inflation
caused by tax cuts to the most wealthy since before Reagan and continuing >under the present "conservative" regime. The economic crashes at the >beginning of the century in which the wealthy and the companies they
depended upon were kept in business while the people who lost homes
and livlihoods were left without support.
Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
inflation
caused by tax cuts to the most wealthy since before Reagan and continuing >>under the present "conservative" regime. The economic crashes at the >>beginning of the century in which the wealthy and the companies they >>depended upon were kept in business while the people who lost homes
and livlihoods were left without support.
What is so ironic is that the train service today is far poorer than it
was in the 1890s, the last time we had this sort of economy. (And back
then the huge gains in wealth among the top few percent were a consequence
of railway expansion too.)
No Nuno, you are wrong. In 2016 Trump won the Electoral College butAfter the 2016 election, on a newspape-linked forum, I spent a lot of
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. In 2024 Trump won the Electoral >College vote and due to his lies won the popular vote as well. Those lies >price control and no foreign wars. In 2020 Biden won both Electoral
College and the popular vote.
It is no wonder you do not understand the basics of the Electoral
College because many Americans fail to understand it as well. It
was an expedient at the time of the founding.
On 2026-05-01, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:This would be more effective if prices weren't rising perceptably and,
No Nuno, you are wrong. In 2016 Trump won the
Electoral College but Hillary Clinton won the
popular vote. In 2024 Trump won the Electoral
College vote and due to his lies won the popular
vote as well. Those lies price control and no
foreign wars. In 2020 Biden won both Electoral
College and the popular vote.
How does one determine an election was one
"due to [his] lies"?
<rolls eyes>
<snaps fingers>
Oh! I know! By repeating it in hopes that the
repetition will eventually cause others to take
it as fact!
<rolls eyes again>
Fix what? The Electoral College /itself/ is working just fine: itIt is no wonder you do not understand the
basics of the Electoral College because many
Americans fail to understand it as well. It was
an expedient at the time of the founding.
Do you have a plan to fix it? Otherwise your
whining is pretty much pointless - other than
to give the muscles surrounding my eyes great
exercise....
I'm assuming this is what you are trying (failing badly) to say:An excellent summary, but I believe you are responding to an advocate
"A simple majority of electoral votes (270 or more) is required to elect
the president and vice president. If no candidate achieves a majority, a >contingent election is held by the House of Representatives, to elect
the president, and by the Senate, to elect the vice president."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College
Now, realistically with the current US two party system you are never
going to an election with no one getting a majority. But even if you
did all your mentions of the popular vote mixed in with what you are
saying are making it difficult to impossible to determine what you are >actually trying to say.
Paul S Person wrote:Which confirms that the system works. It's just a slightly bigger
On Fri, 1 May 2026 07:02:14 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
<snippo -- assertion was that the Electoral College cannot elect a
President who didn't win the popular vote>
Incorrect. There have been US Presidential elections where the winner
in the Electoral College received less than 50% of the popular vote. The >>> reason being because each state receives one delegate for each
Representative and Senator they have, each state's electors represent
different numbers of voters.
The whole /point/ of the Electoral College has become (if it wasn't
this from the beginning) to produce a definite result regardless of
how messy the popular vote was.
The only time this failed was in 2000. And that's because The Supremes
decided to interfere and determine the winner.
But two elections have gone to the house, (three counting 1876, which >essentially did wit a committee of the house deciding on disputed states
in a party line vote) and in 1824 the winner didn't even have a
plurality in the electoral college (though it has been pointed out that >without the three fifths rule, he would have.).
On 2026-05-01, Paul S Person wrote:<snippo -- parliamentarianism vs reality>
As others have pointed out, there is a fall-back for that situation,The whole /point/ of the Electoral College has become (if it wasn't
this from the beginning) to produce a definite result regardless of
how messy the popular vote was.
But it does not do that, except when there are candidates receiving a >majority of electoral votes. For each of the two positions, if there is
no majority, the College does *not* produce such a result.
On Fri, 1 May 2026 16:38:44 -0000 (UTC), oldernow <oldernow@dev.null>
wrote:
On 2026-05-01, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
No Nuno, you are wrong. In 2016 Trump won the
Electoral College but Hillary Clinton won the
popular vote. In 2024 Trump won the Electoral
College vote and due to his lies won the popular
vote as well. Those lies price control and no
foreign wars. In 2020 Biden won both Electoral
College and the popular vote.
How does one determine an election was one
"due to [his] lies"?
<rolls eyes>
<snaps fingers>
Oh! I know! By repeating it in hopes that the
repetition will eventually cause others to take
it as fact!
<rolls eyes again>
This would be more effective if prices weren't
rising perceptably and, of course, if he hadn't
attacked Iran.
IOW, in retrospect we can see that those promises
were lies.
It is no wonder you do not understand the
basics of the Electoral College because many
Americans fail to understand it as well. It was
an expedient at the time of the founding.
Do you have a plan to fix it? Otherwise your
whining is pretty much pointless - other than
to give the muscles surrounding my eyes great
exercise....
Fix what? The Electoral College /itself/ is
working just fine: it produces a result even
when the popular vote is ... not encouraging.
The education gap requires education. Ceaseless
education. In Civics, IIRC.
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
inflation
caused by tax cuts to the most wealthy since before Reagan and continuing >>>under the present "conservative" regime. The economic crashes at the >>>beginning of the century in which the wealthy and the companies they >>>depended upon were kept in business while the people who lost homes
and livlihoods were left without support.
What is so ironic is that the train service today is far poorer than it
was in the 1890s, the last time we had this sort of economy. (And back >>then the huge gains in wealth among the top few percent were a consequence >>of railway expansion too.)
Mostly due to the free land given to the RR companies along the ROW, IIRC.
oldernow <oldernow@dev.null> wrote:
On 2026-05-03, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
Well it is not the number of members that makes
the House ineffective but the hatred of the
Federal Government by the MAGA members.
OMFG... what a complete and total deranged
moron....
Not really. We have a whole lot of people who
were elected on the promise that they would
"eliminate the deep state." Sadly the people who
elected them are finding out only late that the
"deep state" is the part of the government that
does the actual work.
On 5/3/26 03:21, Nuno Silva wrote:Calling Republicans, particularly MAGA, "conservative" is an insult to conservatives everywhere.
On 2026-05-02, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 1 May 2026 16:38:44 -0000 (UTC), oldernow <oldernow@dev.null>
wrote:
On 2026-05-01, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
No Nuno, you are wrong. In 2016 Trump won the
Electoral College but Hillary Clinton won the
popular vote. In 2024 Trump won the Electoral
College vote and due to his lies won the popular
vote as well. Those lies price control and no
foreign wars. In 2020 Biden won both Electoral
College and the popular vote.
How does one determine an election was one
"due to [his] lies"?
<rolls eyes>
<snaps fingers>
Oh! I know! By repeating it in hopes that the
repetition will eventually cause others to take
it as fact!
<rolls eyes again>
This would be more effective if prices weren't rising perceptably and,
of course, if he hadn't attacked Iran.
IOW, in retrospect we can see that those promises were lies.
Some commentary I've seen around is that the reality check seems to come
only when it's actively hitting wallets - meaning that the last big
shutdown was actually benefiting Democrats, who aptly decided to
postpone it with little concessions from the other side.
As for lies themselves, I don't think his voters would care much about
it. Not to mention you easily get him saying two or more different
positions on the same thing, besides news outlets which outright lie, so
even if they cared about him not lying, they may have a hard time even
realizing he's lying.
After the election Trump admitted that he could do nothing about the
rising prices of food. To have done something woudl have required creative >legislation as we had in WW II with rationing and price controls which are >anthema to the Conservative(?) base. He also spoke in the Campaign
regarding foreign wars and then attacked Iran. Apparently just to keep
the Epstein files with Trump mentioned 34,000 times off the front pages
of newspapers and social media.
oldernow <oldernow@dev.null> wrote:You don't understand: they don't /want/ the gummint to work. They
On 2026-05-03, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
Well it is not the number of members that makes
the House ineffective but the hatred of the
Federal Government by the MAGA members.
OMFG... what a complete and total deranged
moron....
Not really. We have a whole lot of people who were elected on the
promise that they would "eliminate the deep state." Sadly the people who >elected them are finding out only late that the "deep state" is the part
of the government that does the actual work.
We are through the mirror. Up is down. Left is
right. Isolationism is attacking Iran for no
proper reason [1].
You don't understand: they don't /want/ the
gummint to work. They don't want no gummint at
all. They just want to tear it all down.
MAGA -- the putrid boil in the anus of America.
On Sun, 3 May 2026 11:38:21 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (Scott
Dorsey) wrote:
oldernow <oldernow@dev.null> wrote:
On 2026-05-03, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
Well it is not the number of members that makes
the House ineffective but the hatred of the
Federal Government by the MAGA members.
OMFG... what a complete and total deranged
moron....
Not really. We have a whole lot of people who were elected on the
promise that they would "eliminate the deep state." Sadly the people who
elected them are finding out only late that the "deep state" is the part
of the government that does the actual work.
You don't understand: they don't /want/ the gummint to work. They
don't want no gummint at all. They just want to tear it all down.
MAGA -- the putrid boil in the anus of America.
rCLThe rCyCalifornia PremiumrCO: Why the Golden StaterCOs rCyTake Per GallonrCO
consistently outpaces refiner earningsrCY
https://www.oann.com/newsroom/the-california-premium-why-the-golden- states-take-per-gallon-consistently-outpaces-refiner-earnings/
rCLAs California moves through 2026, a clear fiscal reality is visible at the gas pump.rCY
rCLFor every gallon of regular unleaded gasoline sold in the state,
combined taxes, fees, and regulatory program costs imposed by state and local governments now represent a substantial portion of the final price
rCo frequently exceeding the net profit margins earned by refiners after costs.rCY
rCLThis has intensified debate over the persistent rCLCalifornia Premium,rCY the roughly $1.70rCo$1.90 per gallon gap between what Californians pay compared to the national average.rCY
I know one place I do not want to move to, California.
Lynn
On Sun, 3 May 2026 11:38:21 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (Scott
Dorsey) wrote:
Not really. We have a whole lot of people who were elected on thewho
promise that they would "eliminate the deep state." Sadly the people =
elected them are finding out only late that the "deep state" is the part
of the government that does the actual work.
You don't understand: they don't /want/ the gummint to work. They
don't want no gummint at all. They just want to tear it all down.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2026 11:38:21 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (Scott
Dorsey) wrote:
Not really. We have a whole lot of people who were elected on thewho
promise that they would "eliminate the deep state." Sadly the people =
elected them are finding out only late that the "deep state" is the part >>> of the government that does the actual work.
You don't understand: they don't /want/ the gummint to work. They
don't want no gummint at all. They just want to tear it all down.
There are definitely some of those people, who are convinced that they can
do things themselves personally without the assistance of the government.
I think they are very much in the minority but they are extremely vocal.
When I meet those people I point out to them that there are plenty of places in the world without governments and if one wants to live without government interference they can go to those places. They invariably point out that those places are unpleasant places to live, which should not surprise them. --scott
On 5/5/26 09:57, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2026 11:38:21 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (Scott
Dorsey) wrote:
Not really. We have a whole lot of people who were elected on the
promise that they would "eliminate the deep state." Sadly the people = >>> who
elected them are finding out only late that the "deep state" is the part >>>> of the government that does the actual work.
You don't understand: they don't /want/ the gummint to work. They
don't want no gummint at all. They just want to tear it all down.
There are definitely some of those people, who are convinced that they can >> do things themselves personally without the assistance of the government.
I think they are very much in the minority but they are extremely vocal.
When I meet those people I point out to them that there are plenty of places >> in the world without governments and if one wants to live without government >> interference they can go to those places. They invariably point out that
those places are unpleasant places to live, which should not surprise them. >> --scott
Candy ass anarchists. Want all the comforts of modern society
but without the Government which enables that society.
Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> writes:
Candy ass anarchists. Want all the comforts of modern society
but without the Government which enables that society.
You can make the same statement about libertarians.
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> writes:
Candy ass anarchists. Want all the comforts of modern society
but without the Government which enables that society.
You can make the same statement about libertarians.
That's the thing. People that wanted to eliminate the government used to
be "anarchists" and they were considered ultra-liberals. Now people advocating the same things are called "libertarians" and are considered ultra-conservatives. Politics can be very confusing.
--scott
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> writes:
Candy ass anarchists. Want all the comforts of modern society
but without the Government which enables that society.
You can make the same statement about libertarians.
That's the thing. People that wanted to
eliminate the government used to be "anarchists"
and they were considered ultra-liberals.
Now people advocating the same things are
called "libertarians" and are considered
ultra-conservatives. Politics can be very
confusing.
What I said is correct regarding a majority of the College vote
itself. What you describe is the inequality that comes with the indirect >representation. It's not that it's a mechanism to handle lack of a
majority, it's more that it produces a different majority. And
what you allude to isn't even about handling a lack of majority for
*any* candidate in the popular vote, but rather about replacing one >measurement by another.
With his Tariffs which the SCOUSA ruled illegal he messed up
the economies of farm states and everyone else. That was not
distracting enough from the Epstein files so he has started a
pointless war with Iran.
On Fri, 1 May 2026 21:04:58 -0700, Bobbie Sellers ><bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:So, here's a theory:
With his Tariffs which the SCOUSA ruled illegal he messed up
the economies of farm states and everyone else. That was not
distracting enough from the Epstein files so he has started a
pointless war with Iran.
The way I heard it Israel told Trump "we're hitting the Iranian
nuclear facilities and we hope you come along but even if not we're
still going as Iranian nukes means nearly all the larger countries in
the Arab world will be building nukes and that eventually means the
end of Israel" and Trump basically gulped and said "I see your point -
we're in!"
So, here's a theory:
First Term -- Trump is owned by Putin
Second Term -- Trump is owned by Netanyahu
whatever they have on him, it must be pretty darn persuasive.
And, BTW, Netanyahu's belief in future nukes is no excuse for Trump's >actions.
First Term -- Trump is owned by Putin
Second Term -- Trump is owned by Netanyahu
On 2026-05-11, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
First Term -- Trump is owned by Putin
Second Term -- Trump is owned by Netanyahu
Both Terms -- TDS psychopaths are owned by Trump
You keep saying things like this.
Zero reasons. Zero rational. Just
straight up Ad Hominem.
In this group, that's not a good look.
On 5/11/2026 5:59 PM, oldernow wrote:
On 2026-05-11, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
First Term -- Trump is owned by Putin
Second Term -- Trump is owned by Netanyahu
Both Terms -- TDS psychopaths are owned by Trump
You keep saying things like this.
Zero reasons. Zero rational. Just
straight up Ad Hominem.
In this group, that's not a good look.
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
You keep saying things like this.
Zero reasons. Zero rational. Just
straight up Ad Hominem.
In this group, that's not a good look.
Nor is it in any number of other groups.
It doesn't matter. He doesn't care, he only
values friendship and trust with Netanyahu. What
is true and what isn't is not relevant in
his world view. It worked for Kaiser Wilhelm,
until it didn't.
On 2026-05-11, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:He is trying to defend Trump from the charge of being blackmailed by
It doesn't matter. He doesn't care, he only
values friendship and trust with Netanyahu. What
is true and what isn't is not relevant in
his world view. It worked for Kaiser Wilhelm,
until it didn't.
How you know Trump's mind and/or intention
content in such detail? Are you able to
read other peoples' minds as well, or
are your skills in this area limited
to just Trump?
On 5/11/2026 5:59 PM, oldernow wrote:It's been obvious for some time that he is a troll.
On 2026-05-11, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
First Term -- Trump is owned by Putin
Second Term -- Trump is owned by Netanyahu
Both Terms -- TDS psychopaths are owned by Trump
You keep saying things like this.
Zero reasons. Zero rational. Just
straight up Ad Hominem.
In this group, that's not a good look.
On Mon, 11 May 2026 19:42:59 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/11/2026 5:59 PM, oldernow wrote:
On 2026-05-11, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
=20
First Term -- Trump is owned by Putin
Second Term -- Trump is owned by Netanyahu
Both Terms -- TDS psychopaths are owned by Trump
=20
You keep saying things like this.
Zero reasons. Zero rational. Just
straight up Ad Hominem.
In this group, that's not a good look.
It's been obvious for some time that he is a troll.
But an enjoyable troll.
Let's keep him.
On Tue, 12 May 2026 11:21:02 -0000 (UTC), oldernow <oldernow@dev.null>
wrote:
On 2026-05-11, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
It doesn't matter. He doesn't care, he only
values friendship and trust with Netanyahu. What
is true and what isn't is not relevant in
his world view. It worked for Kaiser Wilhelm,
until it didn't.
How you know Trump's mind and/or intention
content in such detail? Are you able to
read other peoples' minds as well, or
are your skills in this area limited
to just Trump?
He is trying to defend Trump from the charge
of being blackmailed by claiming that Trump
doesn't have the mental capacity to do the job.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Mon, 11 May 2026 19:42:59 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/11/2026 5:59 PM, oldernow wrote:
On 2026-05-11, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
=20
First Term -- Trump is owned by Putin
Second Term -- Trump is owned by Netanyahu
Both Terms -- TDS psychopaths are owned by Trump
=20
You keep saying things like this.
Zero reasons. Zero rational. Just
straight up Ad Hominem.
In this group, that's not a good look.
It's been obvious for some time that he is a troll.
But an enjoyable troll.
TANSTAAET
Let's keep him.
Let's not.
2026-05-12, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 11:21:02 -0000 (UTC), oldernow <oldernow@dev.null>
wrote:
On 2026-05-11, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
It doesn't matter. He doesn't care, he only
values friendship and trust with Netanyahu. What
is true and what isn't is not relevant in
his world view. It worked for Kaiser Wilhelm,
until it didn't.
How you know Trump's mind and/or intention
content in such detail? Are you able to
read other peoples' minds as well, or
are your skills in this area limited
to just Trump?
He is trying to defend Trump from the charge
of being blackmailed by claiming that Trump
doesn't have the mental capacity to do the job.
2026-05-12, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2026 11:21:02 -0000 (UTC), oldernow <oldernow@dev.null>
wrote:
On 2026-05-11, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
It doesn't matter. He doesn't care, he only
values friendship and trust with Netanyahu. What
is true and what isn't is not relevant in
his world view. It worked for Kaiser Wilhelm,
until it didn't.
How you know Trump's mind and/or intention
content in such detail? Are you able to
read other peoples' minds as well, or
are your skills in this area limited
to just Trump?
He is trying to defend Trump from the charge
of being blackmailed by claiming that Trump
doesn't have the mental capacity to do the job.
No, I am just saying what Trump says he
believes. I know his mind and his intentions
from the words that come out of his mouth.
Whether Trump has the mental capacity to do
the job is not relevant to the subject.
It's possible that he is being blackmailed,
sure. But not necessary to explain his behaviour
in the context of what he has claimed in the
past to believe.
It's been obvious for some time that he is a troll.
But an enjoyable troll.
On 13/05/2026 03:36, Paul S Person wrote:
snip
It's been obvious for some time that he is a troll.
But an enjoyable troll.
I disagree. His predecessor, "D", at least
had a sense of humour to moderate his extreme
right wing views which were sometimes comedic in
themselves but youngerthen seems fixated on the
fact that there is no such thing as objectivity
and that the opinions of the political posters
here are in an imagined reality based on a
flawed world view. He then proves by isolated
example his objectivity theory by subjectively
insulting the poster ignoring the subject
matter of the post. He contributes nothing to
discussion of written SF. I think he is becoming
annoying. I don't think he'll stay long.
On 2026-05-13, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 13/05/2026 03:36, Paul S Person wrote:
snip
It's been obvious for some time that he is a troll.
But an enjoyable troll.
I disagree. His predecessor, "D", at least
had a sense of humour to moderate his extreme
right wing views which were sometimes comedic in
themselves but youngerthen seems fixated on the
fact that there is no such thing as objectivity
and that the opinions of the political posters
here are in an imagined reality based on a
flawed world view. He then proves by isolated
example his objectivity theory by subjectively
insulting the poster ignoring the subject
matter of the post. He contributes nothing to
discussion of written SF. I think he is becoming
annoying. I don't think he'll stay long.
And yet look who finds such alleged newsgroup
trash worth wasting their time commenting on!
LOL!
The author quoted apparently needed an ego boost,
and dimwittedly set out to do so by constructing
a straw person they consider lesser than themself
to - surprise, surprise - come out looking
positively in comparison with.
But is anyone with at least half a brain fooled?
No.
oldernow isn't concerned with what others think
about what randomly comes to his mind and flows
out through his fingers into Re-presentation
World, knowing those seeming others are
ultimately no more than what he thinks
they are, as is all else seemingly
appearing in the conceptuality
context generally referred to
as "mind".
Turns out life itself is speculative fiction,
a hallmark thereof being the be-ings therein
be-ing unaware of it for desperately clinging
to the notion of "their" to-themselves-precious
"self" *seemingly* therein, living for feeding
that miserable idea, which ongoing pursuit
guarantees they can't have so-called "nice
things", let alone a nice world.
Turns out nothing hastens that circling
of the drain better than pointing the
likes out to them. Oh my, the ensuing
hysteria! The need to label - if not
tar and feather - the messenger!
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 02:11:48 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (20,373K bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,322 |