tobetrained

Can we all just agree, donuts should be a food group? It's a Big Vegetable conspiracy to prevent proper classification! Write to your Senators! Somewhere in this convo, in the pages above, someone referenced that corporation don't pay their fair share -- in regard to income taxes. That's likely true but not the whole truth. It's important to remember they pay roughly 80% of private health insurance and effectively "pay" for regulation, like employee benefits in lost time -- i.e., non-monetary costs. Here is a quick and abbreviate view of 2024. Actual Federal Tax Revenue ($4.9 tril) and estimated/actual costs for selected regulated benefits ($2.1 trillion in costs) offered by corporations -- an addition of real and non-monetary costs. These are far from all the costs nor, clearly, a summary for all regulations. Paid by Individuals: $3.5 trillion or 49% of included items $2.4t federal income taxes $850b in federal payroll taxes (50% of total for employee Social Insurance) $197b paid to private insurers for employee healthcare (21% of this insurance type) Paid by Corporations: $3.3 trillion or 47% $530 federal income tax $850b for employee federal payroll taxes (50% of total for employee Social Insurance) $728b paid to private insurers for employee healthcare (79% of this insurance type) 1.1t in a non-monetary cost of lost productivity for time off benefits (vacation, sick, holiday, etc.) * $75b in a non-monetary cost of lost productivity for parental leave benefits ** Other: $0.3 trillion or 4% for other federal tax revenues My point: we generally talk about benefits, etc -- like time off -- but, as a society, we never talk about their costs to employers. The more costs corporations have, the less likely they keep positions in the US. Just food for thought for when we consider who is going to pay for all this stuff, UHC, etc. Even Bernie could only come up with a plan that would cost $4 trillion+ per year minimum, according to CBO, in 2020 -- more than the then total US federal tax revenue ($3.5 trillion, 2019). * wide estimates available ($900b to $1.35t) ** wide estimates available ($50b to $120b)

@Pozzible I didn't know how that worked, DM. I tried deleting a different message -- as there seems to be a limit on number of messages -- then everything went away. Right, no country will drop UHC as it is political suicide: see current US shutdown! Which is why certain programs shouldn't be added in the first place !! haha. --- Current Trends in Private Health Insurance in Europe Rising Demand: The demand for private health insurance is increasing due to constrained public healthcare systems and long waiting times. Patients are seeking quicker access to medical services, leading to a shift towards private options. Market Growth: The European health insurance market was valued at approximately €283.1 billion in 2023 and is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6.31%, reaching around €405.3 billion by 2029. This growth is driven by an aging population and the increasing complexity of healthcare needs. Coverage Variability: Health insurance structures vary significantly across Europe. Some countries have socialized systems, while others offer a mix of public and private insurance. In many nations, health insurance is mandatory, requiring contributions to national funds, while in others, it is voluntary. Technological Integration: The integration of technology in healthcare is transforming service delivery. Digital health solutions, telehealth, and health management platforms are becoming more prevalent. These innovations aim to improve efficiency and patient outcomes, shifting the focus from reactive treatment to proactive health management. Health Protection Gap: There is a growing recognition of the health protection gap, where many individuals lack adequate coverage for medical expenses. Insurers are focusing on bridging this gap by offering more comprehensive policies that include critical illness and disability coverage. source: researchandmarkets.com Increase in Private Health Insurance Among Europeans Reasons for the Shift Long Waiting Times: Many public healthcare systems in Europe face significant delays, prompting individuals to seek quicker access through private insurance. Quality of Care: Patients often prefer private healthcare for perceived better quality and more personalized services. Financial Pressure: Rising out-of-pocket costs in public systems lead some to opt for private insurance to mitigate financial risks. Key Statistics Year % Population with Private Insurance; Notable Trends Point 2023 ~30% (some level, not necessarily full coverage); Increased interest in private options post-pandemic 2025 ~35%+ (some level, not necessarily full coverage); Continued dissatisfaction with public services This trend indicates a significant shift in healthcare preferences among Europeans, with many opting for private health insurance to ensure timely and quality medical care. source: lek.com [think before following links] https://www.lek.com/insights/hea/eu/ar/private-healthcare-demand-europe-rising-demand-and-changing-preferences Those % seemed very high. It's from survey data in the context "had you done this" and not a tally of actual agreements. example: yesterday 70% of people watched TV or streamed video, but the rate at any one moment would be like 25%. I did read UK's private market was 8% (latest) and expected to pass 10% soon, for instance -- yet, below, ~45% in the UK have used private insurance at some point in time (first column below). --- YIKES: a market-driven decision -- people deciding for themselves. I think this suggests, long-term, we will all move to a mixed system. Government to require or provide super basic care with incremental private options -- either full or select coverage (e.g., someone may opt not to get eye care coverage).

@tallslenderguy and co, on the Ukraine topic from way back in page 1, this continues what I had suggested was the latest round in that discussion, our pressuring Europe to stop buying Russian energy (which helps fund their war effort). This being the second stick-approach with Europe. (first being for them to get to NATO defense agreements of 2% GDP, which now many are; and they've been increased to 5% GDP by 2030) [think before following links] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c17p54edxljo

@Pozzible in reverse of your posts: re undocumented workers/taxes. That was directed to another with the @ . I can talk to others, you know! I was following up on a mini-simultaneous convo on topic throughout this one. Re: Nurses chart. Well, you need to adjust for cost of living or per capita incomes. In the UK, poverty can defined in a number of ways. The government links to the following charity. Government site [think before following links] [think before following links] [think before following links] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn07096/ Joseph Rowntree Foundation - a nonpartisan poverty charity [think before following links] [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.jrf.org.uk/uk-poverty-2025-the-essential-guide-to-understanding-poverty-in-the-uk That foundation has a calculator [think before following links] [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.minimumincome.org.uk/results/ This says, for a single person without kids, UK poverty is about 30.5k/yr GBP. Here is the pay guide from the nurses job board Nurses.co.uk: [think before following links] [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.nurses.co.uk/nursing-pay-guide They report, the starting point for qualified nurses (stated as "band 5") is 31.0k/yr GBP -- effectively poverty. They also state the average nurse salary is around 39k/yr GBP. This is poor, by multiple definitions. They're not the worst across care providers. Here the Commonweath Fund -- which I believe you mentioned as defining the US as worst of developed countries. It definitely is used by progressives. [think before following links] [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2024/sep/mirror-mirror-2024 In the chart below is their overall score and rank (shaded gold). I then added two variables to expand the data: Nurses' average salary, adjusted for per capita income Primary Care Physicians' average salary, adjusted for per capita income The US moves to 4th overall (see column, "New") while Germany drops to 10th and considerably by the Commonwealth Fund's metric definitions (from -0.15 to -0.45): to that end, that's why I tried to quickly get info on Germany in my post yesterday. You're correction I can see when asking for the data in a one-off question. so, let's correct the record to that from the 50% to 75%, german docs still practicing domestically after 10 years. Tho, I still get the 50% figure when asking for increments, from 1- 3-, 5-, and 10-year increments in one or a series of AI questions. But I don't want spend more time looking into it! It really wasn't that relevant from my point: In the universal care systems, costs are controlled by low nurse and doctor pay, and they're regulated which limits worker economic freedom. Interestingly, and this gets to the German doc convo a bit too, both US and Switzerland jump with incomes. The source your AI used, @Pozzible, notes German doctors leaving predominately come to the US and Switzerland due to better salaries and advanced technologies, among countries in Asia for same, ~30% of those who leave Germany. Here's a specific link to the issues in the German healthcare system due to low wages: [think before following links] [think before following links] [think before following links] https://schengenvisainfo.com/news/germanys-healthcare-staff-shortage-crisis-to-further-deepen-without-foreign-doctors/

@hntnhole and co, re: undocumented immigrant tasxes I hate bad data "out there." I think the Obama admin stopped reporting some of these details so they weren't politicized. There are two groups which estimate such taxes: Tax Policy Center (left leaning) and a more politically neutral group American Immigrant Council. They report combined employee, employer, and consumption (sales) taxes as $96b and $90b, respectively (latest). Of that, $15-$20 billion is federal income tax paid by employee. $35-$40 billion is federal payroll tax by employer (Social Security, Medicare,etc). The rest is state and local income tax and sales taxes. The issue is that income tax is so much lower than payroll as, overall across all workers, 88% comes from income tax. The later is mainly the 7%-ish (of income) to those listed social programs. The issue, and we don't know how much: how much are these low-income earners reasonably deducting to bring down income tax to low rates how many of the workers are simply not paying income tax while their employer submits the appropriate payroll tax Both occur. I don't think we'll be finding out soon.

And, AND‼️, if we had universal healthcare as a government program... I hope all supporters of this realize Donald Trump would be running it with RFK, Jr as his number 2, as HHS sec (if that's still the dept name). Like the filibuster argument, it really is careful what you wish for. And, unlike the Post Office, there's nowhere near enough in revenue streams to keep such a program operating during a shutdown forever.

@Pozzible I really want to push on this point and then I'll drop it, the "figured out a way to do it." That's not true. I'll take my secondary point first. Economic freedom and mobility. In all European countries salaries for doctors and nurses are regulated. There's no way to make your own financial progress in society -- you can't find a new employer to compete for a better salary. Due to this issue, for example, in Germany, 50% of native Germans trained in Germany as doctors no longer practice in the country after 10 years - this is an average example Europe. 10% to 15% burn-out (average). But ~25% have left for reasons of economic mobility and freedom, coming to the US, East Asian, or Middle East markets to get a competitive salary. In the US, for reference, 75%+ of US born/trained doctors still practice in the US after 10 years with similar burn-out levels. Now this would be OK if it weren't for the primary issue, the wages being paid. As implied in the German doctor example, wages are relatively low for doctors compared to the developed world and cost-of-living. As noted yesterday, doctors in Norway take a 40% hit in (regulated) salary relative to the US (non-regulated) salary. But the worst is the nurses. Here is a EuroNews article -- a couple years back -- re: Nurse wages in Europe. [think before following links] https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/12/14/nurses-salaries-across-europe-which-countries-have-the-highest-and-lowest-wages Nurses are poorly paid across Europe and regulated to be so. Excluding Luxembourg -- do to very high cost of living issues -- The US would be the highest on that list at over 80k Euros/yr salary (average of specialized and non-specialized). Side note: This gets back to the Commonwealth Fund report you referenced, @Pozzible, where the US was 10th out 10 of developed countries. They don't include economic mobility nor salary level variables. If those four variables were included with the other 10 in their data, the US would be top 5 overall. But back to nurses, in the UK it's so bad nurses are paid just above poverty at 41k Euros/$45k US per yr -- just over half of what US nurses make. So my point: in order to get this ideological universal healthcare program working, doctors and nurses have effectively been told, "your lose." As such, these should not be consider programs which "have been figured out." It's far from that. For myself, I don't accept -- as fair collateral damage -- poor wages for care providers (esp. nurses). In a free society, people should have economic freedom. At least, they should not be told they're near worthless -- like nurses in the UK. The last thing I'd ask you to reconsider when saying these programs "work" is the backdrop of racism in all of this. Native (white) populations in these countries no longer take these positions in (relatively) large portion -- due to low wages. These countries are stressed and bring in foreign workers to fill positions -- usually of darker skin -- at these low wages. This makes it easier for them to ignore the salary problem while plodding along. Systemic racism is not a conservative thing alone.

In doing some more direct checking, I believe the high estimate for "Undocumented" in my previous post for payroll taxes are using sources, e.g. tax policy center, which report on aggregate federal state and local payroll taxes, sales tax, and other items as an aggregate (not just federal payroll) but AI doesn't interpret that nuance. If someone has a direct report from IRS, happy to have these last two posts deleted or x'd out.

@hntnhole snippet: I asked an AI tool to do this math for the US population and got wildly different answers based on how I asked the question. Many times I got different answers asking the same question in a new browser session. The following is a rough aggregate summary of 15 AI results for Federal payroll taxes which sources irs.gov and taxpolicycenter.org based on 2021 data: US citizens: $900bil to $1.4tri in federal payroll taxes Lawful permanent residents (incl. green card): $200-$300bil Non-citizen visa holders: $50-$100bil Undocumented: $10-$60bil It's very difficult to breakdown corporate taxes. State and local payroll taxes as well as sales tax would be additional. I only offer as a broad guide but nothing determinative.

@Pozzible First let's do a term check: I said market-driven economy and not capitalism (fettered or not). Norway, for instance, has a market-driven economy. Unfortunately, in a quick check there are a lot of wrong or misleading facts in the Norway example. For instance, "no security for seniors" -- we have both Social Security and Medicare as support programs. "No paid vacation/parental leave" this isn't true. The tax rate is misleading. And, on healthcare, it fails to mention the horrible regulation on salaries. GP salaries in the US are $225-250k/yr and Norway that's $130k/yr. Nurses in the US $75k/yr (non-specialized) with that being $58k in Norway. The AMA and nurses union might have an issue?? On taxes, Norway has a flat 22% "federal" tax vs. our progressive system which translates to 13% for the nurse's salary of $58k. In Norway, there are also social programs tax (8%) and municipal taxes bring the payroll taxes to >40%. In the US, with state and local taxes as well as Social Security and Medicare, we cap out between 21% (no state tax: TX, WA, etc) and 30% (CA, NY/NYC, etc). On top of that, they have a flat 25% VAT while our sales tax range from 0% to 10%. This means, on average, everything costs 20% more in Norway than the US and translates to thousands more per year -- to pay for social programs. Another interest note: part of their healthcare system is paid oil and gas production/sales, The Oil Fund. As a centrist myself, I would LOVE to see progressives sit down and allow more drilling and extraction of resources to PAY for the services they want and conservatives yield to the latter to allow the former -- if ONLY to see it happen. Separately, but on that note, it's important to remember that we have 14 million illegal immigrants in the US. That's almost THREE TIMES the size of Norway's population of 5.3 million. Norway has a fraction of 1% in their population. On the former comment, re: ranking, I assume you mean from The Commonwealth Fund? It's fairly well commented on, anyway. They're fairly selective in their metrics, designed to promote small-nation/state systems. For instance, they don't have a metric to account for the volume of non-tax paying population nor the volume of rural space and population relative to care. With these, the US would move much higher on the list. Their method can be very misleading too. Let's say your scoring something on a scale between 0 and 100. The measured values range from 80 to 90. In functional / practical terms, there little or no real difference. But they show the data in way to dramatically expand the differences. I asked an AI tool to offer a list of 10 items to demonstrate one of their charts: the estimated possible results were 80,82, 83, 84.5, 85,86,87,88,88. The US, in the Commonwealth's data could be the 80 and look 3 deviations below average -- terrible -- but, in practice, the difference of 80 vs the average 84.5 is minimal. But here's an NBC News link to the trouble with UK's NHS. Nothing is perfect. And almost 10% of the UK use private insurance instead -- so paying twice, re: taxes for NHS and incremental coverage for private care. For myself, as a centrist, I don't argue for or against. I expect politicians to PAY for their ideas or they're no ideas at all. Increased debt is not paying for anything. [think before following links] https://www.nbcnews.com/world/europe/uks-public-health-service-crisis-threatening-institution-heart-british-rcna228773 p.s. I learned to change text color!

Love it or hate it, no one has figured out a better way than market-driven economies. And many have tried and failed. Remember, the premiums being discussed will be paid by us regardless -- whether through increases premiums and co-pays, as Democrats argue, or by federal taxes and increased debt, as Democrats try to get us to ignore. The government hasn't made those costs disappear and healthcare providers have NOT reduced fees. Those fees just sit in a ledger as federal government debt and we have to pay both that principal and the interest against it. And the premiums being supported by this program are, effectively, "guaranteed" demand for insurance companies. Again, insurers did not reduce their rates as providers did not reduce what they charged for service. This plan, then, has put upward pressure on price as insurers have been at less risk of losing customers with this program active. It was simply designed to keep an pandemic-era spike in premiums from price-gouging consumers out of the market. Once/if the program is eliminated, like-for-like plan prices will go up. But, again, ARE paying for that difference anyway -- re: debt. Due to that jump, people will trade down and focus more on actual needs. Insurers, fearful of losing customers, will redesign plans, particularly ACA plans. That lessening of demand will put downward pressure on price. But, generally speaking, healthcare is far from unfettered capitalism -- particularly in a world where ACA is present. And with that, we'd get in to the never-ending debate of the ACA and what it's done to costs/prices. There has been greater leveraging to lower specific fees. But, overall, plans have been forced to cover more types of services, leading to larger-than-anticipated total plan costs. In the end, nothing is perfect. Damn doctors!...source of all the worlds evils. What happened to shamans?

@hntnhole I would have simply did "Thanks" tag or whatever those symbols are at bottom-right of posts... don't know how. So, Thanks! and I followed instruction... as is my role.

@Pozzible you said... I think this demonstrates an issue with partisans if that's progressives/Dems view, many times they forget people think different then they. Republicans, particularly conservatives, want small government. They want the public to see government fail to demonstrate small government with strong free enterprise, free market, private business is the way to go. Democrats are the ones who support government and its stability and its usefulness. Definitionally, it can't help when shut down. Shutting down the government over an program which was intended to expire has done these things: implicitly justified past Rep-led shutdowns as politically viable solutions to their political frustrations harm future crisis-era legislation: what Rep would cross party lines now for a program which will used as Sword of Damocles on them in the future? demonstrates how government programs are only additive -- debt be damned; in turn, this helps justify what Reps did in taking a sledgehammer to the government earlier this year: Dems make it impossible for small change -- even for programs designed to end -- so, if you can't make small changes then it's periodic large change I understand the negotiation bit, and agree, re: Trump. But Democrats lost their hand in the last election. On net, the public voted them out. That's democracy. It's was Dem voters who did not show up. I'm not sure, for Dems, a political cudgel is the way to regain support when demonstrating, in real-time, Rep talking-points.

@laguyinhou an interesting piece from Politico. I highlight for the very important sub-point re: Dems position on healthcare subsidies re: shutdown: those subsidies were never supposed to be permanent nor budgeted for as such. [think before following links] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/19/ro-khanna-agree-marjorie-taylor-greene-00615010

I'll respond here just to return the convo back to the original question. @Rillion whether you're implied details are true, it's ultimately based on using the 60-vote threshold driven by the filibuster (or threat of same) which gets us back to the previous hypocrisy discussion re: progressives push from 2021-23 to eliminate that -- which would have meant, in the very unlikely event of that effort working, that now Reps would not need 60-votes. I'll leave it there. @laguyinhou right. and if Reps are so stupid as to pass legislation that will hurt so many in such a stark way, then let them. In democracies we solve differences through elections. We should NOT hold federal workers pay and livelihoods nor sometimes live-saving services hostage to politics. At least that's what Democrats said before. And, if the truth of their legislation is so bad, as you say, those elections will have a clear winner. In 2017, Trump's first term, the NJ and VA gubernatorial elections had Dems winning by 14pp in NJ and 9pp in VA. Those elections happen again in a couple weeks. To @nanana original post question, re: holding Trump accountable and by what metrics, those would be very obvious benchmarks.

@Pozzible Hopefully you got some sleep! I'm taking about Democrats and the progressive wing in and of itself, across the last day or two of convos. By calling out that behavior there is no implied pro- Trump, MAGA, nor Republican stance. I was doing so in response to comment directed to me about the No Kings rally (see: way back to page one). My point about radicalization included first hypocrisy. To your shutdown comments, go back and see how Dems spoke about past shutdowns and Republican behavior in real time back then. After that, consider if Dems living up to their own statements now, in and of themselves. My second point on radicalization is then rationalizing said hypocrisy. You're kinda doing that with the series of, "well they do it..." arguments -- I disagree with NONE of those, but that's not the point. On this one topic, Dems are hoping limit the political impact of the shutdown to their party and to appease their base with the healthcare push. But both parties can hold up any legislation claiming to help millions at any point in time, in their own view. It doesn't mean it's true nor does it always equal relevance (to said legislation, in and of itself).

@Pozzible You're kinda making my point. In you're first note, you're justifying the hypocrisy, re: shutdown: as Dems are doing it/fighting for "..." fill in the blank. You're justifying collateral damage for Dem political gain. What Dems "are fighting for" isn't actually the issue, they're just doing it to be obstinate using people's incomes and necessary services to get what they want. In your second comment, you're not debating the point(s) in and of themselves. You're rationalizing based on Republican actions... the, "they're doing it too" argument. Remember when growing up a parent would ask, "if they jump off a bridge are you going to?" Also, you wrote, I gave very specific examples for each one. but, yes, I was trying to answer specific questions you and another person asked. You said, Progressive did not just talk. As stated, they used it to purify the party and push out moderates. See link as an example. [think before following links] https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/philboas/2023/04/19/ruben-gallego-attack-kyrsten-sinema-filibuster-may-regret-it/70130218007/

@hntnhole you asked I'll answer on two fronts, 1 personal, where I am collateral damage to their policies, 2 public, where many others are: Personal: I've summarized above and wrote elsewhere how DEI policies have hurt my ability to get a job. I'll restate (was just trying to avoid duplication I was omitted via online app for a job I was very qualified for, so went thru an internal former colleague. I made it to final round of three. I found out thru colleague job was reduced for highest ranked woman and all final candidates -- incl. me -- were omitted same process as above, different company. In this case, job was eliminated and merged with another to hire a person of color. In both these two, my former colleagues were informed as part of exec team. Otherwise, like many others, I would not have known. a third example: in an panel interview (not with HR), the final Q of 12 was, "We believe in DEI policies, why should we hire you?" Public: As stated above, Dems are effectively filibustering to keep the government shutdown ( @Pozzible see below ). As they've rightly stated in past, shutting down the government hurts many people for income to services. All those people not getting paid, not getting services, etc. are the collateral damage. Dems lost the election. Remember it was progressives, just a few years ago, who tried to do away with this 60-vote threshold as it wasn't democracy -- a simple majority. Now they're using for their own ends. Quickly, see above for @Pozzible, it is filibustering as the filibuster is what requires 60 votes to surpass -- and that's where we are. I don't think we need to play semantics. Here's a quick write-up on wikipedia: [think before following links] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate To recap my above point. Democracies have fallen not just by oligarchs and despots... but extremist partisans by political parties. These groups, once becoming extreme, have done all sorts of things from exiling those that don't profess allegiance (to them or their ideas) to outright killing. They also try change rules when they don't work for them. Usually, this is a progression: Justifying hypocrisy. See shutdown. Trying to change the rules when they don't work for them. See filibuster reform, or even Pete Buttigieg's talk of expanding the Supreme Court simply for political purposes. Purifying the party. As I wrote above, for one example, how moderates like Manchin and Sinema were exiled by left wing re: filibuster. It was among his stated reasons Ruben Gallego primaried Sinema in the 2024 cycle. Obedience. @hntnhole even you ref'd this in part of you comments above on page 1. I'm paraphrasing here, so not using quotes as I'm also NOT personally calling you out re: intent. But it's along the line, If you don't say something you're part of the problem. Forced adherence is the start of getting people to stop thinking for themselves. It's the start of blind obedience. To marry that with forced speech is the opposite of free speech. Free speech is the right to say what you want which INCLUDES being silent. Forced speech has been a mantra of progressives for a few years now. Physical violence. I hope this is clear. The left, unequivocally outraged in most cases of mass shootings, etc. has already downplayed or, at minimum, qualified violence from the left. For Kirk and Trump, statements like, "...it's not OK, but..." Violence is not OK, period, exclamation point. There is no qualification. Many commentators, on both political sides, make horrible statements everyday. No one should wait for a person to be killed for it to pointed out about them, "...it's not OK, but..." I hope this more clearly states my point. And, hopefully, we can all avoid any tit-for-tat or child-like "but they do it" counter-points. Agreed, "they" do. But that stuff is for the playground. I'm always happy to debate on points/substance.

@PozBearWI And? Why do you down vote my previous comment when I was referencing other points? But to your comment, progressives/Democrats do the same thing. For instance, as I ref'd, their push of DEI -- regardless of its effects. It's saying, "you live by our values, or else and collateral damage is fine." If you read history, democracies have fallen to both Oligarchs -- which Trump is one, and I'm not a supporter of his, as stated elsewhere -- as well as extremist parties and partisanship. The latter is where Democrats and progressives have moved. I have every right to express my avoidance of a protest developed by one of those sides, particularly when it espouses (supposed) democratic intent and in a statement which was (in a comment) directed to me. Or, was that your way of bullying me into silence?

@tallslenderguy just a quick update, re: Denmark and Greenland. A couple days after I wrote above, Denmark HAS actually begun to do something, finally, re: Greenland. I didn't see the info until today. [think before following links] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy9n790j878o

@hntnhole re: No Kings... not really into any of that. Due to leftist politics I've been discriminated against re: job (DEI policies front and center of those decisions, and explicitly stated). As well, we're currently witnessing a gov't shutdown where Dems are using the filibuster to shut everything down -- driven by progressives. Those same progressives, just a few years ago, tried to end the filibuster and pushed moderates out of the Dem party (e.g., Manchin, Sinema, etc.) who stood up against it. In fact, it was a "key reason" Ruben Gallego decided to primary Sinema (AZ Senate). Here, we see it's only with the "correct" simple majority that the filibuster shouldn't exist, in progressives' view. After all, if they had succeeded in ending the filibuster then, the government wouldn't be shut down now. Both sides pick their winners and set policy to benefit their chosen few.

and @tallslenderguy and all, here's an additional link as to how Trump is forcing EU+UK countries to start to spend. If they had already achieved NATO commitments (previous 2% of GDP) this would be an ugly agreement. But, again, this comes as many of those countries -- particularly Germany, UK, and France -- are decades behind on hitting those commitments. [think before following links] https://www.politico.eu/article/pressure-mounts-nato-allies-go-all-in-us-trump-arms-scheme-ukraine/

Remember, it's not just oil but natural gas and other energy products. This is also Russia's push to gain/keep the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. The EU is making (slow) progress... but it's still a major issue. [think before following links] https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/eus-plan-phase-out-russian-energy-clears-first-political-hurdle-2025-10-08/ [think before following links] https://commission.europa.eu/news-and-media/news/roadmap-fully-end-eu-dependency-russian-energy-2025-05-06_en

Earlier I grabbed the wrong title from my digital book library. The second book should have been: A Population History of the United States by H Klein The one I wrote, Historical Atlas..., is good enough for what it is, but not really the same thing.

Recently joined the site and going through older posts. @BootmanLA to your question: I think two things are being conflated here. First is representation democracy (vs. direct) and second is the EC as a group of people who cast a vote. 1) representation democracy -- where voters select representatives who vote on things for them -- has always quantized the broader public in blocks. Most democracies now use geopolitical boundaries (districts, constituencies, etc.) for that. You note a racist way it was implemented, but 1 person today = 1 person in the process for allocation of seats (called redistricting, in the U.S.). Just because it started for a reason doesn't make it that way now, nor other forms of the same (e.g., parliamentarian constituencies). Oddly here, both Democrats and Republicans gerrymander FOR Republicans. Democrats have strong support of minority populations. They push hard for minority-majority districts -- effectively stuffing a lot of Democratic voters into one or a few districts. Without this behavior, driven by both parties, Democrats would have more of a chance in the suburbs and non-rural areas. And, in general, gerrymandering isn't new. Democrats controlled the U.S. House for most of the second half of the 20th century due to gerrymandering. See: wikipedia. 1980 U.S. House vote, for example: - Dems: 50.5% of the vote with 277 seats - Reps: 47.8% of the vote with 157 seats 2) EC as a voting body -- here is where racism played a bigger role -- as is who could be in the EC and who selected those members. Regardless of those details, read about that elsewhere, today states have effectively gotten rid of it. EC members are mostly voted through the convention process -- e.g., in many states, starting with county conventions. People just have to be a member of a party and participate. And that's the rub, people don't participate.