Any last hope I had of that evaporated this week.You assume we have a democracy and not a corrupt kleptocracy
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Any last hope I had of that evaporated this week.You assume we have a democracy and not a corrupt kleptocracy
You assume we have a democracy and not a corrupt kleptocracy
California (40 million) and Wyoming (less than 1 million) each have two Senators.Well.....there is no perfect democracy, it's always an endeavour...
Somehow that made me think about this: By population numbers, states that to tend to hesitate on renewable energy (and EVs) seem to be overrepresented in the Senate. Washington DC (would not be the smallest state) and Puerto Rico with its population of > 3 million deserve a representation as well. (And it would still be fair in terms of votes per population).
California (40 million) and Wyoming (less than 1 million) each have two Senators.
Not democracy.
It's a fascist kleptocracy where the rich control everything. This prevents popular ideas like clean, cheap energy, universal health care, reproductive freedom, etc. from being enacted.Geez! The country is not a Democracy. It is a Federal Republic with representatives democratically elected. Further it is by the Constitution designed to limit government power and protect minorities from the tyranny and whims of the majority. If you want to get something done follow the rules and make your case with honest science and debate. Ranting solves nothing. Exaggeration and scare tactics harm your position in debate. There is an excellent case to be made to develop clean and sustainable energy and reducing or eliminating reliance on fossil fuels but forcing economic pain on the population before alternatives are available is not going to help those who differ with you to support your agenda.
AND you need them!
Geez! The country is not a Democracy. It is a Federal Republic with representatives democratically elected. Further it is by the Constitution designed to limit government power and protect minorities from the tyranny and whims of the majority. If you want to get something done follow the rules and make your case with honest science and debate. Ranting solves nothing. Exaggeration and scare tactics harm your position in debate. There is an excellent case to be made to develop clean and sustainable energy and reducing or eliminating reliance on fossil fuels but forcing economic pain on the population before alternatives are available is not going to help those who differ with you to support your agenda.
AND you need them!
The only minority that the rules protect is the rich and their profits.Geez! The country is not a Democracy. It is a Federal Republic with representatives democratically elected. Further it is by the Constitution designed to limit government power and protect minorities from the tyranny and whims of the majority. If you want to get something done follow the rules and make your case with honest science and debate. Ranting solves nothing. Exaggeration and scare tactics harm your position in debate. There is an excellent case to be made to develop clean and sustainable energy and reducing or eliminating reliance on fossil fuels but forcing economic pain on the population before alternatives are available is not going to help those who differ with you to support your agenda.
AND you need them!
Geez! The country is not a Democracy. It is a Federal Republic with representatives democratically elected. Further it is by the Constitution designed to limit government power and protect minorities from the tyranny and whims of the majority. If you want to get something done follow the rules and make your case with honest science and debate. Ranting solves nothing. Exaggeration and scare tactics harm your position in debate. There is an excellent case to be made to develop clean and sustainable energy and reducing or eliminating reliance on fossil fuels but forcing economic pain on the population before alternatives are available is not going to help those who differ with you to support your agenda.
AND you need them!
Protecting minorities doesn't mean that a minority should rule over the majority, such as in the Senate. The case for increasing solar has already gone through all checks for many years..... Further it is by the Constitution designed to limit government power and protect minorities from the tyranny and whims of the majority. ....
Except that it has lead to the government power being controlled by the tyranny and whims of the minority which is worse.Further it is by the Constitution designed to limit government power and protect minorities from the tyranny and whims of the majority.
Why are there two Dakotas anyway?Protecting minorities doesn't mean that a minority should rule over the majority, such as in the Senate. The case for increasing solar has already gone through all checks for many years.
EDIT: And which minority gets protected by the fact that North Dakota plus South Dakota have 4 Senators, while DC plus Puerto Rico plus California have 2 Senators?
From what I kinda sorta remember from reading about "How the States Got Their Shapes," was that at one time, Congress wanted states to have approximately the same area. The original 13 ranged from small states in New England to much larger states in the South. With the two senator per state rule and the apportioning of Representatives by population I think it was better to have four senators and two representatives instead of two and one had their been one state of Dakota.Why are there two Dakotas anyway?
Maybe the next thing the supreme court rules is that only the original 13 get representatives, and the Senate is reduced to 26 Senators.From what I kinda sorta remember from reading about "How the States Got Their Shapes," was that at one time, Congress wanted states to have approximately the same area. The original 13 ranged from small states in New England to much larger states in the South. With the two senator per state rule and the apportioning of Representatives by population I think it was better to have four senators and two representatives instead of two and one had their been one state of Dakota.
Sorta like today. The senators in Wyoming cancel the senators in California or New York.
That is why the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas all are "about" the same size. As are Wyoming and Colorado.
There may be other reasons, but I think those were two of the main reasons.
I see that our Constitution is troublesome to some of you. To succeed you have to work within it. The Supreme Court insists.
Our Constitution has enshrined some wonderful principles, but you may recall it's had to be amended a number of times since it was written. So it wasn't perfect.I see that our Constitution is troublesome to some of you. To succeed you have to work within it. The Supreme Court insists.
I was being sort of facetious, but I appreciate your answer. Of course as we look back today, it's all silly. Why should states be determined according to their size on a map? Did it work out to an equal number of landowners? The number of farms? Of course, different states have different topographies and local climates, so that doesn't work. Anyway, it's a joke.From what I kinda sorta remember from reading about "How the States Got Their Shapes," was that at one time, Congress wanted states to have approximately the same area. The original 13 ranged from small states in New England to much larger states in the South. With the two senator per state rule and the apportioning of Representatives by population I think it was better to have four senators and two representatives instead of two and one had their been one state of Dakota.
Sorta like today. The senators in Wyoming cancel the senators in California or New York.
That is why the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas all are "about" the same size. As are Wyoming and Colorado.
There may be other reasons, but I think those were two of the main reasons.