Campaign Office of TJ/Tmthforu for the Mideast

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I get your argument, but I can easily counter with the argument that we could simply elect more inactive senators to the 14 member senate. The proponents argue that the inactives will cancel themselves out, and perhaps they may, but there is also the chance we just stuff it with even more "bodies" who contribute little, only worsening the problem.

Of course, I think this amendment offers some changes that could spice things up, and I like that, so I am having to weigh the parts I like with the ones I do not. In my view, the senate has turned into a revolving door. We replace inactives with former senators who leave and come back, and the new members get no chance. Instead of expanding the senate, perhaps we should do a better job electing senators that actually give a damn over those who simply have name recognition? Just a thought.

I am still undecided on this amendment though. It could make people more excited, but there is also the potential we just have a larger mess in the senate than we currently have. It will depend how ballsy I am feeling over this weekend.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Yeah, I can't say I agree with the rationale here.

I would've imagined TJ, who studies chemistry, could understand proportions.

You're making me jealous again! Gosh!

Well, I was an economics guy, so maybe TJ and I view things differently. When you have a failing investment though, doubling down in hopes of a turnaround is a high risk, high reward proposition. I doubt there is anything TJ can say to change my mind on this specific provision of the amendment, because I am worried that we are simply making a larger inactive body, but I will weigh that against the pros in this amendment.