canpakes wrote:Give him credit for one thing. Dogs’s posts are often rich in content representing the bellwether talking points being freshly foisted upon the more dependably dim witted portion of the electorate. They tend not to get much traction here because they’ll actually be debated in this environment rather than swallowed whole and regurgitated without question, the latter being the case within his true target market.
And he does this while attempting to assert that disinformation campaigns don’t work. Lol. Wrong audience again.
Gotta love the way these guys operate.
It's been the shtick since Rush Limbaugh. Rush took advantage of the end of the Fairness Doctrine so he could spew for hours unchecked. It's the entitled Bros club. Poor Rush the millionaire always whining about being discriminated against. Ditto Alex Jones. The ultimate snowflake pussies with all of their guns and God and Russian bots and still scared sheetless of competing with women and brown people, let alone sharing power with others.
The US is an outlier in that most democracies either have a unicameral legislature or the more representive part of the bicameral legislature is the more powerful part. In the US, the Senate is more powerful than the House. In the UK, the House of Lords is vastly inferior to the House of Commons.
EAllusion wrote:In the US, the Senate is more powerful than the House.
In that case, all the more need for hard thinking about how it is elected.
My challenge to Water Dog remains:
Chap wrote:
Water Dog wrote:... now, on this very thread, people are calling for an end to the Senate. They want the senate to be gone. Just have a House only. ...
Please link to a post on this thread in which someone has suggested abolishing the Senate.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Yeah, that seems correct. The counter argument is that you can't project what happened in a simple background investigation into more serious criminal mattters, but I am inclined to see it as a stress test of norms that is scaleable.
Chap wrote:Please link to a post on this thread in which someone has suggested abolishing the Senate.
Let's not do this semantical argument thing. You know what I'm referring to. Okay, you want to quibble a bit and propose something less than a total absolution. Okay, whatevs. Noted. This is all the same thing. You're upset that you're not getting your way. You want to change the rules of the game so you can start winning it. Got it.
Chap wrote:Please link to a post on this thread in which someone has suggested abolishing the Senate.
Let's not do this semantical argument thing. You know what I'm referring to. Okay, you want to quibble a bit and propose something less than a total absolution. Okay, whatevs. Noted. This is all the same thing. You're upset that you're not getting your way. You want to change the rules of the game so you can start winning it. Got it.
You said:
... now, on this very thread, people are calling for an end to the Senate. They want the senate to be gone. Just have a House only. ...
Nobody did call for an end to the Senate. Nobody said they wanted the Senate to be gone, and have the House only.
What you said was simply, downright untrue. That's not 'semantics', just facts.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
So funny these idiots on the Right fell for a sarcastic tweet and now they're making national news out of it insisting it wasn't sarcasm. What a bunch of snowflakes.
