On 10/24/24 10:54 PM, Anonymous wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>> On 10/23/24 5:28 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>> In article <vfbkif$28gib$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>
>>>> Or do you not know because you don't care, because you don't want to
>>>> actually follow longstanding US Law?
>>>
>>> I don't want just anyone to enter. Do you support the gangs and raping
>>> and killing?
>>
>> If you don't want anyone to enter, then you're advocating for the
>> death of the USA, because we are a Nation of Immigrants,
>
> The United States was never supposed to be.

I disagree, but things also change over time: US used to allow slavery
and denied women rights, but these have both changed for the better.

> But keep importing the Turd World subhumans who are incapable of
> building or maintaining the things you take for granted.

When you claim "building", do you mean like 80% of our housing
construction?

Or are you referring to how Trump hired illegal immigrants as scabs
instead of US Union labor during his development of Trump Tower in NYC?

And for "maintaining", are you referring to cleaning services, or does
back of house food services count? Or both?

If we were to deport all the illegals like Trump is claiming, the good
news is that Inflation would drop by -1.5% ... but the bad news is that
our GDP would also drop, by a whopping -7.9%, as per Bloomberg.

FYI, his proposed tariffs policy would hit you personally too: +0.5%
higher inflation, plus dropping GDP by an additional -1.3%. Together,
those policy proposals add up to -1% on Inflation and -9.2% on GDP.

>> and it has been those very same immigrants for the basis for why we've
>> been a great nation.
>
> Peak America was before it was overwhelmed by post-1965 immigrants.

Well, if you want to go back to pre-65, then the US-Mexico border
literally becomes open, as in that period, the US allowed in unlimited
labor from Central & South America.

Plus you're also historically wrong: peak per capita immigration into
the USA was just over 100 years ago, largely from Europe: if we had the
same rate of immigrants today, we'd be letting in ~5 million/year.

-hh

Jonathan David Ball wrote:
> On 10/24/2024 7:54 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>>> On 10/23/24 5:28 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>> In article <vfbkif$28gib$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>
>>>>> Or do you not know because you don't care, because you don't want to
>>>>> actually follow longstanding US Law?
>>>>
>>>> I don't want just anyone to enter. Do you support the gangs and raping
>>>> and killing?
>>>
>>> If you don't want anyone to enter, then you're advocating for the death of
>>> the USA, because we are a Nation of Immigrants,
>>
>> The United States was never supposed to be.
> It was. The people who *founded* the United States were immigrants or descended
> from immigrants.

No. They were COLONISTS, Jonathan David Ball. There's a difference: the
European COLONISTS had no interest in living within the Indian tribes.

On 24 Oct 2024 03:35:07 GMT, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Oct 23, 2024 at 8:22:49?PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
><drejhjl617d1j7ij6sf9i2lbpi3f1ikv8o@4ax.com>:
>
>> On 22 Oct 2024 01:31:41 GMT, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 21, 2024 at 4:03:19?PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
>>> <52ndhjdmt3smapo64btptiooeqbrb0ncv7@4ax.com>:
>>>
>>>> On 21 Oct 2024 01:05:39 GMT, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 20, 2024 at 5:17:41?PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
>>>>> <d65bhjpm6220b9joe669sugmv9bt0utpdh@4ax.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 20 Oct 2024 03:31:33 GMT, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 19, 2024 at 7:35:57?PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
>>>>>>>> On 19 Oct 2024 18:01:32 GMT, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 19, 2024 at 8:18:36?AM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Oct 2024 21:46:15 GMT, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I wish we had something closer to equal representation. With the Senate and
>>>>>>>>>>> the Electoral College we are FAR from that. Even the House is pretty far from
>>>>>>>>>>> it. I think the US would be MUCH better off if we had one adult citizen = one
>>>>>>>>>>> vote, and each vote counted the same.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Pure democracy? That would be untenable in a nation of more than 300,000,000
>>>>>>>>>> citizens.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh, we would still have representatives... but something closer to equal
>>>>>>>>> representation. Not the nonsense now where some people have 20x the
>>>>>>>>> representational power of others.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where does that occur?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wyoming vs. California. Doing some research now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That was what I was thinking for the Senate... but it is MUCH worse than that
>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the Senate:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wyoming: 1 senator represents about 290,000 people.
>>>>>>> California: 1 senator represents about 20 million people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That means about a 1:69 representational inequality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the House:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wyoming: 1 representative for ~580,000 people
>>>>>>> California: 1 representative for every ~770,000 people
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then the solution is to send 200,000 Californians to Wyoming?
>>>>>
>>>>> A friend of mine has said he wants to see state lines redrawn every 10 years
>>>>> to keep roughly the same level of population in each state. Not sure I like
>>>>> your idea any better than his. LOL!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That means even in the house a about a 1:1.3 representational inequality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wyoming has 3 electoral votes for about 580,000 people, or ~193,000 people per
>>>>>>> electoral vote.
>>>>>>> California has 55 electoral votes for nearly 40 million people, or ~727,000
>>>>>>> people per electoral vote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This means a 1:3.8 representational inequality
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that in modern times the EC is not a good idea. However, the
>>>>>> representational issues you note are due to the fact that every state gets two
>>>>>> senators regardless of population.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right. But that leads to GROSSLY disproportionate representation, 5x worse
>>>>> than what we had at the start of the country.
>>>>
>>>> You're wrong here.
>>>>
>>>> Every state has always had two Senators.
>>>
>>> Where did you think I said otherwise? The states were not as disproportionate
>>> in numbers at the time.
>>
>> Either we're at cross purposes or you're missing some things.
>
>I think there has been some miscommunication along the way.
>>
>> Early in the Republic, the south was deliberately over represented by
>> Constitutional decree. That error has been repaired. As it stands, the average
>> rep represents about 700k constituents. There are states with less people than
>> that but they are few and not enough to skew representation.
>>
>> The Senate has nothing to do with proportionate representation, that's the job
>> of the House.
>
>Right... and I think it is a flawed system that leads to a lot of issues.

The issues are dealt with in the House which *is* population proportionate. Each
State gets two Senators and the People get a rep for about every 700k. What's
the point of two Houses if both are constructed the same way? Even the Brits
have Commons and Lords.

I still say the *real* issue is the winner take all systems in the states.
>>>> This is why we have two legislative Houses. The House is the house of the
>>>> people (representation by population), the Senate is the house of the states
>>>> (each state gets an equal voice).
>>>
>>> This is not in contention.
>>
>> Then why do you complain above about disproportionate representation?
>
>Because I think it causes a lot of problems. As I have said, I know it will
>not change -- but to me it is a HUGE weakness of our system. It means some
>people have more influence than others. I would prefer equal representation.

You keep complaining about the structure of the Senate, one of two Houses,
without specifying that it is only the Senate with which you have issue. This
make be the source of my confusion. You don't have any problem with the House
structure?

>>>> I have no problem with that system. I have no problem with the EC, as such.
>>>> The
>>>> problem I have is with the winner take all system most states employ. Imo,
>>>> electors should be apportioned according to the distribution of votes among the
>>>> candidates. If Joe Schmo gets 60% of the votes, he should get 60% of the
>>>> electors, not all of them.
>>>
>>> The system is not going to change, but I see it as a bit issue. It is why the
>>> will of the people is largely ignored on gun control, climate change, health
>>> insurance, abortion, and many more issues.
>>
>> I disagree, given the structure of the country. The bigger problem is the
>> winner-takes-all method of selecting electors.
>
>If you look at national polling, each of those issues has pretty strong
>consensus... but little action is done. I wish the will of the people was
>better respected.

It would be if the Democrats weren't so good at snatching defeat from the jaws
of victory?

Why isn't Harris taking credit for the sharp drop in new illegals?

That's just one of many issues she isn't handling within the campaign. Another
should be, if you liked Obamacare that survived the Republicans' attempts to
erase them (enumerate them), then why wouldn't you vote for Democrats to do more
of the same? She can't depend on abortion alone, to do it. She should be
beating Republicans' over the head with EVERY single unpopular choice they have
made. She should be haunting them with 1929 and 2008 while giving Obama credit
for economic recovery that was complete and happened in less that fifteen years
and without a major global war to get us out of it.

The Democrats don't seem to even remember the great things they've done over the
past century and another score years.

<snip>

>> Californians have the same House representation as Texans or Iowans.
>
>Not quite... but pretty close (CA:IA = 763:800).

Close enough, don't you think? Another six hundred thousand new Iowans and that
ratio will be virtually 0/0.

>> The Senate is proportionate to the number of States in the Union. The
>> foundation of the disagreement with the Senate is that this is the United
>> STATES
>> of America. Technically, each state is sovereign. The Constitution never
>> created a country called America.

On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 06:38:57 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:

#nevertrump

--
Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine

Two more reasons to not vote for Trump in 11 days.

59) Trump repeatedly suggested he might serve more than
two terms in violation of the Constitution. And continues
to do so! (Trump: "We may have to go for an extra term."

60) Trump called Haiti and African nations "sh*thole countries."

On Oct 25, 2024 at 10:23:42 PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
<06vohj1lg3ub79rsedmdo97cr3bp6h9aln@4ax.com>:

> On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 06:38:57 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> #nevertrump

People can pick Trump or America. You cannot have both.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

In article <671cf83a$1$2385542$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>
> On Oct 25, 2024 at 10:23:42 PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
> <06vohj1lg3ub79rsedmdo97cr3bp6h9aln@4ax.com>:
>
> > On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 06:38:57 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > #nevertrump
>
> People can pick Trump or America. You cannot have both.

Says the guy that wants to vote for a commie.

On Oct 25, 2024 at 10:22:49 PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
<j3uohjp17hutc6ajq54gmjn316vjfftfh0@4ax.com>:

....
>>>>>
>>>>> Every state has always had two Senators.
>>>>
>>>> Where did you think I said otherwise? The states were not as disproportionate
>>>> in numbers at the time.
>>>
>>> Either we're at cross purposes or you're missing some things.
>>
>> I think there has been some miscommunication along the way.
>>>
>>> Early in the Republic, the south was deliberately over represented by
>>> Constitutional decree. That error has been repaired. As it stands, the average
>>> rep represents about 700k constituents. There are states with less people than
>>> that but they are few and not enough to skew representation.
>>>
>>> The Senate has nothing to do with proportionate representation, that's the job
>>> of the House.
>>
>> Right... and I think it is a flawed system that leads to a lot of issues.
>
> The issues are dealt with in the House which *is* population proportionate.
> Each
> State gets two Senators and the People get a rep for about every 700k. What's
> the point of two Houses if both are constructed the same way? Even the Brits
> have Commons and Lords.

Not in contention. But I think the Senate and the Electoral College end up
causing harm, for the reasons I have stated. I back more equal representation,
not just in the House but in general. I do know the system will not change to
have these things I think would be better.
>
> I still say the *real* issue is the winner take all systems in the states.
>
>>>>> This is why we have two legislative Houses. The House is the house of the
>>>>> people (representation by population), the Senate is the house of the states
>>>>> (each state gets an equal voice).
>>>>
>>>> This is not in contention.
>>>
>>> Then why do you complain above about disproportionate representation?
>>
>> Because I think it causes a lot of problems. As I have said, I know it will
>> not change -- but to me it is a HUGE weakness of our system. It means some
>> people have more influence than others. I would prefer equal representation.
>
> You keep complaining about the structure of the Senate, one of two Houses,
> without specifying that it is only the Senate with which you have issue. This
> make be the source of my confusion.

Fair enough.

> You don't have any problem with the House
> structure?

I can nit pick but overall no.
>
>>>>> I have no problem with that system. I have no problem with the EC, as such.
>>>>> The
>>>>> problem I have is with the winner take all system most states employ. Imo,
>>>>> electors should be apportioned according to the distribution of votes among the
>>>>> candidates. If Joe Schmo gets 60% of the votes, he should get 60% of the
>>>>> electors, not all of them.
>>>>
>>>> The system is not going to change, but I see it as a bit issue. It is why the
>>>> will of the people is largely ignored on gun control, climate change, health
>>>> insurance, abortion, and many more issues.
>>>
>>> I disagree, given the structure of the country. The bigger problem is the
>>> winner-takes-all method of selecting electors.
>>
>> If you look at national polling, each of those issues has pretty strong
>> consensus... but little action is done. I wish the will of the people was
>> better respected.
>
> It would be if the Democrats weren't so good at snatching defeat from the jaws
> of victory?

They are good at that!
>
> Why isn't Harris taking credit for the sharp drop in new illegals?
>
> That's just one of many issues she isn't handling within the campaign. Another
> should be, if you liked Obamacare that survived the Republicans' attempts to
> erase them (enumerate them), then why wouldn't you vote for Democrats to do
> more
> of the same? She can't depend on abortion alone, to do it. She should be
> beating Republicans' over the head with EVERY single unpopular choice they have
> made. She should be haunting them with 1929 and 2008 while giving Obama credit
> for economic recovery that was complete and happened in less that fifteen years
> and without a major global war to get us out of it.
>
> The Democrats don't seem to even remember the great things they've done over
> the
> past century and another score years.

When they focus on this the right wingers scream "KKK!" as if it the Southern
Strategy did not exist.
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Californians have the same House representation as Texans or Iowans.
>>
>> Not quite... but pretty close (CA:IA = 763:800).
>
> Close enough, don't you think?

I have no real issue with that. Actually happy to see it being that close... I
thought there as a bigger discrepancy. I do not like how in some cases, such
as section of a president if there is no majority, it is NOT based on one
person in the house = one vote, but based on states getting votes. Again: I
have no thought that this will change.

> Another six hundred thousand new Iowans and that
> ratio will be virtually 0/0.
>
>>> The Senate is proportionate to the number of States in the Union. The
>>> foundation of the disagreement with the Senate is that this is the United
>>> STATES
>>> of America. Technically, each state is sovereign. The Constitution never
>>> created a country called America.
>
> You keep ignoring this. Why?

It is not in contention.
>
>>>>>>> Do you really think that in such a divisive,
>>>>>>> highly partisan political environment
>>>>>>> as we have today, that such a rewrite would be a good idea?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good idea or not, it would never pass.
>
> Then why moan about it? Deal with the reality?

I think we would be better off with more equal representation of people. We
are not gonna get it. That is really all my point was. I have backed it by
noting how polls show people, as a whole, want things I think would be
beneficial and make America better. Also have noted what I see as the
injustice of having those with the least representation tending to give the
most into the system, and those with far more representation getting the tons
of support from the system. I think it goes against the spirit of "No taxation
without representing". That is pretty much the extent of my views.
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>> Representation in Congress works fine. It's the two party system that's
>>>>> bleeding us dry.
>>>>
>>>> Sadly even that is SOMEWHAT cooked into our constitution. If you have more
>>>> than two parties it is unlikely any one would get the majority vote for the
>>>> president, and then it goes to the House, with each state getting equal votes.
>>>> This means the will of the people would largely be ignored.
>>>
>>> A part of it is the desire of every voter to vote for the 'winner'. Their
>>> chance of doing that is better if there are only two candidates.
>>
>> I agree with you that I wish we did not have just two major parties.
>
> If only a quarter of the votes were fringe parties, we'd see more positive
> change.

I would hope the two biggies would take note. I do think Sanders woke up the
Democrats a bit.
>
> NP: Deep Purple - Super Trouper

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On Oct 26, 2024 at 7:14:39 AM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
<671cf94f$6$1895492$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:

> In article <671cf83a$1$2385542$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On Oct 25, 2024 at 10:23:42 PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
>> <06vohj1lg3ub79rsedmdo97cr3bp6h9aln@4ax.com>:
>>
>>> On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 06:38:57 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> #nevertrump
>>
>> People can pick Trump or America. You cannot have both.

You ignored this. Why?
>
> Says the guy that wants to vote for a commie.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

In article <671cfbef$3$2873013$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>
> On Oct 26, 2024 at 7:14:39 AM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
> <671cf94f$6$1895492$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>
> > In article <671cf83a$1$2385542$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> > brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
> >>
> >> On Oct 25, 2024 at 10:23:42 PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
> >> <06vohj1lg3ub79rsedmdo97cr3bp6h9aln@4ax.com>:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 06:38:57 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> #nevertrump
> >>
> >> People can pick Trump or America. You cannot have both.
>
> You ignored this. Why?

Look below attention whore.
> >
> > Says the guy that wants to vote for a commie.

On Oct 26, 2024 at 9:17:59 AM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
<671d161d$0$3833$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:

> In article <671cfbef$3$2873013$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On Oct 26, 2024 at 7:14:39 AM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>> <671cf94f$6$1895492$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>
>>> In article <671cf83a$1$2385542$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 25, 2024 at 10:23:42 PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
>>>> <06vohj1lg3ub79rsedmdo97cr3bp6h9aln@4ax.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 06:38:57 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> #nevertrump
>>>>
>>>> People can pick Trump or America. You cannot have both.

Why not offer a reply to this instead of lying about the competitor?

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

In article <671d1662$0$1895505$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>
> On Oct 26, 2024 at 9:17:59 AM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
> <671d161d$0$3833$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>
> > In article <671cfbef$3$2873013$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> > brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
> >>
> >> On Oct 26, 2024 at 7:14:39 AM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
> >> <671cf94f$6$1895492$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
> >>
> >>> In article <671cf83a$1$2385542$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> >>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On Oct 25, 2024 at 10:23:42 PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
> >>>> <06vohj1lg3ub79rsedmdo97cr3bp6h9aln@4ax.com>:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 06:38:57 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> #nevertrump
> >>>>
> >>>> People can pick Trump or America. You cannot have both.
>
> Why not offer a reply to this instead of lying about the competitor?

Attention seeking again? You snipped. You are a cheat.

On Oct 26, 2024 at 9:34:07 AM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
<671d19e4$0$3833$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:

> In article <671d1662$0$1895505$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On Oct 26, 2024 at 9:17:59 AM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>> <671d161d$0$3833$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>
>>> In article <671cfbef$3$2873013$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 26, 2024 at 7:14:39 AM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>>>> <671cf94f$6$1895492$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <671cf83a$1$2385542$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 25, 2024 at 10:23:42 PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
>>>>>> <06vohj1lg3ub79rsedmdo97cr3bp6h9aln@4ax.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 06:38:57 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> #nevertrump
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People can pick Trump or America. You cannot have both.

Why not offer a reply to this instead of lying about the competitor?

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 26 Oct 2024 14:25:51 GMT, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Oct 26, 2024 at 7:14:39?AM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
><671cf94f$6$1895492$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>
>> In article <671cf83a$1$2385542$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>
>>> On Oct 25, 2024 at 10:23:42 PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
>>> <06vohj1lg3ub79rsedmdo97cr3bp6h9aln@4ax.com>:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 06:38:57 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> #nevertrump
>>>
>>> People can pick Trump or America. You cannot have both.
>
>You ignored this. Why?

Because he has me killfiled.

--
Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine

Two more reasons to not vote for Trump in 11 days.

59) Trump repeatedly suggested he might serve more than
two terms in violation of the Constitution. And continues
to do so! (Trump: "We may have to go for an extra term."

60) Trump called Haiti and African nations "sh*thole countries."

On 26 Oct 2024 14:16:40 GMT, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:

>> The issues are dealt with in the House which *is* population proportionate.
>> Each
>> State gets two Senators and the People get a rep for about every 700k. What's
>> the point of two Houses if both are constructed the same way? Even the Brits
>> have Commons and Lords.
>
>Not in contention. But I think the Senate and the Electoral College end up
>causing harm, for the reasons I have stated. I back more equal representation,
>not just in the House but in general. I do know the system will not change to
>have these things I think would be better.

An all popular vote legislature would be too volatile and too closely follow the
current populist political fashions. The rules governing the Senate and
Executive branches slow change enough to make sure it is deliberate, not just
running with the current flow.

--
Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine

Two more reasons to not vote for Trump in 11 days.

59) Trump repeatedly suggested he might serve more than
two terms in violation of the Constitution. And continues
to do so! (Trump: "We may have to go for an extra term."

60) Trump called Haiti and African nations "sh*thole countries."

On 26 Oct 2024 14:16:40 GMT, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:

>I think we would be better off with more equal representation of people. We
>are not gonna get it. That is really all my point was. I have backed it by
>noting how polls show people, as a whole, want things I think would be
>beneficial and make America better. Also have noted what I see as the
>injustice of having those with the least representation tending to give the
>most into the system, and those with far more representation getting the tons
>of support from the system. I think it goes against the spirit of "No taxation
>without representing". That is pretty much the extent of my views.

Governing by the poll-of-the-moment is guaranteed to screw things up.

Do a bit of reading back on legislation passed by the House that didn't get
through the Senate. Very enlightening.

--
Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine

Two more reasons to not vote for Trump in 11 days.

59) Trump repeatedly suggested he might serve more than
two terms in violation of the Constitution. And continues
to do so! (Trump: "We may have to go for an extra term."

60) Trump called Haiti and African nations "sh*thole countries."

On Oct 26, 2024 at 6:13:04 PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
<dp4rhjh4ko44an7utefiii53h1b934q5qb@4ax.com>:

> On 26 Oct 2024 14:16:40 GMT, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> The issues are dealt with in the House which *is* population proportionate.
>>> Each
>>> State gets two Senators and the People get a rep for about every 700k. What's
>>> the point of two Houses if both are constructed the same way? Even the Brits
>>> have Commons and Lords.
>>
>> Not in contention. But I think the Senate and the Electoral College end up
>> causing harm, for the reasons I have stated. I back more equal representation,
>> not just in the House but in general. I do know the system will not change to
>> have these things I think would be better.
>
> An all popular vote legislature would be too volatile and too closely follow
> the
> current populist political fashions.

How would it make it more volatile?

> The rules governing the Senate and
> Executive branches slow change enough to make sure it is deliberate, not just
> running with the current flow.

You can have safeguards... needing 60% or something of that nature. Right now
we can have the whim of, say, cult like group such as Trump supporters thwart
the will of the people as a whole.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On Oct 26, 2024 at 6:10:02 PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
<fm4rhj9p7228g1anhf6onfg8fsv9i8puvh@4ax.com>:

> On 26 Oct 2024 14:25:51 GMT, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 26, 2024 at 7:14:39?AM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>> <671cf94f$6$1895492$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>
>>> In article <671cf83a$1$2385542$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 25, 2024 at 10:23:42 PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
>>>> <06vohj1lg3ub79rsedmdo97cr3bp6h9aln@4ax.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 06:38:57 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> #nevertrump
>>>>
>>>> People can pick Trump or America. You cannot have both.
>>
>> You ignored this. Why?
>
> Because he has me killfiled.

But he saw my post.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On Oct 26, 2024 at 6:15:11 PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
<6v4rhj1m1j521k9or1p5ddkv9f5bgf06pf@4ax.com>:

> On 26 Oct 2024 14:16:40 GMT, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think we would be better off with more equal representation of people. We
>> are not gonna get it. That is really all my point was. I have backed it by
>> noting how polls show people, as a whole, want things I think would be
>> beneficial and make America better. Also have noted what I see as the
>> injustice of having those with the least representation tending to give the
>> most into the system, and those with far more representation getting the tons
>> of support from the system. I think it goes against the spirit of "No taxation
>> without representing". That is pretty much the extent of my views.
>
> Governing by the poll-of-the-moment is guaranteed to screw things up.

You can still have things to slow down the system. Having the minority dictate
to the majority is not an effective / fair way of doing so.
>
> Do a bit of reading back on legislation passed by the House that didn't get
> through the Senate. Very enlightening.

Would love to see a list of such bills.

Doing some quick research I find:

* For the People Act (H.R. 1) - 2021
* George Floyd Justice in Policing Act - 2021
* Equality Act - 2021
* Build Back Better Act - 2021
* Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act - 2021

Pretty sure I -- and most of Americans -- would want each of these to pass
(though would need to do more research).

And ones passed by the Senate but rejected by the House:

* Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act - 2018
* Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act - 2015

Happy those did not pass. But there were also these:
* Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (S. 744) - 2013
* NICS Denial Notification Act - 2019

Might have been better if those had passed.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 27 Oct 2024 01:16:48 GMT, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Oct 26, 2024 at 6:10:02?PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
><fm4rhj9p7228g1anhf6onfg8fsv9i8puvh@4ax.com>:
>
>> On 26 Oct 2024 14:25:51 GMT, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 26, 2024 at 7:14:39?AM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>>> <671cf94f$6$1895492$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>
>>>> In article <671cf83a$1$2385542$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 25, 2024 at 10:23:42 PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
>>>>> <06vohj1lg3ub79rsedmdo97cr3bp6h9aln@4ax.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 06:38:57 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #nevertrump
>>>>>
>>>>> People can pick Trump or America. You cannot have both.
>>>
>>> You ignored this. Why?
>>
>> Because he has me killfiled.
>
>But he saw my post.

But it was something in quotes in your post so he wouldn't have responded.
Certainly he's not going to respond to me. He always loses.

--
#nevertrump

Two more reasons to not vote for Trump in 9 days.

61) Trump tried to terminate DACA, which protects
immigrants brought to the U.S. as children.
Luckily, this was struck down by the courts.

62) Trump called climate change a "HOAX."

On 27 Oct 2024 01:16:29 GMT, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Oct 26, 2024 at 6:13:04?PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
><dp4rhjh4ko44an7utefiii53h1b934q5qb@4ax.com>:
>
>> On 26 Oct 2024 14:16:40 GMT, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The issues are dealt with in the House which *is* population proportionate.
>>>> Each
>>>> State gets two Senators and the People get a rep for about every 700k. What's
>>>> the point of two Houses if both are constructed the same way? Even the Brits
>>>> have Commons and Lords.
>>>
>>> Not in contention. But I think the Senate and the Electoral College end up
>>> causing harm, for the reasons I have stated. I back more equal representation,
>>> not just in the House but in general. I do know the system will not change to
>>> have these things I think would be better.
>>
>> An all popular vote legislature would be too volatile and too closely follow
>> the
>> current populist political fashions.
>
>How would it make it more volatile?

Because House control switches back and forth continually. Also because the
Senate has rules and traditions that slow change.

A House majority is usually dozens of seats providing no block to the
opposition. A Senate majority is usually only a few seats, not enough to
completely block the minority.

Compare Johnson's difficulty getting legislation voted on to Pelosi's.

>> The rules governing the Senate and
>> Executive branches slow change enough to make sure it is deliberate, not just
>> running with the current flow.
>
>You can have safeguards... needing 60% or something of that nature. Right now
>we can have the whim of, say, cult like group such as Trump supporters thwart
>the will of the people as a whole.

That's just not true.

The '60%' is in regards to the filibuster in the Senate.

There is no such safeguard on the House side - for either party.

That said, legislation must pass BOTH Houses. Fashionable House whims usually
die or become heavily modified in the Senate.

The Senate is the safeguard you seek.

--
#nevertrump

Two more reasons to not vote for Trump in 9 days.

61) Trump tried to terminate DACA, which protects
immigrants brought to the U.S. as children.
Luckily, this was struck down by the courts.

62) Trump called climate change a "HOAX."

On 27 Oct 2024 01:52:53 GMT, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Oct 26, 2024 at 6:15:11?PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
><6v4rhj1m1j521k9or1p5ddkv9f5bgf06pf@4ax.com>:
>
>> On 26 Oct 2024 14:16:40 GMT, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think we would be better off with more equal representation of people. We
>>> are not gonna get it. That is really all my point was. I have backed it by
>>> noting how polls show people, as a whole, want things I think would be
>>> beneficial and make America better. Also have noted what I see as the
>>> injustice of having those with the least representation tending to give the
>>> most into the system, and those with far more representation getting the tons
>>> of support from the system. I think it goes against the spirit of "No taxation
>>> without representing". That is pretty much the extent of my views.
>>
>> Governing by the poll-of-the-moment is guaranteed to screw things up.
>
>You can still have things to slow down the system. Having the minority dictate
>to the majority is not an effective / fair way of doing so.
>>
>> Do a bit of reading back on legislation passed by the House that didn't get
>> through the Senate. Very enlightening.
>
>Would love to see a list of such bills.
>
>Doing some quick research I find:
>
>* For the People Act (H.R. 1) - 2021
>* George Floyd Justice in Policing Act - 2021
>* Equality Act - 2021
>* Build Back Better Act - 2021
>* Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act - 2021
>
>Pretty sure I -- and most of Americans -- would want each of these to pass
>(though would need to do more research).
>
>And ones passed by the Senate but rejected by the House:
>
>* Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act - 2018
>* Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act - 2015
>
>Happy those did not pass. But there were also these:
>* Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (S. 744) - 2013
>* NICS Denial Notification Act - 2019
>
>Might have been better if those had passed.

So now you understand. Having two houses with different structures, one
dynamic, the other deliberative, provides input and safety features to the
lawmaking process.

Btw, you don't get to say what should and should not pass. ;)

--
#nevertrump

Two more reasons to not vote for Trump in 9 days.

61) Trump tried to terminate DACA, which protects
immigrants brought to the U.S. as children.
Luckily, this was struck down by the courts.

62) Trump called climate change a "HOAX."

On Oct 27, 2024 at 8:00:19 PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
<9fvthjl8mu9djqcakmrvb9ag4e20i7u6t9@4ax.com>:

> On 27 Oct 2024 01:52:53 GMT, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 26, 2024 at 6:15:11?PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
>> <6v4rhj1m1j521k9or1p5ddkv9f5bgf06pf@4ax.com>:
>>
>>> On 26 Oct 2024 14:16:40 GMT, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think we would be better off with more equal representation of people. We
>>>> are not gonna get it. That is really all my point was. I have backed it by
>>>> noting how polls show people, as a whole, want things I think would be
>>>> beneficial and make America better. Also have noted what I see as the
>>>> injustice of having those with the least representation tending to give the
>>>> most into the system, and those with far more representation getting the tons
>>>> of support from the system. I think it goes against the spirit of "No taxation
>>>> without representing". That is pretty much the extent of my views.
>>>
>>> Governing by the poll-of-the-moment is guaranteed to screw things up.
>>
>> You can still have things to slow down the system. Having the minority dictate
>> to the majority is not an effective / fair way of doing so.
>>>
>>> Do a bit of reading back on legislation passed by the House that didn't get
>>> through the Senate. Very enlightening.
>>
>> Would love to see a list of such bills.
>>
>> Doing some quick research I find:
>>
>> * For the People Act (H.R. 1) - 2021
>> * George Floyd Justice in Policing Act - 2021
>> * Equality Act - 2021
>> * Build Back Better Act - 2021
>> * Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act - 2021
>>
>> Pretty sure I -- and most of Americans -- would want each of these to pass
>> (though would need to do more research).
>>
>> And ones passed by the Senate but rejected by the House:
>>
>> * Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act - 2018
>> * Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act - 2015
>>
>> Happy those did not pass. But there were also these:
>> * Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (S. 744) - 2013
>> * NICS Denial Notification Act - 2019
>>
>> Might have been better if those had passed.
>
> So now you understand. Having two houses with different structures, one
> dynamic, the other deliberative, provides input and safety features to the
> lawmaking process.

What did you think I was not understanding? I get it slows things down... but
I think it all too often ends up with results most of America does not want,
and things that benefit the rich over the general public.
>
> Btw, you don't get to say what should and should not pass. ;)

I can use the standard of what is best for the country as judged by the people
of the country.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On Oct 27, 2024 at 7:58:00 PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
<ftsthjhavncokr96df3po087c4425vdto5@4ax.com>:

> On 27 Oct 2024 01:16:29 GMT, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 26, 2024 at 6:13:04?PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
>> <dp4rhjh4ko44an7utefiii53h1b934q5qb@4ax.com>:
>>
>>> On 26 Oct 2024 14:16:40 GMT, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The issues are dealt with in the House which *is* population proportionate.
>>>>> Each
>>>>> State gets two Senators and the People get a rep for about every 700k. What's
>>>>> the point of two Houses if both are constructed the same way? Even the Brits
>>>>> have Commons and Lords.
>>>>
>>>> Not in contention. But I think the Senate and the Electoral College end up
>>>> causing harm, for the reasons I have stated. I back more equal representation,
>>>> not just in the House but in general. I do know the system will not change to
>>>> have these things I think would be better.
>>>
>>> An all popular vote legislature would be too volatile and too closely follow
>>> the
>>> current populist political fashions.
>>
>> How would it make it more volatile?
>
> Because House control switches back and forth continually. Also because the
> Senate has rules and traditions that slow change.

The question is how would it make it more volatile than a hypothetical
situation... one with checks and balances and systems to slow things down but
also tied more closely to what the American people as a whole want?

> A House majority is usually dozens of seats providing no block to the
> opposition. A Senate majority is usually only a few seats, not enough to
> completely block the minority.
>
> Compare Johnson's difficulty getting legislation voted on to Pelosi's.

Sounds like you are comparing the House to the Senate... not comparing what we
have with a hypothetical. Heck, the hypothetical has not even been described.
A friend of mine proposes redrawing state lines ever few years so that states
have closer to equal populations. I think that is a bit silly, but maybe have
the Senate set up so it is not by state but by some other cross-state district
which allows for something similar. Again, I get it is not going to happen...
I am talking what would lead to better representation and having the will of
the people more closely followed. That would not be the only change needed --
a big one would also be getting money out of the process as much as we can.
>
>>> The rules governing the Senate and
>>> Executive branches slow change enough to make sure it is deliberate, not just
>>> running with the current flow.
>>
>> You can have safeguards... needing 60% or something of that nature. Right now
>> we can have the whim of, say, cult like group such as Trump supporters thwart
>> the will of the people as a whole.
>
> That's just not true.
>
> The '60%' is in regards to the filibuster in the Senate.

Not in my hypothetical. LOL! You seem to be jumping around.
>
> There is no such safeguard on the House side - for either party.
>
> That said, legislation must pass BOTH Houses. Fashionable House whims usually
> die or become heavily modified in the Senate.
>
> The Senate is the safeguard you seek.

No, it is not. It is a body that serves the rich.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

I want a safeguard for the people, not for the top 1/10th of 1%.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On Oct 27, 2024 at 7:14:36 PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
<9rsthj14u46vm4poubr96d3rn5gpk3mknv@4ax.com>:

> On 27 Oct 2024 01:16:48 GMT, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 26, 2024 at 6:10:02?PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
>> <fm4rhj9p7228g1anhf6onfg8fsv9i8puvh@4ax.com>:
>>
>>> On 26 Oct 2024 14:25:51 GMT, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 26, 2024 at 7:14:39?AM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>>>> <671cf94f$6$1895492$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <671cf83a$1$2385542$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 25, 2024 at 10:23:42 PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
>>>>>> <06vohj1lg3ub79rsedmdo97cr3bp6h9aln@4ax.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 06:38:57 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> #nevertrump
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People can pick Trump or America. You cannot have both.
>>>>
>>>> You ignored this. Why?
>>>
>>> Because he has me killfiled.
>>
>> But he saw my post.
>
> But it was something in quotes in your post so he wouldn't have responded.
> Certainly he's not going to respond to me. He always loses.

He has worked hard to lose.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 28 Oct 2024 03:47:02 GMT, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Oct 27, 2024 at 7:14:36?PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
><9rsthj14u46vm4poubr96d3rn5gpk3mknv@4ax.com>:
>
>> On 27 Oct 2024 01:16:48 GMT, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 26, 2024 at 6:10:02?PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
>>> <fm4rhj9p7228g1anhf6onfg8fsv9i8puvh@4ax.com>:
>>>
>>>> On 26 Oct 2024 14:25:51 GMT, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 26, 2024 at 7:14:39?AM MST, "Skeeter" wrote
>>>>> <671cf94f$6$1895492$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <671cf83a$1$2385542$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,
>>>>>> brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 25, 2024 at 10:23:42 PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
>>>>>>> <06vohj1lg3ub79rsedmdo97cr3bp6h9aln@4ax.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 06:38:57 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> #nevertrump
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> People can pick Trump or America. You cannot have both.
>>>>>
>>>>> You ignored this. Why?
>>>>
>>>> Because he has me killfiled.
>>>
>>> But he saw my post.
>>
>> But it was something in quotes in your post so he wouldn't have responded.
>> Certainly he's not going to respond to me. He always loses.
>
>He has worked hard to lose.

You'd think losing would come naturally to a luzer like Skeeter.

--
#nevertrump

Two more reasons to not vote for Trump in 7 days.

63) Trump pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement.

64) Trump rolled back more than 100 environmental protections.