Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "The Hill" channel.

  1. 137
  2. 66
  3. 15
  4. 12
  5. 11
  6. 8
  7. 8
  8. 8
  9. 8
  10. 6
  11. 6
  12. 5
  13. 5
  14. 5
  15. 5
  16. 5
  17. 5
  18. 4
  19. 4
  20. 4
  21. 4
  22. 4
  23. 4
  24. 4
  25. 3
  26. 3
  27. 3
  28. 3
  29. 3
  30. 3
  31. 3
  32. 3
  33. 3
  34. 3
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38. 2
  39. 2
  40. CIVILIZED countries around the world use Voter ID, and look askance at the USA for not securing its elections. The filibuster protects the minority against the tyranny of the majority. If more than 1/3 of the nation is dead set against the majority, then the majority must COMPROMISE. Eliminating the filibuster on presidential appointments allowed Trump to ram through a lot of his appointments, despite Democrat opposition. Pure majority rule has been tried and failed miserably in the Roman Empire. Majority-rule aspects of our CURRENT system have created a real Bread-and-Circuses situation in the USA. There's a REASON for the filibuster. Also, the "gerrymandering" issue is more nuanced than they make it out to be. What if there are 30% Democrats and 70% Republicans in a state? Without redrawing districts carefully, you would have ZERO Democrats in Congress from that state! So a 30% minority would have ZERO representation. And it doesn't have to be that extreme. It could be 51% to 49% but again, ZERO representation for half of the state/nation. HR1 is what Democrats HOPE will mean one-party Democrat rule forever. We can't let that happen. Then there's the danger to Democrats of severe blowback, giving those powers to the Republicans. All it would take would be one election, and as long as the Republicans didn't do anything too crazy, they could shut out the Democrats in perpetuity. What the Democrats want is for the cities to dictate everything. If you live OUTside the city, they want you disenfranchised. And there's more than one way to disenfranchise voters. One is by allowing illegal aliens to vote, even though they don't have the right and should be deported. Ballot harvesting is another way. Just send your Democrat operatives to nursing homes and the housing projects. "Help" people with their ballots, checking all Democrat candidates. This is pretty blatant in Democrat strongholds. Only Republicans seem concerned about this, because Democrats don't care about principles. All they care about is winning.
    2
  41. 2
  42. 2
  43. 2
  44. 2
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50. 2
  51. 2
  52. 2
  53. 2
  54. 2
  55. 2
  56. 2
  57. 2
  58. 2
  59. 1
  60. 1
  61. 1
  62. 1
  63. 1
  64. 1
  65. 1
  66. 1
  67. 1
  68. 1
  69. 1
  70. 1
  71. 1
  72. 1
  73. 1
  74. 1
  75. 1
  76. 1
  77. 1
  78. 1
  79. 1
  80. 1
  81. 1
  82. 1
  83. 1
  84. 1
  85. 1
  86. 1
  87. 1
  88. 1
  89. 1
  90. 1
  91. 1
  92. 1
  93. 1
  94. 1
  95. 1
  96. 1
  97. 1
  98. 1
  99. 1
  100. 1
  101. 1
  102. 1
  103. 1
  104. 1
  105. 1
  106. 1
  107.  @princeobah7995  When the USA was originally constituted, and for over a century AFTER ratification of the U.S. Constitution, EVERYBODY KNEW that "The Press" meant people with a political (or theological) axe to grind. The point of the 1st Amendment wasn't to ensure helpless consumers of news got the truth, but to respect EVERYone 's right to speak their mind. There was no "Ministry of Truth." The point was that everybody's got a bias, and the everyday person should be able to pick and choose what seems the most truthful to THEM. The so-called "Fairness Doctrine" was a huge bait-and-switch, where people were FOOLED into believing that the BIG NETWORKS and BIG PAPERS were printing objective truth, without fail. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Now, rather than being pissed off at how far off the rails the legacy networks are, I REJOICE at the fact that the hidden bias is now out in the open and the people are finally aware of it. There are some decent rags out there who get most things right, like Just The News. The Hill's got a more obvious axe to grind, but they're mostly truthful about the things they choose to report. The REAL censorship/bias is in the choice of what to report at all, and it's refreshing to see some conservative bias to balance the statist bias that prevails on all the legacy networks whose news ratings are in the tank. I think the independents are going to piggyback on the legacy news until the legacy news runs out of steam, and demand for hard facts and real news creates a whole new ecosystem of reporters and news agencies. Until the legacy networks dry up and lose their monopoly on 90% of the reporting, things won't really change much from what we have now. But they're running out of steam as we speak. Ratings are causing more and more layoffs. Eventually, there'll be a market for a whole new class of independent reporters or freelancers, contracting with different channels or forming co-ops. Like to see the co-op thing take root.
    1
  108. 1
  109. 1
  110. 1
  111. 1
  112. 1
  113. 1
  114. 1
  115. 1
  116. 1
  117. 1
  118. 1
  119. 1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1