On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 16:45:40 -0000 (UTC), Trump wrote:

> 4 MILLION FOX VIEWERS IS PROOF ...

that 324 million USians have no fondness for Trump.

On 2024-02-07, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 16:45:40 -0000 (UTC), Trump wrote:
>
>> 4 MILLION FOX VIEWERS IS PROOF ...
>
> that 324 million USians have no fondness for Trump.

Right. That's why Haley lost by more than 30 points to Nobody in the
symbolic Nevada primary. She can't even win a primary that means nothing.
People are fed up with the swamp creatures that pull Biden's strings. (Not
that Trump is much better, but at least he says the right things — and even
that's too much for the Deep State UniParty.)

--
"Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good."
-- Archbishop Charles J. Chaput

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 01:49:09 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> That's why Haley lost by more than 30 points to Nobody in the
> symbolic Nevada primary.

The US system is not a very good democracy. In good democracies, we have a
realistic choice of more than two parties to vote for.

Look at this chart:
<https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/democracy-index-eiu>. The USA is not
in the top decile, or the second from the top, but the third.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 01:49:09 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> That's why Haley lost by more than 30 points to Nobody in the
>> symbolic Nevada primary.
>
>The US system is not a very good democracy. In good democracies, we have a
>realistic choice of more than two parties to vote for.
>
>Look at this chart:
><https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/democracy-index-eiu>. The USA is not
>in the top decile, or the second from the top, but the third.

The U.S.'s democracy is more at the state government level. The
federal government is intended to deal with matters that are beyond
the scope of an individual state. Progressives want the national
government to do more, but the system is set up to make that all but
impossible. To have a national democracy would take constitutional
amendment, or revolution.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 01:49:09 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> Right. That's why Haley lost by more than 30 points to Nobody in the
> symbolic Nevada primary. She can't even win a primary that means
> nothing. People are fed up with the swamp creatures that pull Biden's
> strings. (Not that Trump is much better, but at least he says the right
> things — and even that's too much for the Deep State UniParty.)

I didn't dig too deep but Haley apparently said it was just a minor flesh
wound. "No problem, we didn't campaign in NV". Dumb as she is even Harris
realized she was a non-starter.

On 2/7/2024 10:07 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> The US system is not a very good democracy. In good democracies, we have a
> realistic choice of more than two parties to vote for.

That's by design. The United States is not a "democracy". Its a
constitutional republic. The 2 party system is the basis of the
constitution. That guarantees majority rule. The U.S. does not want
national "leaders" elected with less than 50% of the vote. You can't
"lead" when 51% (or more) of the people did not vote for you.

> Look at this chart:

No. That does not matter. Again, The U.S. is not a democracy. "I
pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to
the Republic for which it stands...".

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 23:41:23 -0500, Nick Charles wrote:

> That's by design. The United States is not a "democracy". Its a
> constitutional republic. The 2 party system is the basis of the
> constitution. That guarantees majority rule. The U.S. does not want
> national "leaders" elected with less than 50% of the vote. You can't
> "lead" when 51% (or more) of the people did not vote for you.

It's obvious some can't 'lead' even when they did get >= 51% of the vote.
In my experience the majority of the people shouldn't be let out of the
yard without adult supervision. Harsh? Look around you.

Nick Charles <the.thin@man> wrote:
>On 2/7/2024 10:07 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> The US system is not a very good democracy. In good democracies, we have a
>> realistic choice of more than two parties to vote for.
>
>That's by design. The United States is not a "democracy". Its a
>constitutional republic. The 2 party system is the basis of the
>constitution. That guarantees majority rule. The U.S. does not want
>national "leaders" elected with less than 50% of the vote. You can't
>"lead" when 51% (or more) of the people did not vote for you.
>
>> Look at this chart:
>
>No. That does not matter. Again, The U.S. is not a democracy. "I
>pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to
>the Republic for which it stands...".

Our democracy is at the state government level, the federal government
doesn't address the nitty gritty of politics, although, ironically,
Trump would presumably nationalize a lot of stuff. We'll be a shell
of the "USA" that was so indestructible. He just makes up whatever is
convenient to believe, it's treachery on a scale that is hard to
believe. How in God's name would it come to the U.S. facing
dictatorship? What realm of thought says that could ever work?

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 23:41:23 -0500, Nick Charles wrote:

> On 2/7/2024 10:07 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> The US system is not a very good democracy. In good democracies, we
>> have a realistic choice of more than two parties to vote for.
>
> That's by design.

Design by whom? Who appointed them to “design” things that way?

> The United States is not a "democracy". Its a constitutional republic.

The only type of free society is a democracy that observes rule of law.
And remember the saying: “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts
absolutely”. Without checks and balances, your “constitution” is
worthless.

> The 2 party system is the basis of the constitution. That guarantees
> majority rule.

No it doesn’t. Your system lets 30% of the people appoint a leader that
70% do not want. As happened in 2016, for example.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 23:41:23 -0500, Nick Charles wrote:
>> On 2/7/2024 10:07 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> The US system is not a very good democracy. In good democracies, we
>>> have a realistic choice of more than two parties to vote for.
>>
>> That's by design.
>
>Design by whom? Who appointed them to “design” things that way?
>
>> The United States is not a "democracy". Its a constitutional republic.
>
>The only type of free society is a democracy that observes rule of law.
>And remember the saying: “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts
>absolutely”. Without checks and balances, your “constitution” is
>worthless.
>
>> The 2 party system is the basis of the constitution. That guarantees
>> majority rule.
>
>No it doesn’t. Your system lets 30% of the people appoint a leader that
>70% do not want. As happened in 2016, for example.

The election of Trump in 2016 was more predictable than the experts
said, the votes that came in, that were not anticipated, were
basically DJT voting for himself, through people under his influence.
He's Hitler, no one should trust him with anything, much less the
presidency. If he regains control, we're doomed.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 01:48:39 -0500, Joel wrote:

> ... Trump [is] ... Hitler, no one should trust him with anything, much
> less the presidency. If he regains control, we're doomed.

You know, the German system of proportional representation, where every
vote counts equally, was put in place after World War II specifically to
ensure that a dictator could never take power there again.

It has worked so well, we in New Zealand copied it.

Maybe time for the US to give it a try?

On 2024-02-08, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 01:49:09 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> That's why Haley lost by more than 30 points to Nobody in the
>> symbolic Nevada primary.
>
> The US system is not a very good democracy. In good democracies, we have a
> realistic choice of more than two parties to vote for.

I don't think there should even be parties. Every politician should run on
who they are, not who they're affiliated with. Voters would actually have to
think if that was the case.

> Look at this chart:
><https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/democracy-index-eiu>. The USA is not
> in the top decile, or the second from the top, but the third.

--
"Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good."
-- Archbishop Charles J. Chaput

On 2024-02-08, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 23:41:23 -0500, Nick Charles wrote:
>
>> On 2/7/2024 10:07 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> The US system is not a very good democracy. In good democracies, we
>>> have a realistic choice of more than two parties to vote for.
>>
>> That's by design.
>
> Design by whom? Who appointed them to “design” things that way?
>
>> The United States is not a "democracy". Its a constitutional republic.
>
> The only type of free society is a democracy that observes rule of law.
> And remember the saying: “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts
> absolutely”. Without checks and balances, your “constitution” is
> worthless.
>
>> The 2 party system is the basis of the constitution. That guarantees
>> majority rule.
>
> No it doesn’t. Your system lets 30% of the people appoint a leader that
> 70% do not want. As happened in 2016, for example.

And in 2020, when the incumbent got more votes than at any time in history,
the one who "won" — who had sat in his basement and did almost no
campaigning — somehow, after a pause in vote counting suddenly changed its
trajectory once the count restarted.

Time for ALL paper ballots, no mail in voting (except in cases where it
always was used) and an ID for all voters. There's no reason why the vote
shouldn't be completely counted on election day.

--
"Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good."
-- Archbishop Charles J. Chaput

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

>> ... Trump [is] ... Hitler, no one should trust him with anything, much
>> less the presidency. If he regains control, we're doomed.
>
>You know, the German system of proportional representation, where every
>vote counts equally, was put in place after World War II specifically to
>ensure that a dictator could never take power there again.
>
>It has worked so well, we in New Zealand copied it.
>
>Maybe time for the US to give it a try?

It would require amending the constitution, which isn't doable.
Overthrow of the government would be necessary, unless we all just lay
our cards down and say we're willing to have a discussion about it.
That of course seems like a pipe dream. It's not possible to remake
the system cooperatively, if it were we'd have done it by now, we
shouldn't be so easily drawn into a civil war, but that's what it
would be, because the right is stubborn.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2024-02-08, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 01:49:09 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> Right. That's why Haley lost by more than 30 points to Nobody in the
>> symbolic Nevada primary. She can't even win a primary that means
>> nothing. People are fed up with the swamp creatures that pull Biden's
>> strings. (Not that Trump is much better, but at least he says the right
>> things — and even that's too much for the Deep State UniParty.)
>
> I didn't dig too deep but Haley apparently said it was just a minor flesh
> wound. "No problem, we didn't campaign in NV". Dumb as she is even Harris
> realized she was a non-starter.

Just a flesh wound.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UijhbHvxWrA

--
"Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good."
-- Archbishop Charles J. Chaput

RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:

>in 2020, when the incumbent got more votes than at any time in history,
>the one who "won" — who had sat in his basement and did almost no
>campaigning — somehow, after a pause in vote counting suddenly changed its
>trajectory once the count restarted.
>
>Time for ALL paper ballots, no mail in voting (except in cases where it
>always was used) and an ID for all voters. There's no reason why the vote
>shouldn't be completely counted on election day.

The 2020 election was legitimate. You are a silly old man, trying to
pretend that there's a question about that. There is no voter fraud
that would affect the outcome of the election. I can't believe you
pretend to believe otherwise.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2024-02-08, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 01:48:39 -0500, Joel wrote:
>
>> ... Trump [is] ... Hitler, no one should trust him with anything, much
>> less the presidency. If he regains control, we're doomed.
>
> You know, the German system of proportional representation, where every
> vote counts equally, was put in place after World War II specifically to
> ensure that a dictator could never take power there again.
>
> It has worked so well, we in New Zealand copied it.
>
> Maybe time for the US to give it a try?

The United States just has to insure that elections are valid. They've been
completely opened to corruption with programmable voting machines, mail-in
ballots, no ID requirements and drop boxes which aren't secured against
tampering. Not to mention the fact that those who've died years earlier
somehow "vote" in the elections. Enforce the laws that were put in place to
keep elections honest. You would think that would be fundamental.

--
"Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good."
-- Archbishop Charles J. Chaput

On 2024-02-08 02:34, RonB wrote:
> On 2024-02-08, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 23:41:23 -0500, Nick Charles wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/7/2024 10:07 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> The US system is not a very good democracy. In good democracies, we
>>>> have a realistic choice of more than two parties to vote for.
>>>
>>> That's by design.
>>
>> Design by whom? Who appointed them to “design” things that way?
>>
>>> The United States is not a "democracy". Its a constitutional republic.
>>
>> The only type of free society is a democracy that observes rule of law.
>> And remember the saying: “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts
>> absolutely”. Without checks and balances, your “constitution” is
>> worthless.
>>
>>> The 2 party system is the basis of the constitution. That guarantees
>>> majority rule.
>>
>> No it doesn’t. Your system lets 30% of the people appoint a leader that
>> 70% do not want. As happened in 2016, for example.
>
> And in 2020, when the incumbent got more votes than at any time in history,
> the one who "won" — who had sat in his basement and did almost no
> campaigning — somehow, after a pause in vote counting suddenly changed its
> trajectory once the count restarted.
>
> Time for ALL paper ballots, no mail in voting (except in cases where it
> always was used) and an ID for all voters. There's no reason why the vote
> shouldn't be completely counted on election day.

Careful, or DFS will ask you for evidence!

--
RabidPedagog
Catholic paleoconservative
Linux Mint patron

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 07:27:53 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> I don't think there should even be parties. Every politician should run
> on who they are, not who they're affiliated with. Voters would actually
> have to think if that was the case.

Voters? Think?

On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 00:26:14 -0500, Joel wrote:

> Our democracy is at the state government level, the federal government
> doesn't address the nitty gritty of politics, although, ironically,
> Trump would presumably nationalize a lot of stuff. We'll be a shell of
> the "USA" that was so indestructible. He just makes up whatever is
> convenient to believe, it's treachery on a scale that is hard to
> believe. How in God's name would it come to the U.S. facing
> dictatorship? What realm of thought says that could ever work?

The fat lady sang when 'the united states' became 'the United States'.

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 07:34:49 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> And in 2020, when the incumbent got more votes than at any time in
> history ...

And who lost because his opponent won even more.

Remember, his own CISA chief, Chris Krebs, declared the election the “most
secure ever”? And then the Clown-in-Chief had to contort himself into
trying to take credit for this while at the same time still claiming that
the Democrats had somehow stolen it from him?

For years the Dems have been preaching how unsafe and rigged our
elections have been. Now they are saying what a wonderful job the
Trump Administration did in making 2020 the most secure election
ever. Actually this is true, except for what the Democrats did.
Rigged Election!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 13, 2020

Love that bit: “actually this [the most secure election ever] is true,
except for what the Democrats did. Rigged Election!”

Finally, he had to sack poor Krebs, because the cognitive dissonance had
become too great.

On 2/8/2024 12:44 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 23:41:23 -0500, Nick Charles wrote:
>
>> On 2/7/2024 10:07 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> The US system is not a very good democracy. In good democracies, we
>>> have a realistic choice of more than two parties to vote for.
>>
>> That's by design.
>
> Design by whom? Who appointed them to “design” things that way?

Designed by the people who wrote the constitution.

>
>> The United States is not a "democracy". Its a constitutional republic.
>
> The only type of free society is a democracy that observes rule of law.
> And remember the saying: “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts
> absolutely”. Without checks and balances, your “constitution” is
> worthless.

There are plenty of checks and balances. That's why there are 3 parts
to the national government. The President, the Congress and the
Courts. You should learn SOMETHING about the U.S. government before you
trash it.

>
>> The 2 party system is the basis of the constitution. That guarantees
>> majority rule.
>
> No it doesn’t. Your system lets 30% of the people appoint a leader that
> 70% do not want. As happened in 2016, for example.

Your numbers are not even close. Clinton got 3 million more votes than
Trump. That is not a 70%/30% split. It was actually a 48%/46% split

That is just one of the "checks and balances". The U.S. is a huge
country. You need broad support across the whole country. Not just
deep support in 3 states. Trump won the election because he carried
more states than Clinton carried. Clinton carried 18 states. Trump
carried 32. That's how you win a NATIONAL election.

That's how its supposed to work. That's why its a constitutional
republic and not a democracy. More STATES wanted Trump. That's all
that matters.

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 07:27:53 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> On 2024-02-08, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> The US system is not a very good democracy. In good democracies, we
>> have a realistic choice of more than two parties to vote for.
>
> I don't think there should even be parties.

Preference-based voting would seem to suit the US in this regard.

Alaska brought in a preferenced-based system for its last federal House
representative election. That’s the one where Mary Peltola won over Sarah
Palin. Naturally the Republicans groused that the system was somehow
biased against them, when the problem was that nobody who didn’t want
Palin as their first choice wanted her as a second choice either.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 07:34:49 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> And in 2020, when the incumbent got more votes than at any time in
>> history ...
>
> And who lost because his opponent won even more.
>
> Remember, his own CISA chief, Chris Krebs, declared the election the “most
> secure ever”? And then the Clown-in-Chief had to contort himself into
> trying to take credit for this while at the same time still claiming that
> the Democrats had somehow stolen it from him?
>
> For years the Dems have been preaching how unsafe and rigged our
> elections have been. Now they are saying what a wonderful job the
> Trump Administration did in making 2020 the most secure election
> ever. Actually this is true, except for what the Democrats did.
> Rigged Election!
> — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 13, 2020
>
> Love that bit: “actually this [the most secure election ever] is true,
> except for what the Democrats did. Rigged Election!”
>
> Finally, he had to sack poor Krebs, because the cognitive dissonance had
> become too great.

And now he's claiming he'll go after sycophantic loyalists like William Barr
for not remaining to be sycophantic loyalists. Thought "my general" should be
executed for interfering with his grandiose threats.

Many people don't seem to realize how repugnant the malignant lying incompetent
and k00ky narcissist was to the balance of the American electorate.

And he's only gotten crazier. He's off his rocker. Mad as a hatter.

Completely unfit for the job. He and Biden have a great chance of being
25th'ed. Biden for physical issues and Trump for acting the madman.

--
I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't know.
-- Mark Twain

Nick Charles wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> That's how its supposed to work. That's why its a constitutional
> republic and not a democracy. More STATES wanted Trump. That's all
> that matters.

Yeah, a bunch of flyover states. They're not all that matters.

--
Good day for overcoming obstacles. Try a steeplechase.