OT: National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

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 no comprehensible reason to leave it now.
 
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 2:29:34 PM UTC-5, mpm wrote:
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! :)
Click to expand...

I've pulled smarter weeds than BS and his BS. He is living proof that you can have a negative IQ, as long as the brain stem is intact. Sadly, that condition leaves him unable to admit his errors, no matter how much evidence proves him wrong.
 
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 5:45:05 PM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:
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 no comprehensible reason to leave it now.
Click to expand...

The plans for a new Nation work. Better than many countries who have had revolution after revolution, an long strings of totalitarian dictators.
 
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 6:02:46 PM UTC-5, Michael Terrell wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 5:45:05 PM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:
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 no comprehensible reason to leave it now.


The plans for a new Nation work. Better than many countries who have had revolution after revolution, an long strings of totalitarian dictators.
Click to expand...

And yet we still can't seem to figure out how to provide health care to all.. Yeah, we are knocking it out of the park!

--

Rick C.

-+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 5:45:05 PM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:
We came to the 'equal rights' stable point in the last century, and the old Constitution's words give us no comprehensible reason to leave it now.
Click to expand...

Mostly. We are still arguing over equal rights in a number of areas most recently equality for women. Yeah, 100 years after getting the vote women still are second class citizens in the eyes of the law. I was in my thirties when Virginia still had a law on the books that forbid a married woman from owning property in her name only. Yes, that's right, women are not fully equal in the law no matter what some people would have you believe.

One of the prominent reasons is that if we give women equal rights, we may have to give equal rights to others who some people still fear.

Yeah, it's the 21st century and we still have people who think that way.

--

Rick C.

-+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 9:16:27 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 6:29:34 AM UTC+11, mpm wrote:
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.

You can almost taste the rich irony in Sloman's threads; coming from the backdrop of former British colony/dominion! :)

Which wrote its own constitution, and put it into action in 1901.

My high school classes discussed the ways in which it differed from the US constitution - and why - in terms that weren't entirely flattering to the founding tax evaders. The Australian senate is elected by state-wide proportional representation, which is an idea that wasn't around when the founding tax evaders were writing their constitution.

The lower house uses the Hare-Clarke single transferable vote to pick a single representative for a single electorate (which probably wasn't a great choice - more recent constitutions use proportional representation to pick a bunch of representatives for large electorates).

The process of ranking a bunch of candidates in order of increasing repulsiveness is complicated, and about 5% of the vote consists of the donkey vote (which numbers down from the top of the ballot) and the reverse donkey vote (numbered up from the bottom).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Click to expand...

The numbered-up from the bottom approach sounds messy, especially if actual donkeys are used.
 
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 1:21:10 PM UTC+11, mpm wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 7:26:09 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
And yet we still can't seem to figure out how to provide health care to all. Yeah, we are knocking it out of the park!


Remove your weasel words "seem to", in the above and we're good to go.
It's a pretty safe bet with this one.

Speaking of which, why haven't you told them how to provide health care to all.
Surely that is within your wheelhouse of knowledge and expertise.
Why the suspense?
Click to expand...

MPM hasn't noticed that Bismark's national insurance scheme - introduced in 1884 - is widely popular, and variations on it provide universal health care in every other advanced industrial country, all of whom seems to have better life expectancies than the US.

The US doesn't like it because it is paid for - in part - by taxes that bear more heavily on the rich than the poor, and the US system is geared to keeping the rich happy at everybody else's expense.

Even the rich live longer under universal health care, but apparently the satisfaction they get from seeing the poor dying quite a bit earlier is enough compensation for the reduction in their own life expectancy.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 10:02:46 AM UTC+11, Michael Terrell wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 5:45:05 PM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:
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 no comprehensible reason to leave it now.

The plans for a new Nation work. Better than many countries who have had revolution after revolution, an long strings of totalitarian dictators.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between working, and working well. The US constitution is the MS/DOS of political operating systems - good enough to work, but not good enough to work well. There are better constitutional arrangements around, but they don't work as well for the people with lots of money.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 7:26:09 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
And yet we still can't seem to figure out how to provide health care to all. Yeah, we are knocking it out of the park!
Click to expand...

Remove your weasel words "seem to", in the above and we're good to go.
It's a pretty safe bet with this one.

Speaking of which, why haven't you told them how to provide health care to all.
Surely that is within your wheelhouse of knowledge and expertise.
Why the suspense?
 
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 6:29:34 AM UTC+11, mpm wrote:
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.

You can almost taste the rich irony in Sloman's threads; coming from the backdrop of former British colony/dominion! :)
Click to expand...

Which wrote its own constitution, and put it into action in 1901.

My high school classes discussed the ways in which it differed from the US constitution - and why - in terms that weren't entirely flattering to the founding tax evaders. The Australian senate is elected by state-wide proportional representation, which is an idea that wasn't around when the founding tax evaders were writing their constitution.

The lower house uses the Hare-Clarke single transferable vote to pick a single representative for a single electorate (which probably wasn't a great choice - more recent constitutions use proportional representation to pick a bunch of representatives for large electorates).

The process of ranking a bunch of candidates in order of increasing repulsiveness is complicated, and about 5% of the vote consists of the donkey vote (which numbers down from the top of the ballot) and the reverse donkey vote (numbered up from the bottom).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 7:24:39 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 5:45:05 PM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:

We came to the 'equal rights' stable point in the last century, and the old Constitution's words give us no comprehensible reason to leave it now.

Mostly. We are still arguing over equal rights in a number of areas most recently equality for women. Yeah, 100 years after getting the vote women still are second class citizens in the eyes of the law. I was in my thirties when Virginia still had a law on the books that forbid a married woman from owning property in her name only. Yes, that's right, women are not fully equal in the law no matter what some people would have you believe.

One of the prominent reasons is that if we give women equal rights, we may have to give equal rights to others who some people still fear.

Yeah, it's the 21st century and we still have people who think that way.
Click to expand...

Well I'll be damned!
Ric finally gets one right.

Link: https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c015.php

Specifically, Section 16-15-50 "Seduction under promise of marriage"

A male can't seduce a woman under false pretense of marriage, but there's no law prohibiting the practice with the gender roles reversed.
 
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 9:59:22 AM UTC+11, Michael Terrell wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 2:29:34 PM UTC-5, mpm wrote:
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! :)


I've pulled smarter weeds than BS and his BS. He is living proof that you can have a negative IQ, as long as the brain stem is intact. Sadly, that condition leaves him unable to admit his errors, no matter how much evidence proves him wrong.
Click to expand...

Mike Terrell's judgement isn't exactly impressive. Like most technicians, he regards engineers as people who don't know enough about the basic of what he does, and has no idea of ways in which his own understanding falls short.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 5:01:19 AM UTC+11, Michael Terrell wrote:
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.

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

Presumably the same way that New Yorkers aren't allowed to be New Yorkers.

> Sloman is too stupid to understand the difference between being a Citizen vs a Subject.

Terrell has an active imagination, and zero comprehension. Citizen is always a subject of the nation state of which they are citizens, but they do have rights and political influence. the Devil is spelling out those rights and the ways in which they can be exercised. In the US having a lot of money gives you a lot more rights, because exercising them gets very expensive very quickly.

If he were richer he could sue the Veterans Administration to get them to look after him better.

> 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 Sloman's socialist mind.

Socialism wasn't even invented until after the US colonies had rebelled and set up their own system of government - which was rather more closely modelled on the system then working in the Netherlands than most American are aware.

There was a lot of voting involved, but you had to be a member of the regent class (not a well-defined group - it mainly meant that you were somewhat rich and definitely well connected - before you got to vote.

> 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.

More important, their parents had had enough money to let then get educated..

It took the agricultural revolution to provide enough food to let poorer families take their kids out of agricultural work to get educated.

If you can't read or write, it's hard to get a useful idea of what's being voted on.

<snipped the rest of his pathetic misapprehensions>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 9:24:00 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

There's a difference between working, and working well. The US constitution is the MS/DOS of political operating systems - good enough to work, but not good enough to work well. There are better constitutional arrangements around, but they don't work as well for the people with lots of money.
Click to expand...

Bad analogy...
MS-DOS was written by Americans.

Geez, I'm surprised this one slipped by you Bill. :)
 
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:01:13 -0800 (PST), Michael Terrell
<terrell.michael.a@gmail.com> wrote:

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.
Click to expand...

One great feature of our Constitution is that it has provisions for
modifying itself, as ideas progress. Another great feature is that
modifications aren't easy. It's nicely calibrated.



--

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 Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 9:36:39 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

You do realize there are other factors in "life expectancy" besides the inner workings of a healthcare system, right?

Won't matter anyway.
I thought the rising oceans were going to swallow us all whole in a few year anyway. Either that, or some coronavirus?

You and I (OK, maybe more YOU) are old enough not to give too much of a damn either way.
 
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 1:52:08 PM UTC+11, mpm wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 9:24:00 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

There's a difference between working, and working well. The US constitution is the MS/DOS of political operating systems - good enough to work, but not good enough to work well. There are better constitutional arrangements around, but they don't work as well for the people with lots of money.

Bad analogy...
MS-DOS was written by Americans.
Click to expand...

What's that got to do with anything?

> Geez, I'm surprised this one slipped by you Bill. :)

What you do not seem to be aware of is that modern operating systems are mostly Linux based.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds

took the American Unix operating system, and reworked it to create Linux. In the process he created a non-commercial development scheme which has been refining Linux ever since.

The quintessentially American scheme of knocking up something and making as much money as possible out of improving it, and selling the improved versions didn't do as well.

I'm not in the least surprised that you weren't aware of that point.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 9:52:08 PM UTC-5, mpm wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 9:24:00 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

There's a difference between working, and working well. The US constitution is the MS/DOS of political operating systems - good enough to work, but not good enough to work well. There are better constitutional arrangements around, but they don't work as well for the people with lots of money.


Bad analogy...
MS-DOS was written by Americans.

Geez, I'm surprised this one slipped by you Bill. :)
Click to expand...

And it rarely ever crashed, unlike Sloman and his beloved Socialism.
 
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 9:18:15 PM UTC-5, mpm wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 9:16:27 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 6:29:34 AM UTC+11, mpm wrote:
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.

You can almost taste the rich irony in Sloman's threads; coming from the backdrop of former British colony/dominion! :)

Which wrote its own constitution, and put it into action in 1901.

My high school classes discussed the ways in which it differed from the US constitution - and why - in terms that weren't entirely flattering to the founding tax evaders. The Australian senate is elected by state-wide proportional representation, which is an idea that wasn't around when the founding tax evaders were writing their constitution.

The lower house uses the Hare-Clarke single transferable vote to pick a single representative for a single electorate (which probably wasn't a great choice - more recent constitutions use proportional representation to pick a bunch of representatives for large electorates).

The process of ranking a bunch of candidates in order of increasing repulsiveness is complicated, and about 5% of the vote consists of the donkey vote (which numbers down from the top of the ballot) and the reverse donkey vote (numbered up from the bottom).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

The numbered-up from the bottom approach sounds messy, especially if actual donkeys are used.
Click to expand...

That's OK, Slowman is an expendable brainwashed ass, and supposedly biodegradable.
 
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 9:16:14 PM UTC-5, mpm wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 7:24:39 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 5:45:05 PM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:

We came to the 'equal rights' stable point in the last century, and the old Constitution's words give us no comprehensible reason to leave it now.

Mostly. We are still arguing over equal rights in a number of areas most recently equality for women. Yeah, 100 years after getting the vote women still are second class citizens in the eyes of the law. I was in my thirties when Virginia still had a law on the books that forbid a married woman from owning property in her name only. Yes, that's right, women are not fully equal in the law no matter what some people would have you believe.

One of the prominent reasons is that if we give women equal rights, we may have to give equal rights to others who some people still fear.

Yeah, it's the 21st century and we still have people who think that way..

Well I'll be damned!
Ric finally gets one right.

Link: https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c015.php

Specifically, Section 16-15-50 "Seduction under promise of marriage"

A male can't seduce a woman under false pretense of marriage, but there's no law prohibiting the practice with the gender roles reversed.
Click to expand...

Under the ERA, women would lose many rights, and have to take responsibility for many more. On thing that stopped it from becoming an amendment was that all women of Draft age could end up not only in the Military if the draft is reinstated, but they would be on the font lines with men. They would have to put up with the same lack of sleep, regular meals an hygiene in dirty, wet uniforms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top