The Senate, rather than being based on random lines drawn on a map should be based on

[Edgetho]

this has nothing to do with a pure republic/direct democracy really ....but that has worked ...works fine as a national option in Switzerland and has for over 600 years.

It is only in two (2) tiny little Cantons.

Spare me the lecture.

 

[FA_Q2]

Funniest thing I'll read/hear/see today.

why?

The Senate used to represent the states; now it represents the people within the states.
You want to change that it to represent the natural resources of "some random lines drawn on a map".
Tell me: What rights are held by a vein of coal?

no, IT IS now just some random lines on a map,....maybe worse, I think some of the early states are somewhat based on the British King's gifts or grants.

government is the regulation of the relationships between people AND the use of natural resources...
This kind of split makes more sense than what we have now.

No, it does not and your idea of what government should be is completely off base. Government is there to protect the rights of PEOPLE. It is not there to ‘regulate the use of resources.’

We are not a communism where the government plays a direct role in the distribution of resources. Even then, the government exists for the people and the distribution of resource is simply an expression of that representation not a primary goal.

so u should want no Senate at all

How did you pull that out of my post. That is not based on anything I have said thus far.

 

[Siete]

The voting power of Each Senator, rather than being based

on random lines drawn on a map, should be based on

the renewable natural resource production of each

state, using a type of Economic base analysis.

Because allowing the government to placate special interest groups is not enough. We need to eliminate the middle man and simply give them direct control over our freedoms.
I wonder who produces those 'renewable resources' you want to hand our government to. Oh shit, that’s right - corporations.

I think you misunderstand the post.....I dont want to hand our government to anybody..just want a Senate that makes some rational sense.

handing power to states like Texas, Oklahoma, Lousy-ana, Alaska and the mid west states who are shale rich, tilts the scale to red states ... so naturally RW's are automatically against it. These idiots have no idea either.

 

[dcraelin]

The voting power of Each Senator, rather than being based
on random lines drawn on a map, should be based on the renewable natural resource production of each
state, using a type of Economic base analysis.

Funniest thing I'll read/hear/see today.

why?

The Senate used to represent the states; now it represents the people within the states.
You want to change that it to represent the natural resources of "some random lines drawn on a map".
Tell me: What rights are held by a vein of coal?

no, IT IS now just some random lines on a map,....maybe worse, I think some of the early states are somewhat based on the British King's gifts or grants.

You fail to understand that the US is made up of 50 sovereign states, not simple areas drawn on a map.

NO, I understand that....that is why I'm not suggesting new states, just a change in voting power...and probably not much of one at that.....the later states where probably sized somewhat with these considerations in mind.

 

[chikenwing]

The voting power of Each Senator, rather than being based

on random lines drawn on a map, should be based on

the renewable natural resource production of each

state, using a type of Economic base analysis.

What??!! You know what you suggest is why the electoral collage was set up.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Funniest thing I'll read/hear/see today.

why?

The Senate used to represent the states; now it represents the people within the states.
You want to change that it to represent the natural resources of "some random lines drawn on a map".
Tell me: What rights are held by a vein of coal?

no, IT IS now just some random lines on a map,....maybe worse, I think some of the early states are somewhat based on the British King's gifts or grants.

You fail to understand that the US is made up of 50 sovereign states, not simple areas drawn on a map.

NO, I understand that....that is why I'm not suggesting new states, just a change in voting power...and probably not much of one at that.....the later states where probably sized somewhat with these considerations in mind.

There's no rational basis for your idea, much less a compelling reason for such a massive change.

 

[dcraelin]

why?

The Senate used to represent the states; now it represents the people within the states.
You want to change that it to represent the natural resources of "some random lines drawn on a map".
Tell me: What rights are held by a vein of coal?

no, IT IS now just some random lines on a map,....maybe worse, I think some of the early states are somewhat based on the British King's gifts or grants.

government is the regulation of the relationships between people AND the use of natural resources...
This kind of split makes more sense than what we have now.

No, it does not and your idea of what government should be is completely off base. Government is there to protect the rights of PEOPLE. It is not there to ‘regulate the use of resources.’

We are not a communism where the government plays a direct role in the distribution of resources. Even then, the government exists for the people and the distribution of resource is simply an expression of that representation not a primary goal.

so u should want no Senate at all

How did you pull that out of my post. That is not based on anything I have said thus far.

"government exists for the people"....

 

[dcraelin]

The voting power of Each Senator, rather than being based

on random lines drawn on a map, should be based on

the renewable natural resource production of each

state, using a type of Economic base analysis.

Because allowing the government to placate special interest groups is not enough. We need to eliminate the middle man and simply give them direct control over our freedoms.
I wonder who produces those 'renewable resources' you want to hand our government to. Oh shit, that’s right - corporations.

I think you misunderstand the post.....I dont want to hand our government to anybody..just want a Senate that makes some rational sense.

handing power to states like Texas, Oklahoma, Lousy-ana, Alaska and the mid west states who are shale rich, tilts the scale to red states ... so naturally RW's are automatically against it. These idiots have no idea either.

Ha,....yeah I think they just reflexively think any change is bad.....but it wouldnt be based on a non-renewable like shale oil...not as I originally posted anyway.

 

[FA_Q2]

this has nothing to do with a pure republic/direct democracy really ....but that has worked ...works fine as a national option in Switzerland and has for over 600 years.

It is only in two (2) tiny little Cantons.

Spare me the lecture.

The voting power of Each Senator, rather than being based

on random lines drawn on a map, should be based on

the renewable natural resource production of each

state, using a type of Economic base analysis.

Because allowing the government to placate special interest groups is not enough. We need to eliminate the middle man and simply give them direct control over our freedoms.
I wonder who produces those 'renewable resources' you want to hand our government to. Oh shit, that’s right - corporations.

I think you misunderstand the post.....I dont want to hand our government to anybody..just want a Senate that makes some rational sense.

handing power to states like Texas, Oklahoma, Lousy-ana, Alaska and the mid west states who are shale rich, tilts the scale to red states ... so naturally RW's are automatically against it. These idiots have no idea either.

Yes they should be against it because shifting power to your side through usurping the right to representation is anti-freedom.
YOU apparently haven’t a clue.

 

[dcraelin]

The voting power of Each Senator, rather than being based

on random lines drawn on a map, should be based on

the renewable natural resource production of each

state, using a type of Economic base analysis.

What??!! You know what you suggest is why the electoral collage was set up.

no, electoral college I see as just facilitating a vote.

 

[FA_Q2]

The Senate used to represent the states; now it represents the people within the states.
You want to change that it to represent the natural resources of "some random lines drawn on a map".
Tell me: What rights are held by a vein of coal?

no, IT IS now just some random lines on a map,....maybe worse, I think some of the early states are somewhat based on the British King's gifts or grants.

government is the regulation of the relationships between people AND the use of natural resources...
This kind of split makes more sense than what we have now.

No, it does not and your idea of what government should be is completely off base. Government is there to protect the rights of PEOPLE. It is not there to ‘regulate the use of resources.’

We are not a communism where the government plays a direct role in the distribution of resources. Even then, the government exists for the people and the distribution of resource is simply an expression of that representation not a primary goal.

so u should want no Senate at all

How did you pull that out of my post. That is not based on anything I have said thus far.

"government exists for the people"....

And?

That does not preclude a senate from existing one bit.
Reading comprehension.

 

[boilermaker55]

You have such a high opinion of your stupidity! You wear it so well.

because simpletons are easily entertained ..

Are dimocraps getting dumber?

I mean, how stupid are you?

 

[dcraelin]

why?

The Senate used to represent the states; now it represents the people within the states.
You want to change that it to represent the natural resources of "some random lines drawn on a map".
Tell me: What rights are held by a vein of coal?

no, IT IS now just some random lines on a map,....maybe worse, I think some of the early states are somewhat based on the British King's gifts or grants.

You fail to understand that the US is made up of 50 sovereign states, not simple areas drawn on a map.

NO, I understand that....that is why I'm not suggesting new states, just a change in voting power...and probably not much of one at that.....the later states where probably sized somewhat with these considerations in mind.

There's no rational basis for your idea, much less a compelling reason for such a massive change.

Its far more rational than the system we have now.......which is based on a Kings determinations in the east...and who knows out west

 

[Siete]

this has nothing to do with a pure republic/direct democracy really ....but that has worked ...works fine as a national option in Switzerland and has for over 600 years.

It is only in two (2) tiny little Cantons.

Spare me the lecture.

The voting power of Each Senator, rather than being based

on random lines drawn on a map, should be based on

the renewable natural resource production of each

state, using a type of Economic base analysis.

Because allowing the government to placate special interest groups is not enough. We need to eliminate the middle man and simply give them direct control over our freedoms.
I wonder who produces those 'renewable resources' you want to hand our government to. Oh shit, that’s right - corporations.

I think you misunderstand the post.....I dont want to hand our government to anybody..just want a Senate that makes some rational sense.

handing power to states like Texas, Oklahoma, Lousy-ana, Alaska and the mid west states who are shale rich, tilts the scale to red states ... so naturally RW's are automatically against it. These idiots have no idea either.

Yes they should be against it because shifting power to your side through usurping the right to representation is anti-freedom.
YOU apparently haven’t a clue.

if I had a "side" you wouldn't sound like a dumbass ..... but.

 

[dcraelin]

no, IT IS now just some random lines on a map,....maybe worse, I think some of the early states are somewhat based on the British King's gifts or grants.

government is the regulation of the relationships between people AND the use of natural resources...
This kind of split makes more sense than what we have now.

No, it does not and your idea of what government should be is completely off base. Government is there to protect the rights of PEOPLE. It is not there to ‘regulate the use of resources.’

We are not a communism where the government plays a direct role in the distribution of resources. Even then, the government exists for the people and the distribution of resource is simply an expression of that representation not a primary goal.

so u should want no Senate at all

How did you pull that out of my post. That is not based on anything I have said thus far.

"government exists for the people"....

And?

That does not preclude a senate from existing one bit.
Reading comprehension.

The Senate gives unequal "representation", because the population of the states differs.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Senate used to represent the states; now it represents the people within the states.
You want to change that it to represent the natural resources of "some random lines drawn on a map".
Tell me: What rights are held by a vein of coal?

no, IT IS now just some random lines on a map,....maybe worse, I think some of the early states are somewhat based on the British King's gifts or grants.

You fail to understand that the US is made up of 50 sovereign states, not simple areas drawn on a map.

NO, I understand that....that is why I'm not suggesting new states, just a change in voting power...and probably not much of one at that.....the later states where probably sized somewhat with these considerations in mind.

There's no rational basis for your idea, much less a compelling reason for such a massive change.

Its far more rational than the system we have now...

... where the senate represents the people of a given state?

 

[chikenwing]

No, it does not and your idea of what government should be is completely off base. Government is there to protect the rights of PEOPLE. It is not there to ‘regulate the use of resources.’

We are not a communism where the government plays a direct role in the distribution of resources. Even then, the government exists for the people and the distribution of resource is simply an expression of that representation not a primary goal.

so u should want no Senate at all

How did you pull that out of my post. That is not based on anything I have said thus far.

"government exists for the people"....

And?

That does not preclude a senate from existing one bit.
Reading comprehension.

The Senate gives unequal "representation", because the population of the states differs.

???

?? we have the house of reps for that,so your suggesting places like NY have what 6 or 7 senators,yet ND only get 1 or 2 ?

 

[FA_Q2]

this has nothing to do with a pure republic/direct democracy really ....but that has worked ...works fine as a national option in Switzerland and has for over 600 years.

It is only in two (2) tiny little Cantons.

Spare me the lecture.

The voting power of Each Senator, rather than being based

on random lines drawn on a map, should be based on

the renewable natural resource production of each

state, using a type of Economic base analysis.

Because allowing the government to placate special interest groups is not enough. We need to eliminate the middle man and simply give them direct control over our freedoms.
I wonder who produces those 'renewable resources' you want to hand our government to. Oh shit, that’s right - corporations.

I think you misunderstand the post.....I dont want to hand our government to anybody..just want a Senate that makes some rational sense.

handing power to states like Texas, Oklahoma, Lousy-ana, Alaska and the mid west states who are shale rich, tilts the scale to red states ... so naturally RW's are automatically against it. These idiots have no idea either.

Yes they should be against it because shifting power to your side through usurping the right to representation is anti-freedom.
YOU apparently haven’t a clue.

if I had a "side" you wouldn't sound like a dumbass ..... but.

If you bothered to actually read the comments you would look like a dumbass. I was not refering to YOUR side, I was refering to the comment about [the republicans] side.

YOu commented that they were cluless because they opposed an idea that would give them more power. I commented that supporting a measure that usurped representation just because it moved power to your side is anti-freedom and they should oppose it.

Try reading before namecalling.

 

[dcraelin]

this has nothing to do with a pure republic/direct democracy really ....but that has worked ...works fine as a national option in Switzerland and has for over 600 years.

It is only in two (2) tiny little Cantons.

Spare me the lecture.

no, IT IS now just some random lines on a map,....maybe worse, I think some of the early states are somewhat based on the British King's gifts or grants.

You fail to understand that the US is made up of 50 sovereign states, not simple areas drawn on a map.

NO, I understand that....that is why I'm not suggesting new states, just a change in voting power...and probably not much of one at that.....the later states where probably sized somewhat with these considerations in mind.

There's no rational basis for your idea, much less a compelling reason for such a massive change.

Its far more rational than the system we have now...

... where the senate represents the people of a given state?

YOu cut out the part where I said based on a King's determinations in the east...and who knows out west...

Why did you cut that part out?.....because you cant answer for its rational

 

[FA_Q2]

No, it does not and your idea of what government should be is completely off base. Government is there to protect the rights of PEOPLE. It is not there to ‘regulate the use of resources.’

We are not a communism where the government plays a direct role in the distribution of resources. Even then, the government exists for the people and the distribution of resource is simply an expression of that representation not a primary goal.

so u should want no Senate at all

How did you pull that out of my post. That is not based on anything I have said thus far.

"government exists for the people"....

And?

That does not preclude a senate from existing one bit.
Reading comprehension.

The Senate gives unequal "representation", because the population of the states differs.

You are still floundering. That does not mean that the government does not represent the people.
Do you understand what the term ‘represent’ means?