OT: National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 12:23:10 PM UTC-5, DemonicTubes wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 8:33:53 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 9:50:47 AM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 9:07:07 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

My argument is very simple and I've not yet heard an adequate criticism of it, "One person-One vote". Do you really oppose that simple premise?

Since you're for one-person one-vote, would you also argue that
China should have four times as many votes as the United States
in any negotiations between the two, since China has quadruple
our population?

If not, why not?

That is irrelevant to the issue of electing the US President. No, I don't support non sequiturs.

--

Rick C.

+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

We are not one state. We are a federal coalition of component states. Idaho deserves a bite of the pie that California and New York would horde for themselves.

You don't make any sense. The electoral college does nothing to give Idaho a bigger slice of the pie. What it does is to take Idaho's pie slice and give it to Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and around six other states. Why do people keep stating falsehoods?

What I want is for my vote to count the same in the Presidential election as everyone else's.

--

Rick C.

---- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 1:50:47 AM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 9:07:07 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

My argument is very simple and I've not yet heard an adequate criticism of it, "One person-One vote". Do you really oppose that simple premise?

Since you're for one-person one-vote, would you also argue that
China should have four times as many votes as the United States
in any negotiations between the two, since China has quadruple
our population?

If not, why not?

China and the United States aren't in any kind of federation. There are lots of federal states around, who have decided that their various component parts have enough in common that schemes that will work for one part will work pretty much as well for all the other parts.

The European Union tried to include the UK, but the UK didn't think that it was working for them.

The thirteen US colonies were initially part of the United Kingdom, but didn't like the way they were being run, nor the slice of the pie they were granted by the UK government, and moved to a situation where they could negotiate with the UK as a separate entity.

If China and the US were part of some super-national entity, with agreed rules about who deserved what, one man, one vote might be part of those rules..

The proposition that applying that rule within one country is some kind of argument for applying the same outside that country is remarkably silly, even for James Arthur (who has a particular fondness for exploiting ideological nonsense).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 9:50:47 AM UTC-5,
dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 9:07:07 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

My argument is very simple and I've not yet heard an adequate
criticism of it, "One person-One vote". Do you really oppose that
simple premise?

Since you're for one-person one-vote, would you also argue that
China should have four times as many votes as the United States
in any negotiations between the two, since China has quadruple
our population?

If not, why not?

That is irrelevant to the issue of electing the US President. No, I
don't support non sequiturs.

I think his point was that it's non-sequitur for One person-One vote to
apply only to that decision.

I've offered 2 good reasons why the EC is necessary, and the fact that
the founders were smarter than you wasn't even one of them. They were
de-incentivizing ballot stuffing and preventing extremists from being
elected. There is another even bigger reason but it takes longer to
explain and you didn't understand the first two.
 
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:27:30 AM UTC-5, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 9:50:47 AM UTC-5,
dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 9:07:07 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

My argument is very simple and I've not yet heard an adequate
criticism of it, "One person-One vote". Do you really oppose that
simple premise?

Since you're for one-person one-vote, would you also argue that
China should have four times as many votes as the United States
in any negotiations between the two, since China has quadruple
our population?

If not, why not?

That is irrelevant to the issue of electing the US President. No, I
don't support non sequiturs.

I think his point was that it's non-sequitur for One person-One vote to
apply only to that decision.

Huh??? One person-One vote is the process by which we elect virtually every representative in the country.


> I've offered 2 good reasons why the EC is necessary,

I don't see where you have posted in this thread until now. What are you talking about???


and the fact that
the founders were smarter than you wasn't even one of them. They were
de-incentivizing ballot stuffing and preventing extremists from being
elected.

The Electoral College is ballot stuffing agnostic. The two are orthogonal or the EC might encourage ballot stuffing since a small amount of it focused in the right locations could both be more effective and harder to detect than in most other locations in the country. That's why Trump was talking about the election fraud in PA even before the election. PA was a close race.

If there was no EC, no one would focus on a few votes in any one state. Much less chance of Trump finding 3 million fraudulent votes than finding a few thousand.


There is another even bigger reason but it takes longer to
explain and you didn't understand the first two.

The first two you didn't describe?

There are NO valid reasons to keep the EC. Everyone should have an equal vote in the Presidential race. It really is that simple. Why can't you understand something that is so fundamental to our country?

--

Rick C.

---+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 4:27:30 PM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 9:50:47 AM UTC-5,
dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 9:07:07 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

My argument is very simple and I've not yet heard an adequate
criticism of it, "One person-One vote". Do you really oppose that
simple premise?

Since you're for one-person one-vote, would you also argue that
China should have four times as many votes as the United States
in any negotiations between the two, since China has quadruple
our population?

If not, why not?

That is irrelevant to the issue of electing the US President. No, I
don't support non sequiturs.

I think his point was that it's non-sequitur for One person-One vote to
apply only to that decision.

I've offered 2 good reasons why the EC is necessary, and the fact that
the founders were smarter than you wasn't even one of them.

Nobody else has found them remotely good. How smart the founding tax evaders were doesn't really come into it. They were being innovative, and the electoral college clearly wasn't an attractive innovation, no matter how much you may like it.

> They were de-incentivizing ballot stuffing and preventing extremists from being elected.

Except that it didn't stop Trump getting elected, which kills that argument stone-dead (unless you to too silly to recognise that Trump is obviously defective).

There is another even bigger reason but it takes longer to
explain and you didn't understand the first two.

And it's probably just a worthless. The reality is the electoral college was a spectacularly ill-judged bribe to get the smaller states to accept the US constitution, but people with exaggerated ideas of the competence and high principles of the founding tax evaders are rather resistant to this insight.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:27:30 AM UTC-5, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 9:50:47 AM UTC-5,
dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 9:07:07 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

My argument is very simple and I've not yet heard an adequate
criticism of it, "One person-One vote". Do you really oppose that
simple premise?

Since you're for one-person one-vote, would you also argue that
China should have four times as many votes as the United States
in any negotiations between the two, since China has quadruple
our population?

If not, why not?

That is irrelevant to the issue of electing the US President. No, I
don't support non sequiturs.

I think his point was that it's non-sequitur for One person-One vote to
apply only to that decision.

I meant to illustrate that one-person one-vote isn't some iron-clad
principle of equity and justice as Rick blithely assumes; there are
many instances where free people must *not* allow it. I moved the
metaphor offshore to try to decouple the issues for Rick's thinking.

In fact it's a gross injustice to allow distant people control over
the lives and lifestyles of another group, far removed.

I've offered 2 good reasons why the EC is necessary, and the fact that
the founders were smarter than you wasn't even one of them. They were
de-incentivizing ballot stuffing and preventing extremists from being
elected. There is another even bigger reason but it takes longer to
explain and you didn't understand the first two.

Cheers,
James Arthur
 
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 7:01:18 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 12:23:10 PM UTC-5, DemonicTubes wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 8:33:53 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 9:50:47 AM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 9:07:07 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

My argument is very simple and I've not yet heard an adequate criticism of it, "One person-One vote". Do you really oppose that simple premise?

Since you're for one-person one-vote, would you also argue that
China should have four times as many votes as the United States
in any negotiations between the two, since China has quadruple
our population?

If not, why not?

That is irrelevant to the issue of electing the US President. No, I don't support non sequiturs.

--

Rick C.

+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

We are not one state. We are a federal coalition of component states. Idaho deserves a bite of the pie that California and New York would horde for themselves.

You don't make any sense. The electoral college does nothing to give Idaho a bigger slice of the pie. What it does is to take Idaho's pie slice and give it to Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and around six other states. Why do people keep stating falsehoods?

What I want is for my vote to count the same in the Presidential election as everyone else's.

Then you're for abolishing the Senate, where all states get
equal representation regardless of size?

Cheers,
 
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 10:33:53 AM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 9:50:47 AM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 9:07:07 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

My argument is very simple and I've not yet heard an adequate criticism of it, "One person-One vote". Do you really oppose that simple premise?

Since you're for one-person one-vote, would you also argue that
China should have four times as many votes as the United States
in any negotiations between the two, since China has quadruple
our population?

If not, why not?

That is irrelevant to the issue of electing the US President. No, I don't support non sequiturs.

On the contrary, it's central to the issue of electing the U.S.
president and the reasons for this Electoral College that so
confuses you.

You say "one person, one vote." Okay, so why shouldn't Africans
have 1.4 billion votes in European elections, versus Europeans'
445 million?

Answer that, and you're on the right track.

Cheers,
James Arthur
 
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 1:21:05 AM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:27:30 AM UTC-5, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 9:50:47 AM UTC-5,
dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 9:07:07 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

My argument is very simple and I've not yet heard an adequate
criticism of it, "One person-One vote". Do you really oppose that
simple premise?

Since you're for one-person one-vote, would you also argue that
China should have four times as many votes as the United States
in any negotiations between the two, since China has quadruple
our population?

If not, why not?

That is irrelevant to the issue of electing the US President. No, I
don't support non sequiturs.

I think his point was that it's non-sequitur for One person-One vote to
apply only to that decision.

I meant to illustrate that one-person one-vote isn't some iron-clad
principle of equity and justice as Rick blithely assumes; there are
many instances where free people must *not* allow it.

Not that James Arthur can be bothered to name one. Like the founding tax evaders, he's nervous of mob rule.

> I moved the metaphor offshore to try to decouple the issues for Rick's thinking.

More to provide a fatuous distraction.

In fact it's a gross injustice to allow distant people control over
the lives and lifestyles of another group, far removed.

When America's consumer goods are mostly being made in China, its a fact of life.

Getting the right level of negotiated control is tricky, and starting trade wars doesn't help the process.

I've offered 2 good reasons why the EC is necessary, and the fact that
the founders were smarter than you wasn't even one of them. They were
de-incentivizing ballot stuffing and preventing extremists from being
elected. There is another even bigger reason but it takes longer to
explain and you didn't understand the first two.

Tom Del Rosso is merely dim. James Arthur seems to being actively subversive.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 1:00:31 AM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 7:01:18 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 12:23:10 PM UTC-5, DemonicTubes wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 8:33:53 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 9:50:47 AM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo..com wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 9:07:07 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

My argument is very simple and I've not yet heard an adequate criticism of it, "One person-One vote". Do you really oppose that simple premise?

Since you're for one-person one-vote, would you also argue that
China should have four times as many votes as the United States
in any negotiations between the two, since China has quadruple
our population?

If not, why not?

That is irrelevant to the issue of electing the US President. No, I don't support non sequiturs.

--

Rick C.

+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

We are not one state. We are a federal coalition of component states.. Idaho deserves a bite of the pie that California and New York would horde for themselves.

You don't make any sense. The electoral college does nothing to give Idaho a bigger slice of the pie. What it does is to take Idaho's pie slice and give it to Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and around six other states. Why do people keep stating falsehoods?

What I want is for my vote to count the same in the Presidential election as everyone else's.

Then you're for abolishing the Senate, where all states get
equal representation regardless of size?

It's a house of deliberation, not the head of the executive branch.

The Senate wasn't invented by the founding tax evaders, and subsequent constitutions have copied the idea. Having a bunch of different people with a least a couple from even the smallest states is a very different principle from over-representing small states in the selection of a single head of the executive branch.

James Arthur is perfectly well aware of this. but he's probably got to post his quota of nonsense and can't be bothered making it look even vaguely sensible.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 12:57:33 AM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 10:33:53 AM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 9:50:47 AM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 9:07:07 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

My argument is very simple and I've not yet heard an adequate criticism of it, "One person-One vote". Do you really oppose that simple premise?

Since you're for one-person one-vote, would you also argue that
China should have four times as many votes as the United States
in any negotiations between the two, since China has quadruple
our population?

If not, why not?

That is irrelevant to the issue of electing the US President. No, I don't support non sequiturs.

On the contrary, it's central to the issue of electing the U.S.
president and the reasons for this Electoral College that so
confuses you.

The reason for the US having an electoral college aren't in the least confusing - merely inadequate to the point of fatuity.

You say "one person, one vote." Okay, so why shouldn't Africans
have 1.4 billion votes in European elections, versus Europeans'
445 million?

Answer that, and you're on the right track.

Asking the question illustrate the track James Arthur is on - a process of swamping the debate with fatuous irrelevancies.

The answer is obvious - the European Union was constructed to extract a common European opinion from what had been a bunch of unconnected countries.

Africa hasn't even got an Africa-wide political union, let alone one that extends into Europe.

What totally obvious is that James Arthur - as a member of the Tea Faction that gutted what used to be the Republican Party into the spineless and unprincipled Trump Appreciation Society - is now trying to derail any rational political discussion on the basis that getting Trump re-elected is going to take even more thorough subversion of the political process than the subversion that got him his narrow victory in 2016.

Posting loads of irrelevant nonsense is his contribution to the process.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 8:57:33 AM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 10:33:53 AM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 9:50:47 AM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 9:07:07 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

My argument is very simple and I've not yet heard an adequate criticism of it, "One person-One vote". Do you really oppose that simple premise?

Since you're for one-person one-vote, would you also argue that
China should have four times as many votes as the United States
in any negotiations between the two, since China has quadruple
our population?

If not, why not?

That is irrelevant to the issue of electing the US President. No, I don't support non sequiturs.

On the contrary, it's central to the issue of electing the U.S.
president and the reasons for this Electoral College that so
confuses you.

You say "one person, one vote." Okay, so why shouldn't Africans
have 1.4 billion votes in European elections, versus Europeans'
445 million?

Answer that, and you're on the right track.

Because Trump would claim election fraud even before the election!

--

Rick C.

--+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 05:57:23 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 10:33:53 AM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 9:50:47 AM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 9:07:07 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

My argument is very simple and I've not yet heard an adequate criticism of it, "One person-One vote". Do you really oppose that simple premise?

Since you're for one-person one-vote, would you also argue that
China should have four times as many votes as the United States
in any negotiations between the two, since China has quadruple
our population?

If not, why not?

That is irrelevant to the issue of electing the US President. No, I don't support non sequiturs.

On the contrary, it's central to the issue of electing the U.S.
president and the reasons for this Electoral College that so
confuses you.

You say "one person, one vote." Okay, so why shouldn't Africans
have 1.4 billion votes in European elections, versus Europeans'
445 million?

Answer that, and you're on the right track.

Cheers,
James Arthur

The very concept of countries, with citizens and borders and languages
and cultures, is under attack. Should the Dutch be allowed to be
Dutch?




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"
 
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 06:20:54 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:27:30 AM UTC-5, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 9:50:47 AM UTC-5,
dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 9:07:07 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

My argument is very simple and I've not yet heard an adequate
criticism of it, "One person-One vote". Do you really oppose that
simple premise?

Since you're for one-person one-vote, would you also argue that
China should have four times as many votes as the United States
in any negotiations between the two, since China has quadruple
our population?

If not, why not?

That is irrelevant to the issue of electing the US President. No, I
don't support non sequiturs.

I think his point was that it's non-sequitur for One person-One vote to
apply only to that decision.

I meant to illustrate that one-person one-vote isn't some iron-clad
principle of equity and justice as Rick blithely assumes; there are
many instances where free people must *not* allow it. I moved the
metaphor offshore to try to decouple the issues for Rick's thinking.

In fact it's a gross injustice to allow distant people control over
the lives and lifestyles of another group, far removed.

Which is an argument for states to have their own laws and taxes, and
for the Federal government to have less. Well, that was the theory.

Pity that when the income tax was created, there wasn't a limit. If a
max of, say 10% had been suggested, the country would have gone into
an uproar over such an absurdly large future tax.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"
 
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 7:01:18 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 12:23:10 PM UTC-5, DemonicTubes wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 8:33:53 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 9:50:47 AM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 9:07:07 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

My argument is very simple and I've not yet heard an adequate criticism of it, "One person-One vote". Do you really oppose that simple premise?

Since you're for one-person one-vote, would you also argue that
China should have four times as many votes as the United States
in any negotiations between the two, since China has quadruple
our population?

If not, why not?

That is irrelevant to the issue of electing the US President. No, I don't support non sequiturs.

--

Rick C.

+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

We are not one state. We are a federal coalition of component states. Idaho deserves a bite of the pie that California and New York would horde for themselves.

You don't make any sense. The electoral college does nothing to give Idaho a bigger slice of the pie. What it does is to take Idaho's pie slice and give it to Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and around six other states. Why do people keep stating falsehoods?

That's wrong. Idaho voters do gain a slight edge over CA voters, because
the EC is based on the number of House seats PLUS the Senate seats.
A state with just one house seat gets 3 EC votes, so a voter there has
their vote count a bit more than the voters in CA.



What I want is for my vote to count the same in the Presidential election as everyone else's.

It will just enable the takeover of the whole US by the crazy lib
coasts. Fortunately the framers had other ideas. They decided that
states have rights too.
 
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:20:26 PM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 05:57:23 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat wrote:

On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 10:33:53 AM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 9:50:47 AM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 9:07:07 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

My argument is very simple and I've not yet heard an adequate criticism of it, "One person-One vote". Do you really oppose that simple premise?

Since you're for one-person one-vote, would you also argue that
China should have four times as many votes as the United States
in any negotiations between the two, since China has quadruple
our population?

If not, why not?

That is irrelevant to the issue of electing the US President. No, I don't support non sequiturs.

On the contrary, it's central to the issue of electing the U.S.
president and the reasons for this Electoral College that so
confuses you.

You say "one person, one vote." Okay, so why shouldn't Africans
have 1.4 billion votes in European elections, versus Europeans'
445 million?

Answer that, and you're on the right track.

Cheers,
James Arthur

The very concept of countries, with citizens and borders and languages
and cultures, is under attack. Should the Dutch be allowed to be
Dutch?

Slowman is too stupid to understand the difference between being a Citizen vs a Subject. He bitches about how the United States was founded, yet he ignores the conditions in Europe at that time. No one voted,, and few people owned land. Tax evaders were put into Debtor's Prison or executed. Subjects had little or no rights, but that was fine in Slowman's Socialist mind.

It made sense that Landowners have the votes in the early days. They had reasons to look forward to protect their investments, their homes and their fortunes, unlike others who had nothing stopping them from drifting from one town to the next because they rarely had anything to anchor them. A large part of the early immigrants were transported to the American Continent as Indentured Servants to pay for their place on a ship. Once that was worked off, they were free men and women. Many of them managed to earn money to buy a little piece of land, and elevate themselves to land owners, where they lived in homes the built by hand. They did basic farming, and hunted wild animals for their food.

He would never last a single winter back then, and his big mouth would have his pathetic 'Dr. Smith' personality bleeding or dead. It was a cruel and hard life, but those who were brave enough abandoned Europe for being the cesspool that it was. The Eurosheep weren't allowed to cut down trees, because the royals claimed ownership to all of them. The term 'By hook or by crook' came from breaking branches out of trees to get enough wood to heat their pitiful shacks. The wealthy could buy coal, but it was rationed.

England told the Colonists what they could manufacture, and what had to be shipped from England, to enrich their corrupt shipping companies. The same companies that delivered shiploads of Africans on our shores to work on cotton plantations, that supplied them with another product to transport for a huge profit. Yet he thinks it was the new Nation's fault that they were already here. The first, and one of the largest slave owners was black. He went to the courts to claim that some of the indentured hadn't worked hard enough to pay off their debts, and was give ownership of their lives.

The British and other European shipping companies bought these people who were captured from warring tribes. Before the shipping companies started human trafficking, they just slit their throats. They gladly traded their prisoners for items from the ships, rather than kill and dispose of their rotting bodies.

The inter tribal wars were often caused by one tribe raiding another for food or other things they were too lazy or stupid to make. As it escalated, it turned into bloody wars. It seems that there were already many greedy Liberals in Africa at that time. It was easier to steal and kill than to hunt or harvest their own food from the jungles.
 
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 9:54:10 AM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 1:00:31 AM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 7:01:18 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 12:23:10 PM UTC-5, DemonicTubes wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 8:33:53 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 9:50:47 AM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 9:07:07 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

My argument is very simple and I've not yet heard an adequate criticism of it, "One person-One vote". Do you really oppose that simple premise?

Since you're for one-person one-vote, would you also argue that
China should have four times as many votes as the United States
in any negotiations between the two, since China has quadruple
our population?

If not, why not?

That is irrelevant to the issue of electing the US President. No, I don't support non sequiturs.

--

Rick C.

+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

We are not one state. We are a federal coalition of component states. Idaho deserves a bite of the pie that California and New York would horde for themselves.

You don't make any sense. The electoral college does nothing to give Idaho a bigger slice of the pie. What it does is to take Idaho's pie slice and give it to Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and around six other states. Why do people keep stating falsehoods?

What I want is for my vote to count the same in the Presidential election as everyone else's.

Then you're for abolishing the Senate, where all states get
equal representation regardless of size?

It's a house of deliberation, not the head of the executive branch.

The Senate wasn't invented by the founding tax evaders, and subsequent constitutions have copied the idea. Having a bunch of different people with a least a couple from even the smallest states is a very different principle from over-representing small states in the selection of a single head of the executive branch.

James Arthur is perfectly well aware of this. but he's probably got to post his quota of nonsense and can't be bothered making it look even vaguely sensible.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

You can almost taste the rich irony in Sloman's threads; coming from the backdrop of former British colony/dominion! :)
 
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 1:19:41 PM UTC-5, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 7:01:18 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

You don't make any sense. The electoral college does nothing to give Idaho a bigger slice of the pie. What it does is to take Idaho's pie slice and give it to Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and around six other states. Why do people keep stating falsehoods?

That's wrong. Idaho voters do gain a slight edge over CA voters, because
the EC is based on the number of House seats PLUS the Senate seats.
A state with just one house seat gets 3 EC votes, so a voter there has
their vote count a bit more than the voters in CA.

Meanwhile CA has 55 Electoral votes. 3 votes seems pretty damn puny!!!

This is just a red herring and is total BS. The fact that a voter in the small states has more power than in large states is exactly the imbalance I wish to correct. Presidents don't represent states. They represent people of the entire US. It's Congress that represents the states.


What I want is for my vote to count the same in the Presidential election as everyone else's.


It will just enable the takeover of the whole US by the crazy lib
coasts. Fortunately the framers had other ideas. They decided that
states have rights too.

By "crazy lib coasts" you mean the majority??? How would any geographical region take over via the popular vote unless they had a majority?

Yet another poor thinker showing his poor thinking.

--

Rick C.

--++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 10:01:19 AM UTC-8, Michael Terrell wrote:

> ... understand the difference between being a Citizen vs a Subject. He bitches about how the United States was founded, yet he ignores the conditions in Europe at that time. No one voted,, and few people owned land. Tax evaders were put into Debtor's Prison or executed. Subjects had little or no rights...

But the colonies didn't have even the rights of those 'subjects'; that was a major complaint.
The whole situation was unstable, it HAD to change, and that happened slowly in England,
faster with France (the Revolution). The long sequence of wars while Napoleon reorganized
the French into another nation was... painfull, compared to a quick federation and constitution.

> It made sense that Landowners have the votes in the early days

because the commoners weren't their peers. That was part of the instability, and the original
constitution didn't adequately address it, so it came back to haunt, several times. We
came to the 'equal rights' stable point in the last century, and the old Constitution's
words give us reason to leave it now.
 
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 6:21:05 AM UTC-8, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

I meant to illustrate that one-person one-vote isn't some iron-clad
principle ...

Rule by consent of the governed, and one person one vote, ARE principles,
and seem to many to be akin to the virtue(s) of fairness and justice.

As for 'iron-clad', we can plate in a variety of metals, like gold, silver,
titanium, chromium... there's nothing especially relevant to politics in
element #26.
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top