Why make government larger on purpose? You keep saying you want less government.
Do you have any grasp of the vast size of the civil service?
So then to paraphrase your stance:
- Making jobs for people who work for very little money == bad, bad, bad, really really bad
- Making jobs for the very wealthy people who work in congress == good, good, good, really really exceptionally good
Did I get that about right? I guess it does help with your wealth and power concentration aspirations.
The only conservative way that this could be seen as a plus is if the laid-off workers started 225 new stores themselves and had some sense of accomplishment, and adding value back into the economy.
In what alternate universe do you think that underpaid retail slaves have access to that kind of capital?
But Progressivism is about turning us all in to beggars.
So your claim then is that the 99% can only be beggars or slaves? Your economy certainly doesn't give them any reason to have hope to ever improve on their economic situation.
Both of your points are mired in YOUR refusal to understand (a) the original, working mechanisms of our Constitution
The original constitution also did not allow the vote to anyone who was not a land-owning white male. Of course that is the overwhelming demographic for your party, so that restriction would likely be OK for you.
freezing the size of the House
I don't see why you are opposed to that. Why make government larger on purpose? You keep saying you want less government. Hell why not just go ahead and close down the senate entirely, that would get rid of a lot of those government jobs that you hate so dearly.
muzzling States as political objects
That's debatable at best.
Votes are crucial, yes
Well, except for the votes that you don't like, right? If they don't vote the right way, then they shouldn't be counted at all, right?
the Constitution is more than 100 years old, it no worky-worky?
Even for you that is a ridiculous statement. Are you now saying that the constitution should never be amended at all? In that case, why even have a judicial branch in the federal government to evaluate the constitutionality of laws?
quit quaffing Commie kool-aid
You're really doing yourself a huge disservice by reaching for that tired out exaggerated meme. You might as well be giving your opinion on the leading documents of the government of Uganda, in their original Swahili.
How do you think conservatives would call that a good thing?
Conservatives would call this a good thing because it is putting working class people out of work, naturally. When working class types interfere with profit, they need to go so the top economic echelons can bask in the glory of the free market.
I answer your questions
No. You danced around the question. You support the contradictory goals of revoking the constitutional right to elect senators directly along with the goal of getting people more involved in government. I asked you how the first does not impede the second and you shoved your fingers in your ears.
A similar question - which I don't expect you to answer either - would be why not just shut down the senate entirely and let the state governors be the voices for their states? This would also aid your goal of reducing the size of the federal government.
Link to Original Source
The article quotes him as responding when asked about bitcoin, "I am no longer involved in that and I cannot discuss it,
I imagine that he will now have to move and hire round-the-clock security for his own protection."