On Sat, 02 Sep 2023 10:46:33 -0400, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>Yeah, that's what I recall too. She wasn't wrong in what she was
>saying and she didn't even say anything truly horrible. What was wrong
>was her inability to handle the attack that came after she used the
>term. See how Trump can say things much worse but he's able to brush
>it off and keep going. I think her husband would have also been able
>to brush off the attack with either humor or going on the attack and
>changing the story. Hillary Clinton, for whatever reason, was never
>able to do that.

Now that's an excellent point - Old Slick Willie might possibly have
brazened his way out. Hillary couldn't and I think that that's because
the whole 2016 campaign was about polarization - I certainly don't
remember either siding campaigning on "Let's bring America together"

Trump may well have dropped a similar bomb but didn't. I'd be
astonished if either Bush would have.

On 9/4/23 4:10 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 14:08:27 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> She'd used the phrase the day before as well.
>>
>> During a September 8, 2016, interview on Israel's Channel 2,
>> Clinton said: "You can take Trump supporters and put them in two
>> big baskets. There are what I would call the deplorables--you
>> know, the racists and the haters, and the people who are drawn
>> because they think somehow he's going to restore an America that
>> no longer exists."
>>
>> Note that the day before, she didn't accuse half of Trump supporters of
>> being deplorable for holding hateful or extremist views.
>
> Thereby demonstrating she had definitely "doubled down" on her
> original statement which while it was her right to say it was still (I
> argue) monumentally poor judgement since it both inflamed Trump attack
> ads and got a LOT of Trump supporters to the polls who otherwise would
> have stayed home.
>
> Which was what I said originally which was these statements got a lot
> of people out to vote that Hillary would have preferred stayed home.
>
> Amongst a lot of political types (at least the ones in my circle) all
> of which was said the day after she said it - NOT inflaming the
> opposition isn't even Campaigning 101 and most campaigners know it
> without needing to be taught.
>

Nope, again. Trumpers are a cult. You seriously think cultists won't
vote unless the other candidate riles them up?

Nope. Hillary was torpedoed by the FBI, first and foremost. By the
Russian hacks of her emails, secondly. The media obsession with the
nothingburger of her emails was the third nail in her coffin.

Her comment on depolorables was a gaffe, but was nowhere near what the
FBI did to her. Trump's statement were way worse than anything Hillary
ever said, by an order of magnitude.

Trump's hate cult wasn't (and won't) be dissuaded from voting for him
then, or now. So long as he's their club of choice to bludgeon people
with, they're good with him.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 09:16:27 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>>Well, that and taking rights away from women, gays, librarians, women,
>>trans people, migrants, women, legal voters, seniors, and women.

>>And, did I mention women?

>Just curious - what "rights" do you feel librarians have lost?
>Librarians generallly are expected to meet the expectations of their
>library boards often appointed by their municipalities or academic
>boards. This is not at all the case with most of the other groups you
>name.

Don't make me defend Fred Phelps.

Librarians have been attacked both publicly and privately (when their
contact information and sometimes home addresses are learned) by upset
people who object to certain books that often aren't even in the book
collection. The objectors are quite vitriolic and nasty.

No one has a privacy right against inappropriate angry speech, but it's
still an attack. They've been intimidated, on occassion, into resigning
their jobs. Censorship attemps can be quite nasty indeed.

>. . .

>As for voting irregularities I am under the view that most of these
>are from former Jim Crow states and I have alrways wondered why US
>federal elections are administered by the states.

It's a provision of federalism in the Constitution.

>To me that's positively perverse and leads to different standards
>depending where one lives.

Not exactly. Let's say during that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Amendments were unenthusiastically enforced during Jim Crow
counter-Reconstruction.

It was illegal but not enforced until certain federal court decisions
starting in the 1950s, and then under Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Under the federal constitution, women have the right to vote although
that was the legal standard in the West (trying to attract women to move
from the East) long before it was a national legal standard. Then in
reaction to the Viet Nam-era draft and anti-war protests, the national
voting age was lowered to 18 through constitutional amendment. I don't
know what states had a lower voting age already; my state didn't.

>. . .

In article <ud50uu$1hvsb$1@dont-email.me>, Adam H. Kerman
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> >On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 09:16:27 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>Well, that and taking rights away from women, gays, librarians, women,
> >>trans people, migrants, women, legal voters, seniors, and women.
>
> >>And, did I mention women?
>
> >Just curious - what "rights" do you feel librarians have lost?
> >Librarians generallly are expected to meet the expectations of their
> >library boards often appointed by their municipalities or academic
> >boards. This is not at all the case with most of the other groups you
> >name.
>
> Don't make me defend Fred Phelps.
>
> Librarians have been attacked both publicly and privately (when their
> contact information and sometimes home addresses are learned) by upset
> people who object to certain books that often aren't even in the book
> collection. The objectors are quite vitriolic and nasty.
>
> No one has a privacy right against inappropriate angry speech, but it's
> still an attack. They've been intimidated, on occassion, into resigning
> their jobs. Censorship attemps can be quite nasty indeed.
>
> >. . .
>
> >As for voting irregularities I am under the view that most of these
> >are from former Jim Crow states and I have alrways wondered why US
> >federal elections are administered by the states.
>
> It's a provision of federalism in the Constitution.
>
> >To me that's positively perverse and leads to different standards
> >depending where one lives.
>
> Not exactly. Let's say during that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth
> Amendments were unenthusiastically enforced during Jim Crow
> counter-Reconstruction.
>
> It was illegal but not enforced until certain federal court decisions
> starting in the 1950s, and then under Voting Rights Act of 1965.
>
> Under the federal constitution, women have the right to vote although
> that was the legal standard in the West (trying to attract women to move
> from the East) long before it was a national legal standard. Then in
> reaction to the Viet Nam-era draft and anti-war protests, the national
> voting age was lowered to 18 through constitutional amendment. I don't
> know what states had a lower voting age already; my state didn't.

IIRC Georgia had been at 18 since the 1940s. There was a rush of 18s
around 1970 that prompted the constitutional amendment, which passed
remarkably quickly and without controversy.

On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 16:34:39 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 09:16:27 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>Don't make me defend Fred Phelps.

Who me?
<rot 13>
Uryy jvyy serrmr bire svefg
</rot 13>

>Librarians have been attacked both publicly and privately (when their
>contact information and sometimes home addresses are learned) by upset
>people who object to certain books that often aren't even in the book
>collection. The objectors are quite vitriolic and nasty.
>
>No one has a privacy right against inappropriate angry speech, but it's
>still an attack. They've been intimidated, on occassion, into resigning
>their jobs. Censorship attemps can be quite nasty indeed.

Librarians have been attacked by would-be censors going back at least
as far back as my childhood which is a while back.

That said there is a wide push for pushing totally inappropriate
things like drag shows into the viewing of young children and teachers
and library staff SHOULD be supported when they say no by their
respective superiors. Drag by its whole being is an adult activity
that is fine with adults but not appropriate for children particularly
those under 10.

>>As for voting irregularities I am under the view that most of these
>>are from former Jim Crow states and I have alrways wondered why US
>>federal elections are administered by the states.
>
>It's a provision of federalism in the Constitution.

Hmmm. Will need to go back and re-read your Constitution then since
obviously that's a foreign concept of 'federalism' to me.

>>To me that's positively perverse and leads to different standards
>>depending where one lives.
>
>Not exactly. Let's say during that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth
>Amendments were unenthusiastically enforced during Jim Crow
>counter-Reconstruction.

I'm well aware that support for those two amendments was less than
shall we say fulsome during the Jim Crow era which I understand to
mean pretty much continuously in the Deep South from 1870 to 1960 if
not further and I am sympathetic to those who would say "...to the
present day" (Admittedly given I live on the west coast I have limited
experience of the Deep South but I've had multiple trips to Charlotte,
NC, Atlanta, GA and the east coast of Florida from Orlando/Cape
Canaveral to Miami and have discussed things with my wife's
Toronto-born cousin who lives in Atlanta.)

>It was illegal but not enforced until certain federal court decisions
>starting in the 1950s, and then under Voting Rights Act of 1965.
>
>Under the federal constitution, women have the right to vote although
>that was the legal standard in the West (trying to attract women to move
>from the East) long before it was a national legal standard. Then in
>reaction to the Viet Nam-era draft and anti-war protests, the national
>voting age was lowered to 18 through constitutional amendment. I don't
>know what states had a lower voting age already; my state didn't.

Can't help you on that one. I >DO< know Canada went from 21 to 18
before the US since that's what cost me my claim to US citizenship. I
could opt to become a US citizen on reaching the age of majority but
Canada dropped the age of majority from 21 to 18, I duly registered to
vote (and did) and when I reached age 21 (having been 'of age' in
Canada for 3 years already) they ruled that by having voted in both
Canadian federal and provincial elections before age 21 I had
effectively declared for Canada rather than the US and lost my right
to choose.

The Atlanta cousin mentioned above is in the same boat with 4 of his 5
children (his eldest was born in Toronto rather than Atlanta so was a
plain old Canadian). At that time dual citizenship was not allowed
though I've heard it now is. I've also been told that I myself could
qualify under the present rules but since I have not lived in the US
since my majority cannot pass it to my children which for me would be
the main benefit).

Wayne Gretzky (only the most famous living Canadian of them all) is in
exactly the same situation in reverse with his grandchildren since his
wife is American and all their children were born in the US and never
lived in Canada so their children have no claim to Canadian
citizenship despite bearing the most famous Canadian name of them all!

On Mon, 04 Sep 2023 13:05:04 -0400, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:

>IIRC Georgia had been at 18 since the 1940s. There was a rush of 18s
>around 1970 that prompted the constitutional amendment, which passed
>remarkably quickly and without controversy.

That makes sense then since I was born in 1955 and turned 18 in 1973.

My undergraduate degree was done at a well regarded Canadian school -
I had looked at California schools but found that at that time the
withdrawal from Vietnam was under way but the draft lottery still
existed and my birthdate that year had a VERY low draft # (e.g. making
me highly likely to be conscripted if my grades dropped significantly)
so had no problem making the decision for the school I ended up
graduating from.

(When I went to business school I chose a good Ontario school and the
family joke was that I got both an MBA and an MRS since I met my late
wife there)

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Mon, 4 Sep 2023 16:34:39 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

>. . .

>>>As for voting irregularities I am under the view that most of these
>>>are from former Jim Crow states and I have alrways wondered why US
>>>federal elections are administered by the states.

>>It's a provision of federalism in the Constitution.

>Hmmm. Will need to go back and re-read your Constitution then since
>obviously that's a foreign concept of 'federalism' to me.

Federalism is simply the legal framework in which the power of
government is divided between the national government and state
governments, and states may act independently of the national government
in a great many domestic matters. Other republics are not federal republics
in which states or provinces have only those powers granted by the
national government.

>. . .

On 9/4/2023 7:56 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 16:34:39 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 09:16:27 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Don't make me defend Fred Phelps.
>
> Who me?
> <rot 13>
> Uryy jvyy serrmr bire svefg
> </rot 13>
>
>> Librarians have been attacked both publicly and privately (when their
>> contact information and sometimes home addresses are learned) by upset
>> people who object to certain books that often aren't even in the book
>> collection. The objectors are quite vitriolic and nasty.
>>
>> No one has a privacy right against inappropriate angry speech, but it's
>> still an attack. They've been intimidated, on occassion, into resigning
>> their jobs. Censorship attemps can be quite nasty indeed.
>
> Librarians have been attacked by would-be censors going back at least
> as far back as my childhood which is a while back.
>
> That said there is a wide push for pushing totally inappropriate
> things like drag shows into the viewing of young children and teachers
> and library staff SHOULD be supported when they say no by their
> respective superiors. Drag by its whole being is an adult activity
> that is fine with adults but not appropriate for children particularly
> those under 10.

You've been listening to those who claim Drag *Shows* are being
performed for young children. They're not. Drag *performers* in story
book costumes are reading stories to them. They may be dressed as Old
Mother Hubbard, or Glinda the good witch. Not vamping it up as drag
queens are for adult audiences.

On 9/5/23 12:37 AM, suzeeq wrote:
> On 9/4/2023 7:56 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 16:34:39 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 09:16:27 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Don't make me defend Fred Phelps.
>>
>> Who me?
>> <rot 13>
>> Uryy jvyy serrmr bire svefg
>> </rot 13>
>>
>>> Librarians have been attacked both publicly and privately (when their
>>> contact information and sometimes home addresses are learned) by upset
>>> people who object to certain books that often aren't even in the book
>>> collection. The objectors are quite vitriolic and nasty.
>>>
>>> No one has a privacy right against inappropriate angry speech, but it's
>>> still an attack. They've been intimidated, on occassion, into resigning
>>> their jobs. Censorship attemps can be quite nasty indeed.
>>
>> Librarians have been attacked by would-be censors going back at least
>> as far back as my childhood which is a while back.
>>
>> That said there is a wide push for pushing totally inappropriate
>> things like drag shows into the viewing of young children and teachers
>> and library staff SHOULD be supported when they say no by their
>> respective superiors. Drag by its whole being is an adult activity
>> that is fine with adults but not appropriate for children particularly
>> those under 10.
>
> You've been listening to those who claim Drag *Shows* are being
> performed for young children. They're not. Drag *performers* in story
> book costumes are reading stories to them. They may be dressed as Old
> Mother Hubbard, or Glinda the good witch. Not vamping it up as drag
> queens are for adult audiences.

Meanwhile, nobody is launching any crusades against the so-called clergy
who keep getting arrested for child abuse.

> LOXLEY, Ala. (WALA) - A 48-year-old Loxley man was arrested Tuesday and charged with four counts of possession of child pornography, according to officials and jail records in Baldwin County. Allan Kyle Jones, whose LinkedIn profile lists his occupation as pastor at Lifeway Community Church in Loxley...

> Green Bay pastor charged with attempted child pornography for online communication with Venezuelan child.

> Hearing set for April for pastor charged with child porn
> A preliminary hearing has been set for April 17 for the Smethport, PA man facing more than 880 counts of child pornography.

> Florida youth pastor and 6th grade public school teacher arrested after allegedly using church Wi-Fi to download child porn.
> A 45-year-old youth pastor and elementary public school teacher in Florida has been arrested after he allegedly used his church’s Wi-Fi to download massive amounts of child sexual abuse images. Edward Wilds III was taken into custody on Friday and charged with one count each of possession of obscene material — child pornography and using a two-way communication device to facilitate a felony, records reviewed by Law&Crime show.

> This year, at least 10 Texas pastors, former pastors and youth ministers were arrested, charged or convicted for various allegations of sexual abuse of children.

But you don't see any hue and cry, like with Drag Queens (who wear funny
clothes).

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 03:12:57 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>Hmmm. Will need to go back and re-read your Constitution then since
>>obviously that's a foreign concept of 'federalism' to me.
>
>Federalism is simply the legal framework in which the power of
>government is divided between the national government and state
>governments, and states may act independently of the national government
>in a great many domestic matters. Other republics are not federal republics
>in which states or provinces have only those powers granted by the
>national government.
>
One of the most critical portions of any country's constitution is the
residual powers (e.g. powers not specifically assigned to federal or
state legislatures) clause detailing which level of government gets
the "residuals"

I'm not sure whether that's what you mean in the above comments or
not.

In Canada that term generally means (particularly when Liberal party
governments are in power federally) a strong push to grab every
obscure power imaginable then give federal grants to provinces in
areas of provincial jurisdiction in the name of "equalization" between
provinces since there's a wide spread between "haves" and "have-nots"
between the provinces but then there's nearly as wide a variance in
the size of the various provinces as between US states. (Nothing quite
like California and Wyoming but close - we have one province of 156000
while several municipalities mostly in ON, QC and BC bigger than that.
But the boundaries were set in colonial times, ratified in 1867 and
given a merger of provinces would require unanimous federal and
provincial consent that is no more going to happen than it would in
the US (where West Virginia split from Virginia but without the Civil
War that never would have happened which is one helluva way to create
a new state!)

On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 02:01:29 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>Meanwhile, nobody is launching any crusades against the so-called clergy
>who keep getting arrested for child abuse.

Given churches routinely make such people walk the plank in near
record tme why would that be surprising? An even bigger problem is
with deonominations that are mostly decentralized where ministers of
large congregations can amass great fortunes which isn't exactly what
Christianity's founder taught.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Tue, 5 Sep 2023 03:12:57 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>>Hmmm. Will need to go back and re-read your Constitution then since
>>>obviously that's a foreign concept of 'federalism' to me.

>>Federalism is simply the legal framework in which the power of
>>government is divided between the national government and state
>>governments, and states may act independently of the national government
>>in a great many domestic matters. Other republics are not federal republics
>>in which states or provinces have only those powers granted by the
>>national government.

>One of the most critical portions of any country's constitution is the
>residual powers (e.g. powers not specifically assigned to federal or
>state legislatures) clause detailing which level of government gets
>the "residuals"

>I'm not sure whether that's what you mean in the above comments or
>not.

C'mon. The main body of the Constitution set up the federal system of
government of the United States. There was no choice but to have a
federal system as the 13 colonies that united were independent of each
other and still greatly independent under the Articles of Confederation.
In the new Constition, they ceded power to the central government but
still retained power of their own.

The 10th amendment dealt with residual powers. Nevertheless, the federal
system ALREADY existed even though residual powers hadn't been dealt
with in the main body of the Constitution.

>. . .

On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 07:02:23 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>Trump's hate cult wasn't (and won't) be dissuaded from voting for him
>then, or now. So long as he's their club of choice to bludgeon people
>with, they're good with him.

You DO understand I'm talking about the difference between those who
will lean his way when asked by a pollster vs those who will actually
get to the polling station and make their "X" right?

Because at the end of the day the latter are the only ones that count.

On 9/5/23 3:26 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 07:02:23 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Trump's hate cult wasn't (and won't) be dissuaded from voting for him
>> then, or now. So long as he's their club of choice to bludgeon people
>> with, they're good with him.
>
> You DO understand I'm talking about the difference between those who
> will lean his way when asked by a pollster vs those who will actually
> get to the polling station and make their "X" right?
>
> Because at the end of the day the latter are the only ones that count.
>

You would think. But the polls have been dead wrong more than they're
right since 2015. And some are blatantly skewed.

I fondly remember "The Red Wave" of 2022.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 9/5/23 2:55 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 02:01:29 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Meanwhile, nobody is launching any crusades against the so-called clergy
>> who keep getting arrested for child abuse.
>
> Given churches routinely make such people walk the plank in near
> record tme why would that be surprising? An even bigger problem is
> with deonominations that are mostly decentralized where ministers of
> large congregations can amass great fortunes which isn't exactly what
> Christianity's founder taught.
>

Jesus wouldn't be accepted in those churches.

Just like Ronald Reagan couldn't get elected to Dog Catcher in today's
Republican party.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 19:21:20 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>C'mon. The main body of the Constitution set up the federal system of
>government of the United States. There was no choice but to have a
>federal system as the 13 colonies that united were independent of each
>other and still greatly independent under the Articles of Confederation.
>In the new Constition, they ceded power to the central government but
>still retained power of their own.
>
>The 10th amendment dealt with residual powers. Nevertheless, the federal
>system ALREADY existed even though residual powers hadn't been dealt
>with in the main body of the Constitution.
>
Whereas in Canada all the original provinces were seperate British
Colonies with the exception of the former Hudsons Bay Company lands
(basically northern Ontario and the prarie provinces east of the
Rockies. I'm deliberately being cagey as there is a section of NE
British Columbia which never was HBC land and entered Canada as part
of British Columbia) The HBC purchase was 1870, BC joined 1871, PEI
1871, Newfoundland 1949. The point being that all who joined were
previously under some sort of British jurisdiction or another vs the
United States which was made up of British Colonies, French
unorganized territory (greater Louisiana), Spain (Florida) and Mexico
(California east to Texas) as well as some completely unorganized
lands in dispute between the US and Britain (WA/OR) as well as AK
(Russia) and Hawaii (depending on your point of view either
independent or old European style imperialism practiced by the United
States that the US says they never do but did)

Plus the US Virgin Islands which were purchased from Denmark but
obviously not a state. I've probably missed some territories but am
certain that describes all the states.

In short the growth of the United States was constitutionally more
complicated than Canada's was. And of course further complicated by
"on what specific terms will we allow the former Confederate states -
aka US states in rebellion - to again take up the rights + duties of
states that stayed loyal?

All of this is good reason why Washington has to be more centralized
than Ottawa dangling chads notwithstanding. <evil grin>

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Tue, 5 Sep 2023 19:21:20 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>C'mon. The main body of the Constitution set up the federal system of
>>government of the United States. There was no choice but to have a
>>federal system as the 13 colonies that united were independent of each
>>other and still greatly independent under the Articles of Confederation.
>>In the new Constition, they ceded power to the central government but
>>still retained power of their own.

>>The 10th amendment dealt with residual powers. Nevertheless, the federal
>>system ALREADY existed even though residual powers hadn't been dealt
>>with in the main body of the Constitution.

>Whereas in Canada all the original provinces were seperate British
>Colonies with the exception of the former Hudsons Bay Company lands
>(basically northern Ontario and the prarie provinces east of the
>Rockies. I'm deliberately being cagey as there is a section of NE
>British Columbia which never was HBC land and entered Canada as part
>of British Columbia) The HBC purchase was 1870, BC joined 1871, PEI
>1871, Newfoundland 1949. The point being that all who joined were
>previously under some sort of British jurisdiction or another vs the
>United States which was made up of British Colonies, French
>unorganized territory (greater Louisiana), Spain (Florida) and Mexico
>(California east to Texas) as well as some completely unorganized
>lands in dispute between the US and Britain (WA/OR) as well as AK
>(Russia) and Hawaii (depending on your point of view either
>independent or old European style imperialism practiced by the United
>States that the US says they never do but did)

>Plus the US Virgin Islands which were purchased from Denmark but
>obviously not a state. I've probably missed some territories but am
>certain that describes all the states.

>In short the growth of the United States was constitutionally more
>complicated than Canada's was. And of course further complicated by
>"on what specific terms will we allow the former Confederate states -
>aka US states in rebellion - to again take up the rights + duties of
>states that stayed loyal?

>All of this is good reason why Washington has to be more centralized
>than Ottawa dangling chads notwithstanding. <evil grin>

Nevertheless, it's the way it is because of the Constitution. The
Elections Clause is Article I Section 4.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators
and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the
Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law
make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of
chusing Senators.

On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 18:13:17 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Because at the end of the day the latter are the only ones that count.
>>
>
>You would think. But the polls have been dead wrong more than they're
>right since 2015. And some are blatantly skewed.
>
>I fondly remember "The Red Wave" of 2022.

Yup - sometimes people lie to pollsters, sometimes the poll is skewed
by its data collection methods (for instance during the Depression
when one company predicted FDR's defeat by a phone poll not realizing
people with phones were a wealthy minority in that era) or just plain
sloppy data collection where a skewed sample is taken.

You can even skew an election by having the same voting times on the
east coast and west coast with a 3 hour difference between coasts and
people hearing advanced polls from the east coast - thereby inducing
party workers to pound their phone panels in support of their favorite
candidate. (This method was shown to have influenced at least a west
coast few districts in the 1984 Canadian federal election)

In short - polling systems are made by human beings and pretty much
anything a human being has made can be diddled with.

On 9/5/23 11:26 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 18:13:17 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Because at the end of the day the latter are the only ones that count.
>>>
>>
>> You would think. But the polls have been dead wrong more than they're
>> right since 2015. And some are blatantly skewed.
>>
>> I fondly remember "The Red Wave" of 2022.
>
> Yup - sometimes people lie to pollsters, sometimes the poll is skewed
> by its data collection methods (for instance during the Depression
> when one company predicted FDR's defeat by a phone poll not realizing
> people with phones were a wealthy minority in that era) or just plain
> sloppy data collection where a skewed sample is taken.
>
> You can even skew an election by having the same voting times on the
> east coast and west coast with a 3 hour difference between coasts and
> people hearing advanced polls from the east coast - thereby inducing
> party workers to pound their phone panels in support of their favorite
> candidate. (This method was shown to have influenced at least a west
> coast few districts in the 1984 Canadian federal election)
>
> In short - polling systems are made by human beings and pretty much
> anything a human being has made can be diddled with.
>

So how many times do YOU have to touch a hot stove before you stop
touching it? Because 8 years later, people still can't wait to stick
their hand on that burner again.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 03:08:21 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>Nevertheless, it's the way it is because of the Constitution. The
>Elections Clause is Article I Section 4.
>
> The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators
> and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the
> Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law
> make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of
> chusing Senators.

Do I correctly understand that 'the Congress' means the US Congress as
opposed to the various state legislatures?

Because that would seem to indicate a federal veto on the manner of
state organized elections which seems odd. It would also seem to
indicate states could theoretically elect ALL their Representatives
with some other method than first past the vote in designated
electoral districts.

(For instance I don't know if Canada still does but several provinces
in their provincial legislators used to have multi-member districts
where one could vote for as many candidates as the district had -
usually 2 - and the top 2 were declared elected. The father of one my
grade 6 and 7 buddies was a provincial legislator elected that way. He
served 2 terms and left office around the time my friend and I
finished high school. Most of these seats were in large urban
districts )

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Wed, 6 Sep 2023 03:08:21 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>Nevertheless, it's the way it is because of the Constitution. The
>>Elections Clause is Article I Section 4.

>> The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators
>> and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the
>> Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law
>> make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of
>> chusing Senators.

>Do I correctly understand that 'the Congress' means the US Congress as
>opposed to the various state legislatures?

Yes, the United States Congress

>Because that would seem to indicate a federal veto on the manner of
>state organized elections which seems odd.

It's not a veto, obviously; that's just the governor. If Congress were
to pass an election law, it would be federal supremacy. For instance,
the general election in even-numbered years falls on a date set in
federal law. But voters are registered to vote under state law (in
compliance with the federal constitution, federal court decisions, and
the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965).

>It would also seem to indicate states could theoretically elect ALL
>their Representatives with some other method than first past the vote
>in designated electoral districts.

Multimember districts are very difficult to do given the federal Voting
Rights Act.

>. . .

lcraver@home.ca wrote:

>>Well, that and taking rights away from women, gays, librarians, women,
>>trans people, migrants, women, legal voters, seniors, and women.
>>
>>And, did I mention women?
>
>Just curious - what "rights" do you feel librarians have lost?

Regardless of how he feels or what he believes, there are none that have been
lost. What is it about Leftists always making this claim while trying to take
away the rights of others?

--
Let's go Brandon!

On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 22:58:48 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>It would also seem to indicate states could theoretically elect ALL
>>their Representatives with some other method than first past the vote
>>in designated electoral districts.
>
>Multimember districts are very difficult to do given the federal Voting
>Rights Act.

Interesting - they're largely an artifact of the past in Canada as
well.

So if a representative or senator dies in office is there generally a
by-election (in Canada this is arranged by the federal prime minister
or provincial premier though a by-election is not held if it's within
a certain number of months - which I can't recall - from the general
election date) or is the post filled by appointment? And if the latter
how does the answer change between the federal and state level?

Of course the biggest single US-Canada legal difference on elections
is that all US elections are held every 2 or 4 (or 6 for US senators)
on the statutory election date whereas in Canada there are separate
elections for federal, provincial or municipal governments (each
province has their own election day for all municipalities in that
province)

In both countries there is a federal commission for re-aligning
electoral boundaries every 10 years following the national census. For
me I'm angry since anything after April 2024 will be run on the new
boundaries which in my case moves me from a district 100% in my own
city to a district roughly 50% of a municipality on the other side of
the harbor (but close geographically) with the new district boundary
being roughly 3 blocks west of my home.

On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 04:30:48 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:

>lcraver@home.ca wrote:
>
>>>Well, that and taking rights away from women, gays, librarians, women,
>>>trans people, migrants, women, legal voters, seniors, and women.
>>>
>>>And, did I mention women?
>>
>>Just curious - what "rights" do you feel librarians have lost?
>
>Regardless of how he feels or what he believes, there are none that have been
>lost. What is it about Leftists always making this claim while trying to take
>away the rights of others?

I don't believe librarians have any special rights above any other
citizen concerning the contents of the library they work in. Our local
library regularly has me annoyed when I pass the 'new books' section
in our local library since that section has a special "DEI"
sub-section which in Canada usually emphasizes aboriginal peoples
issues rather than blacks (as is commonly the case in the US. For what
it's worth aboriginals are about 3-5% varying widely by province
compared to 12-13% for blacks also varying widely by state)

In article <a8alfi1dgtuifgv857br0k8279d0v1drif@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
<lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> So if a representative or senator dies in office is there generally a
> by-election (in Canada this is arranged by the federal prime minister
> or provincial premier though a by-election is not held if it's within
> a certain number of months - which I can't recall - from the general
> election date) or is the post filled by appointment? And if the latter
> how does the answer change between the federal and state level?

The state governor appoints a replacement U.S. senator. That happened
in New York when Democrat Bobby Kennedy was murdered in 1968, but the
Republican governor, Nelson Rockefeller, appointed a Republican to
replace him. This was to be expected, of course, but it was still seen
by many as a dick move. The next election wasn't until 1970, and the
appointed guy lost in a three-way to a third-party candidate, who
himself turned out to be a one-term wonder.