On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 9:18:53 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 05/05/22 00:09, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 9:16:19 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >> On 04/05/22 01:19, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> >>> The Founders saw how badly the parliamentary system was doing in
> >>> Britain in their day, so they came up with something far better
> >>> -- three separate branches, with "checks and balances." Their
> >>> judgment was only confirmed by the dismal performances of
> >>> parliamentary systems in the 20th and 21st centuries.
> >> I presume that the original concept included the idea that the
> >> judiciary would be independent of the two political branches. There
> >> must have been a time, then, when politicians were unable to
> >> influence appointments to the highest court in the land. When did
> >> that go wrong?
> > With the nomination of Robert Bork.
> > That fiasco paved the way for Antonin Scalia's unanimous (or nearly
> > so) confirmation.

But the real perversion of the system came with the ascent of Mitch
McConnell, who refused to consider many of Obama's judicial
appointments, climaxing with the denial of due process to Merrick
Garland, who should have had Scalia's seat; and then rammed through
all of T****'s, no matter how unqualified (such as the one who said
the Centers for Disease Control can no longer control diseases). Now
that he's achieved the goal they've been campaigning on for about 40
years (starting with Reagan -- abortion was not controversial in 1973),
where is any support going to come from? Alito may well have caused
the cementing of Democratic control of both Houses for years to come.

> What you need is a constitutional amendment that makes it illegal for a
> president to nominate a judge candidate, and also makes it illegal for
> senators to attend the confirmation hearings. Only then will you ensure
> a separation of powers.

Where would the checking and balancing come from?

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 8:08:31 AM UTC-4, CDB wrote:
> On 5/5/2022 1:07 AM, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > : Quinn C:
>
> >> But to answer your question, they remain MPs when they become
> >> ministers.
>
> >> This is also allowed in Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Italy,
> >> Lithuania, Poland, and Romania. In Austria, it's legal, but they
> >> resign as MPs by convention.
>
> >> The dual function is forbidden in Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia,
> >> France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden.
>
> > Not really forbidden in NL, because during a formation (goverment
> > forming), when the cabinet is demissionary as we call it (sent away,
> > but still handling what must be handled), they do have the dual
> > function. It lead to strange situation, like people voting about
> > their own fate.
>
> >> In Ireland, ministers are required to be MPs.
>
> > Strange, very strange.
> The idea is that they should be able to answer questions in the House.

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 8:08:31 AM UTC-4, CDB wrote:
> On 5/5/2022 1:07 AM, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > : Quinn C:

> >> In Ireland, ministers are required to be MPs.
> > Strange, very strange.
>
> The idea is that they should be able to answer questions in the House.

? If a Senator or Representative is made a Cabinet Secretary, they
cease being a Senator or Representative. They regularly testify
before congressional committees when called. Subpoenas are
not normally involved.

On Thu, 5 May 2022 08:50:09 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 8:53:06 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 05/05/22 00:09, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 9:00:34 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> >> On 04/05/22 01:29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> >>> Who administers an election? How do they know who is qualified
>> >>> to vote and who isn't? How many candidates are allowed in any
>> >>> one contest? Who decides that the Tinfoil Hats Against Aliens
>> >>> Party probably shouldn't be on the ballot?
>> >> Answering that last part for Australia: nobody prevents the Tinfoil
>> >> Hats party from running. If they can't get enough votes they will
>> >> lost their deposit, but blocking any party from running would be
>> >> seen as anti-democratic.
>> > But how do they get on the ballot? Do they just need to say "I want
>> > to be on the ballot"?
>>
>> They have to have the signatures of 100 supporters who are eligible to
>> vote, and they have to be able to prove that they are qualified in terms
>> of citizenship, etc. They also have to provide a $2000 deposit. The
>> deposit is returned if they get at least 4% of first preference votes.
>
>"100" for whichever office it is? That's a very small number. "$2000"
>looks like a lot.
>
>> That's for a candidate for the House of Representatives who is not a
>> nominee of a registered political party. Parties nominate a collection
>> of candidates in bulk, but I have not looked up those details. Nor have
>> I looked up the Senate rules.
>
>How big is a House district? Ours come very close to being exactly
>1/435 of the total population as counted in the last Census, except
>it's messed up by the small states getting 1 Rep regardless of size;
>but within a state, all the districts have to be exactly the same size.

"Size" is an ambiguous term to describe election districts.

The "size" in use is the size of the population. By using only
population size, districts can be drawn in shapes that favor the party
in control of the redistricting maps.

Someone not not aware that the "size" is based on population might
look at this map:

https://printablemapjadi.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/congressional-districts-drawnvoting-rights-groups-go-to-florida-florida-congressional-district-map-1024x791.png

and wonder how the purple district at the top of the state is the same
exact size of the orange district immediately below it.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 12:07:41 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 5 May 2022 08:50:09 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >How big is a House district? Ours come very close to being exactly
> >1/435 of the total population as counted in the last Census, except
> >it's messed up by the small states getting 1 Rep regardless of size;
> >but within a state, all the districts have to be exactly the same size.
>
> "Size" is an ambiguous term to describe election districts.

Not if you have been paying attention.

> The "size" in use is the size of the population. By using only
> population size, districts can be drawn in shapes that favor the party
> in control of the redistricting maps.
>
> Someone not not aware that the "size" is based on population might
> look at this map:
>
> https://printablemapjadi.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/congressional-districts-drawnvoting-rights-groups-go-to-florida-florida-congressional-district-map-1024x791.png
>
> and wonder how the purple district at the top of the state is the same
> exact size of the orange district immediately below it.

Only if "someone" was too stupid to have consulted the paragraph
at the top of this message.

Go back to trying to start fights with Lewis and lar3. I'm not going to
play with you any more.

On Thu, 5 May 2022 12:54:49 +0100
musika <mUs1Ka@NOSPAMexcite.com> wrote:

> On 05/05/2022 11:32, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > On 05/05/22 20:06, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> >> On Thu, 5 May 2022 18:08:41 +1000
> >> Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>> The answer lies in the soil.
> >>>
> >> Compost Corner? (hack ptui)
> >>
(much later, but a still hummage to old gardening stalwarts)
> >
> > I don't recognise either of those. I was thinking of a gardening program
> > on radio, many years ago, and the pronouncements of the slow-talking
> > presenter.
> >
> > Or just possibly I was remembering "Beyond Our Ken" (1958-64).
> >
> Kenny Williams as Arthur Fallowfield - that's where I remember it from.
>
Roight you are again!

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

C.D. Bellemare:
> Mark forgot to mark this one "C.D. Bellemare:"

No, it was the continuation of an earlier quoted passage from the
same posting.
--
Mark Brader | "(And of course I usually forget how much time it can take
Toronto | to try to save time...)
msb@vex.net | --Steve Summit

Mark Brader <msb@vex.net> wrote:
Yes, that's how not to do it.
You could make it a lot less objectionable
by getting the quote depth right.
If you would do that it would be possible in future reactions
to see who wrote what.
Added between [ ] to show how it can be done.

Why this insistence on making a mess of it?

Jan

> [>>] C.D. Bellemare:
> >>> In English, the Conservatives are the CPC federally, the PCP
> >>> ("Progressive") in many provinces, and the UCP ("United") in
> >>> Alberta.
>
> [>] Mark Brader:
> >> In my Canada, I have never encountered "PCP" as a political
> >> abbreviation. The provincial Progressive Conservative Parties are
> >> just "the Conservatives" or "the PCs", while the federal one (no
> >> longer "Progressive") is just "the Conservatives", unless the full
> >> names need to be spelled out.
>
> C.D. Bellemare:
> > Yes, the "P" standing for "Party" is often left off...
>
> I claim that it's not there in the first place, as that abbreviation
> does not exist.
>
> > but the different
> > names still distinguish one level from another. I think the context,
> > now snipped, was the confusion of federal with provincial parties.
>
> Obviously they can be distinguished if necessary.

* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 8:08:31 AM UTC-4, CDB wrote:
>> On 5/5/2022 1:07 AM, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>> : Quinn C:
>
>>>> In Ireland, ministers are required to be MPs.
>>> Strange, very strange.
>>
>> The idea is that they should be able to answer questions in the House.
>
> ? If a Senator or Representative is made a Cabinet Secretary, they
> cease being a Senator or Representative. They regularly testify
> before congressional committees when called. Subpoenas are
> not normally involved.

In Germany, the government holds a question time in parliament every
week, and there's other channels to raise questions too big for that
forum.

"The problem isn't that there are no mechanisms to ask questions, but
that there are so many ways to avoid real answers", I quickly found in
an online article.

--
Bring home one dismembered body part, once, mind you, once,
and people get twitchy about checking your luggage ever after.
-- Vicereine Cordelia
in L. McMaster Bujold, Gentleman Jole and the Red Queen

* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 5:22:00 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>>> On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 8:24:11 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>>>> * Ruud Harmsen:
>>>>> Tue, 3 May 2022 10:32:05 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>
>>>>>>They were also very fond of Locke. Mattea would know.
>>>>> Incomprehensible, irrelevant and uncalled for reaction. Who is Locke?
>>>>> Who is Mattea?
>>>> If you don't even know who Locke is (or Berkeley or Hobbes), you won't
>>>> win in Jeopardy against Mattea Roach, who's currently on a winning
>>>> streak, one of the biggest in history, again (there were two of those
>>>> quite recently).
>>> Last night Ken all but apologized for the "gimme" Final Question,
>>> using the excuse that the questions were written months ago and
>>> used randomly. Would that have prevented them from removing
>>> one that consisted of nothing but recognizing the second line of
>>> "O Canada"?
>>
>> Any intervention that takes the candidates into account introduces
>> subjectivity and thus unfairness.
>
> There have been an awful lot of questions in the last few weeks
> pertaining specifically to Canada. Someone's thumb seems to be
> on the scale. They seem to believe that long streaks are good for
> ratings, but in fact they're boring.

I'd like to see statistics on that. I suspect you only notice because
there's a Canadian candidate who's winning.

> It was shocking last night that no one knew (NASA shmASA) that
> Apollo's twin sister is Artemis, or who Peter Stuyvesant was (never
> mind the portrait, "handed NY over to the Brits" was enough).

But Mattea knew Thomas Dewey and Antietam. Both of those are too deep
into Americana for me - before my lifetime and not of international
consequence. Maybe Stuyvesant isn't as well-known outside of New York as
you think. Didn't we talk about this (possibly on occasion of discussing
the cigarette brand, which is where I know the name from as well)?

I've read the name "Antietam" before, but didn't know the pronunciation,
so couldn't identify it as a rhyme of "beat 'em" (I gave it four
syllables in my mind).

--
- There's someone here wanting to audition. - OK, Who is he?
- Well, it's not exactly a he. - OK, Who is she?
- Well, it's not exactly a she. ... it's sort of a they.
- You mean there's more than one? - Not really.
- Good grief, it's a triple-header.
-> <https://muppet.fandom.com/wiki/Tom,_Dick,_and_Harry>

On 06/05/22 01:50, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 8:53:06 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 05/05/22 00:09, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>>> But how do they get on the ballot? Do they just need to say "I
>>> want to be on the ballot"?
>>
>> They have to have the signatures of 100 supporters who are
>> eligible to vote, and they have to be able to prove that they are
>> qualified in terms of citizenship, etc. They also have to provide a
>> $2000 deposit. The deposit is returned if they get at least 4% of
>> first preference votes.
>
> "100" for whichever office it is? That's a very small number. "$2000"
> looks like a lot.

The 100 is an arbitrary decision. It's the $2000 that (at least partly)
stops the cranks from running.

> How big is a House district? Ours come very close to being exactly
> 1/435 of the total population as counted in the last Census, except
> it's messed up by the small states getting 1 Rep regardless of size;
> but within a state, all the districts have to be exactly the same
> size.

It's the same here. All electorates have to be equal in population, as
much as practicable. I don't have the numbers to hand at the moment. The
redistributions are done by a non-partisan body, so gerrymandering is
not a problem.

(At least at the federal level. Gerrymandering used to be a problem in
Queensland, but that affected only state elections.)

>> Our present government has made itself unpopular, and the main
>> opposition party has drifted to the right, so there will almost
>> certainly be increased votes for independents and the minor
>> parties.
>
> Here's hoping!

It's not all good. The main beneficiaries are likely to be the United
Australia Party and One Nation, both of which are extreme right,
anti-vax, and racist. The UAP is gaining support because it is promising
low-interest mortgages (while knowing that there is no way it could
finance that).

On the other hand, some climate change deniers in the government run the
risk of being edged out.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On 05-May-22 23:04, Quinn C wrote:

> I've read the name "Antietam" before, but didn't know the pronunciation,
> so couldn't identify it as a rhyme of "beat 'em" (I gave it four
> syllables in my mind).

+1

--
Sam Plusnet

On 06-May-22 1:49, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 06/05/22 01:50, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 8:53:06 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> On 05/05/22 00:09, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>>>> But how do they get on the ballot? Do they just need to say "I
>>>> want to be on the ballot"?
>>>
>>> They have to have the signatures of 100 supporters who are
>>> eligible to vote, and they have to be able to prove that they are
>>> qualified in terms of citizenship, etc. They also have to provide a
>>> $2000 deposit. The deposit is returned if they get at least 4% of
>>> first preference votes.
>>
>> "100" for whichever office it is? That's a very small number. "$2000"
>> looks like a lot.
>
> The 100 is an arbitrary decision. It's the $2000 that (at least partly)
> stops the cranks from running.

The size of the deposit, from the point of view of the established
parties, must be a bit of a balancing act.
On the one hand they wish to cut down on cranks.
However if you are a large party, contesting every seat in a general
election, that will tie up a substantial amount of money at exactly the
time when you need it most.

The deposit in the UK was raised to £500 in 1985, but they would now
need to raise that to £1500 in order to restore the original value.
Perhaps they should have pegged it to the retail price index - or
something similar.

--
Sam Plusnet

On Fri, 6 May 2022 02:17:02 +0100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

>On 05-May-22 23:04, Quinn C wrote:
>
>> I've read the name "Antietam" before, but didn't know the pronunciation,
>> so couldn't identify it as a rhyme of "beat 'em" (I gave it four
>> syllables in my mind).
>
>+1

It does rhyme with "beat 'em", but is pronounced an-teet-um.

I'd defer to John Varela if he was still posting, as John did live in
Virginia.
--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

Thu, 5 May 2022 08:08:25 -0400: CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> scribeva:

>On 5/5/2022 1:07 AM, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> : Quinn C:
>
>>> But to answer your question, they remain MPs when they become
>>> ministers.
>
>>> This is also allowed in Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Italy,
>>> Lithuania, Poland, and Romania. In Austria, it's legal, but they
>>> resign as MPs by convention.
>
>>> The dual function is forbidden in Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia,
>>> France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden.
>
>> Not really forbidden in NL, because during a formation (goverment
>> forming), when the cabinet is demissionary as we call it (sent away,
>> but still handling what must be handled), they do have the dual
>> function. It lead to strange situation, like people voting about
>> their own fate.
>
>>> In Ireland, ministers are required to be MPs.
>
>> Strange, very strange.
>
>The idea is that they should be able to answer questions in the House.

That is one of the basic function of the Dutch Second chamber of
Parliament too. But there is no need for government members to also be
members of Parliament in order to answer questions. They are summoned
to come to the house and answer the questions there. There is even a
special desk in Parliament where they can sit.

Many questions are also posed and answered in writing.

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Thu, 5 May 2022 18:04:50 -0400: Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> scribeva:

>* Peter T. Daniels:
>
>> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 8:08:31 AM UTC-4, CDB wrote:
>>> On 5/5/2022 1:07 AM, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>> : Quinn C:
>>
>>>>> In Ireland, ministers are required to be MPs.
>>>> Strange, very strange.
>>>
>>> The idea is that they should be able to answer questions in the House.
>>
>> ? If a Senator or Representative is made a Cabinet Secretary, they
>> cease being a Senator or Representative. They regularly testify
>> before congressional committees when called. Subpoenas are
>> not normally involved.
>
>In Germany, the government holds a question time in parliament every
>week, and there's other channels to raise questions too big for that
>forum.

Yes, in NL too, "het wekelijks vragenuurtje", die wöchentliche
Fragenstunde, the weekly question hour.

>"The problem isn't that there are no mechanisms to ask questions, but
>that there are so many ways to avoid real answers", I quickly found in
>an online article.

Right, that too, unfortunately.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

* Tony Cooper <den77hd1ijg9p42bso6md81555teg2jv9t @4ax.com> :
Wrote on Thu, 05 May 2022 10:35:23 -0400:
> On Thu, 05 May 2022 14:49:42 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061 @ducksburg.com>
> wrote:
>>On 2022-05-05, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 May 2022 11:19:47 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061 @ducksburg.com>
>>>>But if someone says "I'm going to complain to my congressmen [or
>>>>congresswoman]" by default that refers to a member of the House of
>>>>Representatives, doesn't it?
>>>
>>> It wouldn't have that default to me.
>>> This page provides guidance:
>>> https://classroom.synonym.com/file-letter-complaint-congressman-11940.html

That page severely needs to be audited for gender-language compliance.
It implies Senators are male and House is female.

"Use the proper form of address. Letters to senators are
addressed to "Senator John Doe," while letters to House
members are addressed to "The Honorable (or Representative)
Jane Doe."

>>OK, fair point.
> By the way...I took your question to be an "in general" question. If
> that "someone" was me, "my congressperson" is Representative Stephanie
> Murphy. That's a personal answer, because I think that Murphy would
> actually be responsive. Neither of the two Senators from Florida -
> Scott or Rubio - would be responsive. If that "someone" was a Miami
> resident, Rubio might be their congressman.

wiki "Member of Congress" has already been severely audited.

This is because in the United States the word Congress is used
as a descriptive term for the collective body of legislators,
from both houses of its bicameral federal legislature: the
Senate and the House of Representatives. For this reason, and in
order to distinguish who is a member of which house, a member of
the Senate is typically referred to as Senator (followed by
"name" from "state"), and a member of the House of
Representatives is usually referred to as Congressman or
Congresswoman (followed by "name" from the "number" district of
"state"), or Representative ("name" from the "number" district
of "state"). Although Senators are members of Congress, they are
not normally referred to or addressed as "Congressmen" or
"Congresswomen" or "Congresspeople".

A simpler version read: "Wheras member of congress applies to members of
both houses, the terms /Congressman/ or /Congresswoman/ mostly used to
refer to Representatives and not to Senators"

On 06/05/2022 7:16 am, Madhu wrote:
>
> * Tony Cooper <den77hd1ijg9p42bso6md81555teg2jv9t @4ax.com> :
> Wrote on Thu, 05 May 2022 10:35:23 -0400:
>> On Thu, 05 May 2022 14:49:42 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061 @ducksburg.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-05, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 05 May 2022 11:19:47 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061 @ducksburg.com>
>>>>> But if someone says "I'm going to complain to my congressmen [or
>>>>> congresswoman]" by default that refers to a member of the House of
>>>>> Representatives, doesn't it?
>>>>
>>>> It wouldn't have that default to me.
>>>> This page provides guidance:
>>>> https://classroom.synonym.com/file-letter-complaint-congressman-11940.html
>
>
> That page severely needs to be audited for gender-language compliance.

No, it doesn't.

> It implies Senators are male and House is female.

No, it doesn't.

> "Use the proper form of address. Letters to senators are
> addressed to "Senator John Doe," while letters to House
> members are addressed to "The Honorable (or Representative)
> Jane Doe."

The only people who would draw your idiotic conclusion from that
passage are (a) idiots and (b) people looking for a fight. Which
are you?

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 7:12:00 AM UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Wed, 04 May 2022 14:04:07 -0500: m...@vex.net (Mark Brader)
>
> Ah, there you are.

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitespace_(programmeertaal)

On Thu, 5 May 2022 09:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 12:07:41 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
[]
> Go back to trying to start fights with Lewis and lar3. I'm not going to
> play with you any more.

Yeay!

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On 5/5/2022 10:42 AM, Adam Funk wrote:
> CDB wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>> Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>>>> CDB wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Registering as a "party-supporter" in the US allows you
>>>>>>> to vote in the primaries that determine who that party's
>>>>>>> candidate will be; it does not commit you to vote for
>>>>>>> the candidate. Tony has long been a registered
>>>>>>> Republican, but has said here that he has not voted for
>>>>>>> their candidate for a long time.
>>>>>> I understand that is how it is done, but I still find it
>>>>>> odd that a 'government' should have reason to keep a
>>>>>> register of party affiliation.
>>>>> It's "the government" -- usually a county Board of Elections
>>>>> -- that administers elections (subject to the supervision
>>>>> of, usually, the state's Secretary of State). How could they
>>>>> do that if they didn't know who was qualified to receive
>>>>> which party's ballot during the voting in the primary?

>>>> Which raises the question: Did Trump become president because
>>>> a bunch of Democrats registered as Republicans in an attempt
>>>> to sabotage the Republican Party by voting for the candidate
>>>> they thought couldn't possibly win?
>>
>>> That would have required planning many months ahead to change
>>> party registration, in many states. Consult the polls in the
>>> early- primary states.

>>>> In the American system, there's no good reason for the
>>>> President to be affiliated with a party in the first place. In
>>>> the German system, you elect a party to govern, not a person,
>>>> so the head of government should be very much aligned with the
>>>> party and its platform, or it's confusing.

>>> The Founders saw how badly the parliamentary system was doing in
>>> Britain in their day, so they came up with something far better
>>> -- three separate branches, with "checks and balances."

>> The modern parliamentary system could still be improved, but it
>> works well enough. The system your founders recoiled from is long
>> gone.

>> It seems to me that any reasonable system of democratic government
>> will work well if its electorate is engaged and competent
>> (rational, public-spirited, and well-informed). That seems to be
>> less the case now, in all or most of our countries, than it was
>> fifty years ago.

> IMO:

> Principled politicians are at a disadvantage because they don't like
> to lie. Unprincipled ones will say anything people want to hear.

> And big business has far too much influence.

Yes; the people those businesspersons and politicians influence will
believe anything that flatters them or appeals to their greed or
laziness. They don't qualify as competent.

>>> Their judgment was only confirmed by the dismal performances of
>>> parliamentary systems in the 20th and 21st centuries.

>> You seem to have trumped their performance these days. And just
>> wait till 2024.

>>> "Coalitions"???

On 5/5/2022 3:07 PM, Mark Brader wrote:
> C.D. Bellemare:

>> Mark forgot to mark this one "C.D. Bellemare:"

> No, it was the continuation of an earlier quoted passage from the
> same posting.

You decline to leave the attributions in the attribution-block and let
people count the number of gazintas, but you think they ought to count
them once you've nestled an attribution on an earlier paragraph?

On 5/5/2022 11:44 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> Sam Plusnet wrote:

>>>> In order to say that a "handful" are involved, you must have
>>>> some information which you haven't shared with us. Or you are
>>>> just making it up as you go?
>>> How many of the 65,000,000 or so Brits are paying members of a
>>> political party?

>> Oh sorry, yes, it's 5. Or could you be Wrong??!

> So you have no idea, and simply don't want to admit that I have a
> point?

Perhaps if you had said "relative handful" ...

--
And all the fingers had large families.

On 5/6/2022 3:58 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Madhu wrote:
>> * Tony Cooper:
>>> Adam Funk <a24061 @ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>> Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>> Adam Funk <a24061 @ducksburg.com>

>>>>>> But if someone says "I'm going to complain to my
>>>>>> congressmen [or congresswoman]" by default that refers to
>>>>>> a member of the House of Representatives, doesn't it?

>>>>> It wouldn't have that default to me. This page provides
>>>>> guidance:
>>>>> https://classroom.synonym.com/file-letter-complaint-congressman-11940.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>

>> That page severely needs to be audited for gender-language
>> compliance.

> No, it doesn't.

>> It implies Senators are male and House is female.

> No, it doesn't.

>> "Use the proper form of address. Letters to senators are addressed
>> to "Senator John Doe," while letters to House members are
>> addressed to "The Honorable (or Representative) Jane Doe."

> The only people who would draw your idiotic conclusion from that
> passage are (a) idiots and (b) people looking for a fight. Which are
> you?

Peace out, sib. We'll make it "Jean Deau".

--
Or "D'oh".

On 06/05/2022 2:17 pm, CDB wrote:
> On 5/6/2022 3:58 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> Madhu wrote:
>>> * Tony Cooper:
>>>> Adam Funk <a24061 @ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>>> Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>>> Adam Funk <a24061 @ducksburg.com>
>
>>>>>>> But if someone says "I'm going to complain to my
>>>>>>> congressmen [or congresswoman]" by default that refers to
>>>>>>> a member of the House of Representatives, doesn't it?
>
>>>>>> It wouldn't have that default to me. This page provides
>>>>>> guidance:
>>>>>> https://classroom.synonym.com/file-letter-complaint-congressman-11940.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
>>> That page severely needs to be audited for gender-language
>>> compliance.
>
>> No, it doesn't.
>
>>> It implies Senators are male and House is female.
>
>> No, it doesn't.
>
>>> "Use the proper form of address. Letters to senators are
>>> addressed to "Senator John Doe," while letters to House
>>> members are
>>> addressed to "The Honorable (or Representative) Jane Doe."
>
>> The only people who would draw your idiotic conclusion from
>> that passage are (a) idiots and (b) people looking for a fight.
>> Which are you?
>
> Peace out, sib.  We'll make it "Jean Deau".

Have you ever considered a career in the Corps Diplomatique?

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within