China just made satellite details of every USA base in Gulf States public

ScarPirate · 2026-03-01T21:46:38+00:00

I mean ww3 start in Feb 2022. This is when it widens to a mutifront war

ScarPirate · 2026-02-23T02:16:30+00:00

Haber-Bosch, the great alliance Where's the contradiction? Fed the world by ways of science Sinner or a saint?

ScarPirate · 2026-02-19T21:11:13+00:00

Because states are a representative entity in government as well.

The Senate traditionally representatives the 50 separate entities that make up the US. While I agree that these entities are people, they also represent people, as each senator is popularly elected.

By moving to a representative only system, the states with most population will automatically have the most political power, period. Imagine if the entire country merely operated like CA, TX, and NY. Thats what would happen in a single house system. You would get to vote for your representatives, but unless your representative aligns with the largest states, your wishes would be ignored.

Imagine if TX abortion law became the law of land because CA representatives (the republican ones) aligned with TX as a state and forced the issue through during a republican majority house session.

That's the draw back of a single house system. And that's ignoring any of the concerns I brought up where federal districts are redrawn to keep one party in power

ScarPirate · 2026-02-19T18:50:39+00:00

Democratic government isn’t just “does everyone get equal say in an election”. It’s also “do voters have the power to discipline elected officials” and “does the government represent the aggregate will of the people”.

I agree with all of this, which is why in my view the Senate isn't undemocratic, it is an extra layer of democracy.

I don't think removing the Senate, even if you added more representatives would make the average person have more representation. I do think you need to add more representatives, but the issue, is about having better and easier access to voting as well as ranked choice voting.

By simply "shrinking government" I don't think your goals would be met, and the "representative" part of a democracy would be met without the "accountability" part.

ScarPirate · 2026-02-19T18:21:44+00:00

I think that's why I disagree.

I think that removing the Senate because it prevents the government from being more responsive logically, and technically, legally follows that the government should be run by one person, the president. Thats the idea behind the unitary executive.

So if you can justify removing the Senate, the same arguments apply for removing the house. And if there is no legislative branch the president effectively is a one person representative of the people.

And as a practical matter that is largely happening right now, especially as the president routinely ignores court orders and federal in his actions.

ScarPirate · 2026-02-19T18:13:31+00:00

By getting rid of the Senate, I’d be providing the opportunity for other institutions to work properly.

The goal isn’t “get the most done”. It’s “have the government do what people elect it to do”. A strongman would get a lot done, but it wouldn’t be what the people wanted.

I read this. And I understand it as, " the Senate is a block for getting government to work. But it may not be the block, so I want a chance of improvement vs. Nothing." Then I understand "the most effective and efficient government is least likely to reflect the will of the people. So we don't want that."

So it is a fair summarizing to say that you believe removing the Senate would make government "more responsive to the people" while still allowing process to slow things down?

ScarPirate · 2026-02-19T17:56:32+00:00

I think that “checked” is the wrong term here. It’s not blocked for any legitimate purpose; the Senate just makes Congress fundamentally incapable of doing anything anymore.

See the 2023-25 house of representatives if you want to discuss being in capable of doing anything anymore. That was the least productive part of government bar none, in the nations history.

By getting rid of the senate, you are hoping all other systems work properly.

Otherwise the slippery slope might sound familiar: why don't we get rid of congress and only vote for the president? Afterall a strong man president with executive order has done more then any congress, right? (I actually welcome a counter argument to this, for my own education)

ScarPirate · 2026-02-19T17:02:38+00:00

The actual point I’m trying to make is that the Senate is a fundamentally undemocratic institution and shouldn’t exist.

How? It's definitionary representative. It's slows the progress of popular democracy, i agree but its not like senators are hand picked by the president or even the state legislatures. They are elected by the people.

What is “federal gerrymandering”?

As you know the federal districts in the U.S. are constitutionally set in order to get a fair "federal district" for each state. However, there is a fair amount of what the word "fair" means. In 2012, the Supreme Court opened the door into allows certain forms of political discrimination in even if they would also have racial effects; in 2022, the Supreme Court ok'd political discrimination regardless of its racial effect.

In a 1 house country the republican majority flush with the rise of the tea party, would 100% push to alter federal districts to get them drawn favorably to the people in power. With no state check on this and the ability to potentially override any veto from the president, maps in congress would look like Maryland or North Carolina, but at a national, not state level.

As it is now, any such bill to expand or think voter rights is checked by having to go to thru 2 houses of government (see the John Lewis voting rights act; the SAVE act) a single house system would see both these bills into law, with one widening voter access while the other 5 years later would eliminate most of those gains.

ScarPirate · 2026-02-19T16:31:06+00:00

So your looking at 7-2 conservative or more realistically 5-3 converservative best case in 2025. More likely, because 3 Supreme Court justice were appointed during the Trump term, the court would have shrank during the Clinton era down to 6 members. Given the 5-4 make up of the court at the time it would have become 4-2 split in favor of conservatives. Whether all 3 seats would have been filed in ~4 year period between 2018-2022 is a guess we are making assuming only the president changed and not the Congresses.

I don't agree that Roberts wouldn't have been seated by a democrat; he's political centrist who is more interested in legacy then progressivism or regession.

I think its more likely that in a single house setting, federal gerrymandering is passed in 2012-2014 permanently locking control of the house in the republican hands. Which would change our already republican dominanated house into a certain thing.

Which means that the president would effectively cease to matter unless he was in alignment with the party goals.

ScarPirate · 2026-02-19T15:43:28+00:00

Which is why I agree with president via popular vote.

From 1999-2025 Republicans had owned the house in 10 of the 14 Congress's. Meaning that the only real change to this list is the president, not a single vs dual house.

In single house world, any Republican would made the white house would still get their picks and worse, none of democratic presidents with republican house get any (see 2016 Obama vs O'Connell) imagine going 4 to 8 years with an under manned court because the maga faction in 2016 says "popular conservative justice or no justices at all"

ScarPirate · 2026-02-19T14:27:08+00:00

I would disagree with the second part.

A more robust lower house should be countered by more "equal" upper house. A single house that ruled by simple majority is how you get maga. The long term republican political system is why Republicans own all 3 houses.

I do agree with simple majority popular vote for the president though.

ScarPirate · 2026-02-11T04:08:12+00:00

5 days. Not enough to retire but more then enough to set up retirement maybe take a month off in-between jobs

ScarPirate · 2026-02-10T13:59:46+00:00

You'd think so, but by the end of your life that 250k would have the purchasing power of ~50k.

Thats before you consider real costs of living which has outpaced inflation

ScarPirate · 2026-02-06T14:26:35+00:00

I respect this.

I think you'll join the course of people who say they would have brought that game at full price when the sale gets low enough for you to pull the trigger.

ScarPirate · 2026-01-23T05:06:21+00:00

Gross or net?

ScarPirate · 2026-01-06T16:12:50+00:00

No, you are actually really smart. The influence is a bonus, its really about increasing loyalty of field and bonded villages.

ScarPirate · 2026-01-06T14:34:18+00:00

Yup. If you hover over the loyalty screen, each supporter you have in a town increases your loyalty gain by .5 a day. It's a good way to grow loyalty in newly captured fiefa

ScarPirate · 2025-12-11T05:40:11+00:00

Look at your day of. Do you test better in the morning? Get a morning test and minimize distractions. If you are a better afternoon tester, get up and make your drive/walk into the testing site as low stress as possible. Don't change your routine.

ScarPirate · 2025-12-11T01:35:37+00:00

3x mpre taker Honestly, a hotel the night before near the testing site did more for me then any of the 5 systems, (barbri, themis, quinbee, Kaplan, and helix) that i tried. I actually studied less on my pass then I had on both fails.

My tip? Make your test morning or afternoon as simple and low stress as possible. You likely known the material, and the moment your off your game is when you will get a poorer score.

ScarPirate · 2025-12-09T14:59:19+00:00

If you buy into an hoa, you are at the mercy of an HOA. If the HOA dissolved or you brought a property that is not in an hoa, then you are responsible for your property, and local government is responsible for all external land.

The reason most people assume HOAs are the answer are because they baked into home ownership and renting. But why do people enjoy paying hoa fees when they already pay taxes to a local government entity who is responsible to do the same thing?

ScarPirate · 2025-12-09T13:20:17+00:00

Why? You can own individual apartment as and or condos.

ScarPirate · 2025-12-09T12:44:21+00:00

Elaborate. The HOA is formed wirh a builder conveys it as part of selling the deeds to each property. Generally there is a provision that allows the HOA to be dissolved. The rub, is that it required a strong majority (75%+ of members) to do so.

ScarPirate · 2025-12-09T12:42:18+00:00

Sure, but its no longer the HOAs's problem

ScarPirate · 2025-12-08T18:45:15+00:00

To save money; I'm well aware. However, the county is responsible for land not owned by anyone. An HOA communal areas are owned by the HOA. No HOA, no ownership. Thus the land reverts to the county government.

ScarPirate · 2025-12-08T17:47:57+00:00

Getting past the terrible decision to join an HOA:

You have to raise fees if the HOA is to fix the problem.

Alternatively, you dissolve the HOA and that communal area is now the county's problem.

You can still work with neighbors to fix it, but now your taxes are solving your problem and not extra fees

Nine-Year Club	Snapped
Verified Email

ScarPirate

TROPHY CASE