Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
If it is true, I need reccomendos
2
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Trump owns Russia
« Last post by catastrophe on Today at 03:13:35 PM »

2) I guess I can see that it would be helpful to make other places look shitty and the one under your leadership not so bad by comparison (and it reinforces #1 that it's just a bad guy and his team that are the bad guys, not the country).  I'm not following so much how that translated into obtaining more world power or having a weaker U.S. adversary.  What are people worried that Putin's Russia is going to do to us?

I personally am not afraid per se. Just saying it is entirely rational for Putin to prefer a weaker & isolationist candidate for US President because it allows Putin to elevate his & Russia’s status on the world stage.


Has Putin and Russia's status on the world stage, whatever that means tangibly, been elevated?  Or are we too early into Putin's master plan to see if it's working?

I mean, to the extent it is possible to do such a thing in 1-2 years I think the answer is yes.  Even the way you have phrased the question suggests that you believe people are taking Putin much more seriously than just a year or two ago.
3
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Minority rule politics
« Last post by Trim on Today at 03:13:11 PM »
Break Up the United States.  Or implement Constitution 2.0.  Or both.
4
I guess I don't know about the bold part, but the bbq part isn't true.
6
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Trump owns Russia
« Last post by chum1 on Today at 03:10:13 PM »
7
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Trump owns Russia
« Last post by Dugout DickStone on Today at 03:09:57 PM »
He looked like Billy Bob Thornton in Tombstone
8
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Trump owns Russia
« Last post by Trim on Today at 03:09:14 PM »

2) I guess I can see that it would be helpful to make other places look shitty and the one under your leadership not so bad by comparison (and it reinforces #1 that it's just a bad guy and his team that are the bad guys, not the country).  I'm not following so much how that translated into obtaining more world power or having a weaker U.S. adversary.  What are people worried that Putin's Russia is going to do to us?

I personally am not afraid per se. Just saying it is entirely rational for Putin to prefer a weaker & isolationist candidate for US President because it allows Putin to elevate his & Russia’s status on the world stage.


Has Putin and Russia's status on the world stage, whatever that means tangibly, been elevated?  Or are we too early into Putin's master plan to see if it's working?
9
I honestly don't know if YOU'RE trolling right now. Of course they'd be based on population. I said that on like post #5 of this thread.

Look friend, I was just answering your question.  The state systems you mention are based on the style we have in the U.S. Congress.  They just go by population because it is way easier and there is no practical way to allow representation for each local government within a state.  I think the burden is on you to explain why regional representation would function better than state representation; and why those goals are not accomplished by just eliminating the Senate altogether.

It really wouldn't be that impractical to have 1 representative from each county as one branch of state government.

You mean comprising the senate? Or do you mean the legislative branch would be a single body comprised that way?

Comprising the senate.

Yeah, I had considered that option. I just doubt whether Kansas needs 105 senators, especially considering they only have 125 house reps. It would cost the state $millions more each year. And the forces that determined the composition of the federal Congress aren't really present in the intrastate context, so I'm not sure the juice is worth the squeeze. Counties are mere governmental subunits. They have no recognized sovereignty in their own right.

You would think that many senators might break the bank, but Kansas only pays its state senators $88.66 per day and only budgets for 100 day sessions.
10
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Minority rule politics
« Last post by catastrophe on Today at 03:07:18 PM »
I honestly don't know if YOU'RE trolling right now. Of course they'd be based on population. I said that on like post #5 of this thread.

Look friend, I was just answering your question.  The state systems you mention are based on the style we have in the U.S. Congress.  They just go by population because it is way easier and there is no practical way to allow representation for each local government within a state.  I think the burden is on you to explain why regional representation would function better than state representation; and why those goals are not accomplished by just eliminating the Senate altogether.

It really wouldn't be that impractical to have 1 representative from each county as one branch of state government.

You mean comprising the senate? Or do you mean the legislative branch would be a single body comprised that way?

Comprising the senate.

I think this could be a decent alternative for some states, although it is kind of getting away from my initial point.  As to whether it was contemplated by the founding fathers of each state, I know very little about the history of drawing counties, but my expectation is that the formation of the state legislature likely predated county formation in most states.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10