his Democrat party.
>
> Lawerence is another non-American who thinks he understands America. He
> hasn't got a clue. But, I guess, if he depends on the MSM for his "news,"
> it's natural that he would be clueless.

You can't reason with progressives. All they ever do is respond with a
strawman when you point out the idiocy of what they're saying. He's
another Hugh Huntzinger.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.

On 2024-10-23 2:30 a.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2024-10-22, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>> On 2024-10-22 3:34 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>> On 2024-10-22, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>> On 2024-10-21 9:21 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 14:59:58 -0400, Joel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I would almost believe this if Trump were going to win, but he isn't.
>>>>>> Kamala will make him defeated again ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Harris seems guaranteed to win the popular vote over Trump. In a
>>>>> democracy, that would be enough. In the US, it isn’t.
>>>>
>>>> Even the dumbest citizen knows that it wouldn't make sense for the
>>>> presidency to be decided by the metropolises of the country simply
>>>> because the agricultural sectors feeding the parasites of those areas
>>>> are sparsely populated. The Electoral College ensures that people doing
>>>> the real work get to have a say, not just the welfare recipients living
>>>> in slums having twenty children despite not being able to feed any of them.
>>>>
>>>> Without such a system, there would be no reason for agricultural states
>>>> not to decide to secede, especially since the politics of the masses are
>>>> wholly incompatible with every one of their values.
>>>
>>> Yep. That's why the U.S. has an electoral college, so that a few cities
>>> can't run the whole country.
>>
>> Considering who lives in places like Los Angeles and New York City, I
>> don't see why anyone would be willing to give them as much power as they
>> want. People whose IQ never reaches anywhere near 100 and with no hope
>> or ever owning property shouldn't have any power whatsoever over politics.
>>
>> Once again, I submit Rhodesia as an example of how to do things right.
>> Despite being landlocked, the British there turned a sparsely-populated
>> land into the breadbasket of Africa. Whites and blacks both had the
>> right to vote as long as they owned property and while this was the
>> case, the country prospered. Then, the Communists emerged from every
>> side to destroy it, and with the support of the Soviet Union, China, the
>> United Kingdom and the United States, they ended up bringing it down to
>> become Zimbabwe. Now, those brilliant progressives are starving and
>> desperately asking the Whites to return to feed their useless asses.
>>
>> The lesson here is simple: don't let progressivism into your country.
>
> Not just Rhodesia. South Africa was slated to be one of the top five
> powerful countries in the world at one point (in the 70s or 80s). But I
> think race relations were better in Rhodesia than in South Africa, even back
> then.

They were. I think that like in Angola and another African nations, the
blacks who had it quite good in Rhodesia were convinced by Communists
that it could somehow be better. Since Rhodesia was landlocked and
stripped of the aid they should have received from the UK at the very
least, the Whites fought to the end but couldn't stop the threat all
around them, including that of dumb blacks who rallied to the Communist
cause. I hope they enjoy the starvation they are now facing.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.

On 2024-10-23 2:35 a.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2024-10-22, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>> On 2024-10-22 3:36 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>> On 2024-10-22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:37:36 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Even the dumbest citizen knows that it wouldn't make sense for the
>>>>> presidency to be decided by the metropolises of the country ...
>>>>
>>>> I’ve heard that nonsense from countless supporters of the Dumbfuckistani
>>>> voting system, and I still don’t understand it.
>>>>
>>>> Don’t you take it as “self-evident” that all your people are created
>>>> equal? If so, why shouldn’t their votes count equally too?
>>>
>>> Nope, that's mob rule. What's fair is the agreement the states made BEFORE
>>> joining the Union. Now they want to renegotiate the contract.
>>
>> They don't even want to negotiate. They simply know that the mob will
>> vote for the people who promise to give them free stuff, regardless of
>> whether they actually get that stuff. Considering this mob is also
>> usually composed of people whose IQ is inferior to 80 (blacks, spics,
>> progressives), they know that their emotions are easily manipulated. The
>> Electoral College prevents these barbarians from getting their way.
>
> I don't know about blacks and latinos. They seem to be having trouble
> reining them in this election. They realize that they were better off under
> Trump than they are under Biden (or whoever pulls Biden's strings). There's
> been a lot of whining going on about how they "must" vote for the faux black
> candidate. (That's another thing blacks don't like, Kamala Harris being
> called "black" when she's not. She used to call herself an Indian (from
> India) but I guess that depends on which crowd she's pandering to at time.
> Like her accent, she seems to change color like a chameleon.)

I have lost hope that the majority of blacks or Latinos will demonstrate
anything resembling intelligence. Since I have a lot of black and Latino
students and they either sleep, do nothing or make noise when it's time
to do listen or do classwork, I know that they don't have an
intelligence anywhere near what Whites have. Some are good... some.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.

On 2024-10-23 2:37 a.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2024-10-22, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 11:33:58 -0700 (Seattle), Relf wrote:
>>
>>> You(rBowman)Replied(to Crump):
>>>>> "We" who don't vote for the collapse of civilization, if I have to
>>>>> spell it out.
>>>>
>>>> I have already voted. Let the collapse begin.
>>>
>>> Did you vote for trump ?
>>> I thought people here skipped that box.
>>
>> Doesn't really matter. They'll be having hockey playoffs in hell before
>> Montana goes to Harris. The interesting stuff was down ticket,
>> particularly the Senate race.
>
> Same with Idaho — I think most of the Califorians who are moving here are
> coming here to get away from California.

Unfortunately, most of them have learned nothing and will vote for the
people who will implement the same kind of idiocy in their next location.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.

On 2024-10-23 2:55 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 09:11:10 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> They simply know that the mob will vote for the people who promise to
>> give them free stuff ...
>
> You mean the rural mob, from those former slave-owning states. The ones
> who get outsize representation in the Electoral College.

I mean the hard-working people who don't just demand handouts like you
people do.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.

On 2024-10-23 2:56 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 08:56:45 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> On 2024-10-22 12:43 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:37:36 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>
>>>> Even the dumbest citizen knows that it wouldn't make sense for the
>>>> presidency to be decided by the metropolises of the country ...
>>>
>>> I’ve heard that nonsense from countless supporters of the
>>> Dumbfuckistani voting system, and I still don’t understand it.
>>>
>>> Don’t you take it as “self-evident” that all your people are created
>>> equal? If so, why shouldn’t their votes count equally too?
>>
>> Because the very nature of agriculture means that it would be impossible
>> for states doing the real work to have as many people as the areas where
>> people collect welfare.
>
> If you mean “large cities”, those are in fact the backbone of your
> economy. The US isn’t an agrarian society any more.
>
> Why should the value of someone’s vote depend on where they live?

If the people in those "large cities" do not receive food, what will
happen to them? None of them would even know where to start if food
became scarce since they have no useful survival skills.

The reason the value of someone's vote means more is because unlike you
progressives, the forefathers understood how agriculture works. Also,
they knew that smart asses like you would starve without the labour of
people who work on farms.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.

On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 06:55:53 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 09:11:10 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> They simply know that the mob will vote for the people who promise to
>> give them free stuff ...
>
> You mean the rural mob, from those former slave-owning states. The ones
> who get outsize representation in the Electoral College.

Do you have any idea of how many rural states either didn't exist prior to
the Civil War or never allowed slavery? What is that 'outsized
representation' canard? Do you know how the Electoral College is formed?

Quick lesson: every state has two Senators, no more, no less. That's a
total of 100 votes out of 538. Where do the other 438 votes come from.
Washington DC gets 3 votes despite not being a state. That's the
equivalent of 2 Senators and 1 Representative. All state have at least one
Representative. Until the last election cycle this state only had one.

How are the representative apportioned?

https://www.census.gov/topics/public-sector/congressional-apportionment/
about.html

"The apportionment calculation is based upon the total resident population
(citizens and noncitizens) of the 50 states."

Now isn't that interesting? Fill your state with noncitizens and you may
get more Representatives, hence more votes in the EC.

So it comes out to the more populous states getting more votes. Montana is
a rural state that did not achieve statehood until 1889 and never had
slavery. It gets a massive 4 votes out of the 538. Yeah, that's really
outsized representation. I guess it's better than the 3 we used to get.

On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 03:32:08 -0400, Joel wrote:

> It's not about finishing this term, it's about starting another one.
> He's OK, for the moment.

He's okay to handle potential wars on two or three fronts when he can't
remember where he is? Are we going to put world events on hold for a few
months while he staggers on?