Originally posted by huckleberryhoundWhat does how populous a state is have to do with the people who happen to live there and who cast votes for the people they want?
Because if my memory serves (no guarantee), the college system was put in place to prevent the most populous states controlling power.
22 May 17
Originally posted by wolfgang59No, what needs addressed is Congress first.
1. Simple majority to elect President.
2. Reduced powers for President.
3. Independent Boundaries Commission to sort out gerrymandering.
Congress gave the President term limits citing corruption as the reason for the need for term limits, however, they never set any for themselves.
The problem is, Congress is the one who passes laws, so it is a pipe dream to think they would do it to themselves. The only way to get it done Is the Article V movement. In the process they can do other things to curtail the increasing powers in the Federal government that are routinely abused.
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundI'm not interested in a link to the interwebz. I'm more interested in what you have to say about what you said. What is it about the people who live in California ~ and whose wishes are those of the majority ~ that means their votes should count for less than people who live within some other administrative boundaries ~ and whose wishes are in the minority?
Because if my memory serves (no guarantee), the college system was put in place to prevent the most populous states controlling power.
Originally posted by whodeyTackle corruption by all means, but term limits surely restrict democratic choice. I don't want to be told 'X has represented you before, you want X to represent you again, but you are not allowed to choose X because X is not allowed to represent you anymore'.
Congress gave the President term limits citing corruption as the reason for the need for term limits, however, they never set any for themselves.
23 May 17
Originally posted by FMFThese are the worst ideas I've ever heard.
Population arms itself. Bricks itself in. One strike and you're out (and so build more prisons). Downward pressure on poor and middle class incomes so as not to demotivate them. Upward pressure on the incomes of the wealthy so as not to demotivate them. Allow rubbish food to be fed to children in schools. Restrict access to healthcare for unhealthy people who ar ...[text shortened]... ts who shout questions out at elected officials in public places. Not necessarily in this order.
But what's bothering me isn't the stupid ideas in your post. It's that so far, 2 people have actually agreed with you.
Originally posted by SuzianneOriginally posted by FMF
Population arms itself. Bricks itself in. One strike and you're out (and so build more prisons). Downward pressure on poor and middle class incomes so as not to demotivate them. Upward pressure on the incomes of the wealthy so as not to demotivate them. Allow rubbish food to be fed to children in schools. Restrict access to healthcare for unhealthy people who are impecunious. Frame the environment, legally, as an entity with human rights and then protect its right to be polluted. Defund any projects around the world that have the word 'woman' in the title. Prosecute journalists who shout questions out at elected officials in public places. Not necessarily in this order.
Originally posted by Suzianne
These are the worst ideas I've ever heard. But what's bothering me isn't the stupid ideas in your post. It's that so far, 2 people have actually agreed with you.
Something is bothering you about my post?
Originally posted by SuzianneWhy are you making out his 'ideas' were anything other than ironic?
These are the worst ideas I've ever heard.
But what's bothering me isn't the stupid ideas in your post. It's that so far, 2 people have actually agreed with you.
And I struggle to locate the 2 people you say agreed with these ironic comments. (The thumbs up are more likely in appreciation of the irony).
23 May 17
Originally posted by FMFYou can read, yes?
Originally posted by FMF
[b]Population arms itself. Bricks itself in. One strike and you're out (and so build more prisons). Downward pressure on poor and middle class incomes so as not to demotivate them. Upward pressure on the incomes of the wealthy so as not to demotivate them. Allow rubbish food to be fed to children in schools. Restrict access to he ...[text shortened]... so far, 2 people have actually agreed with you.
Something is bothering you about my post?[/b]
I told you what bothered me about your post if you'd care to read it before 'auto-sneering' it.
23 May 17
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeAre you saying that people might 'thumb-up' the poster instead of the content of the post?
Why are you making out his 'ideas' were anything other than ironic?
And I struggle to locate the 2 people you say agreed with these ironic comments. (The thumbs up are more likely in appreciation of the irony).
I was clear about what I was reacting to. 'Auto-sneer' doesn't really look that good on you.