HeadPen5724

HeadPen5724 t1_ja3n5io wrote

Reply to comment by sicknutley in Winter warming by Working-Office-7215

6 of the last 10 years have had above average snowfall totals in Burlington? I’m not sure what your basing your opinion on, but historically we are getting more snow… really depends on your time period.

From 1892 - 1965 we had 0 years with snowfall totals of 100” or more, since then we’ve had 10.

The last 50 years have had 35 years with above average snowfall. The prior 50 years had 18 years above average. The preceding 30 years had 8 years above average snowfall (normalized would be 14).

Edit for source

https://www.weather.gov/btv/historicalSnow

−1

HeadPen5724 t1_j9pt7h3 wrote

Actually our population is declining… and single family homes are still necessary and important, not everyone wants to live in a City. Government regulations made developing a property a 6 figure gamble on whether you may or may not get permits… that means developers need to make up that money. If the state got out of the way, developers could afford to build houses that coulld be sold cheaper since they didn’t need to cough up a million dollars just to get permits.

−7

HeadPen5724 t1_j95zxm1 wrote

So you stole someone else’s property? Not something to brag about. If there was no identifying markings, you may assume it’s the landowners. I’ve got 10 stands around my property and a dozen game cams. If one catches you stealing my stuff expect a visit from the police and charges.

1

HeadPen5724 t1_j95mncl wrote

I’m pretty sure so would the person opening fire on a dog running through their field, the difference being that guy in the NEK may or may not actually care. Hunting Dogs are expensive and require a lot of time and effort to train, there’s also a lot of time spent in the woods bonding with the animal. Think of it more like shooting someone’s child that was wandering on your property… that’s a lot like how that hunters going to take it and they’ll either call the cops (you’re now in legal trouble), or take matters into their own hands.

Sounds like it’s probably in everyone’s best interest if you post your property and probably erect a fence. Of note, current use benefits require your land to be open and unposted so if you make use of that program you’d no longer be eligible for those tax savings. Enjoy your Sunday.

−2

HeadPen5724 t1_j95kirt wrote

Dude I don’t even have dogs. I just told you not to go shooting other people’s animals. In the NEK no one is going to care about your keyboard warrior bravado and you’re going to get sued or hurt. And no a Hunter doesn’t need landowner approval, all land is open to the public unless the landowner posts it. You do you, but your computer screen and keyboard won’t help if you go shooting someone’s hunting dog. Good luck.

−1

HeadPen5724 t1_j93zb7i wrote

I can’t advise against this strongly enough in the NEK. Not only is it illegal and you would be liable for damages on what maybe a several thousand dollar hunting dog, but it’s likely to get you hurt. Your option is to call a Game Warden.

−2

HeadPen5724 t1_j737q2d wrote

Would you support vouchers at public schools? I.e. every child gets a voucher to be used at the public school of their choice. Lots of districts already provide choice, doesn’t that disadvantage those who do not?

−3

HeadPen5724 t1_j6piao5 wrote

Also nothing changing is the status quo in VT. FFS we still depend on people wanting to look at cows wandering around a field as our main source of revenue. The legislatures favorite past time is kicking the can? We use a funding mechanism for education that was devised in the early 1800’s. Hunters still wear red and black plaid wool clothes… Not changing shit IS Vermont.

0

HeadPen5724 t1_j6phqyu wrote

Has our society collapsed? Do people not trust the election system? Do we have widespread fraud? Is anyone confused on how to vote?

I mean I guess to determine if it has worked depends on your goal. Mine are clear, fair, simple and straightforward elections where people’s vote counts. In that regard it has worked. You may have a different goal that it doesn’t meet 🤷🏼‍♂️ but that’s what I’m basing it off. How does IRV fit better with you expectations of what constitutes success in an election?

0

HeadPen5724 t1_j6p4sgo wrote

Less popular parties will get more total votes, that doesn’t mean they will get more candidates elected. The flaw in your view, is that you are assuming the VTGOP remains a viable party. It won’t, it barely is now. AND, by definition an independent voter sometimes votes right, sometimes votes left… they aren’t beholden to either party. So they are fairly centered. They aren’t all of a sudden going to leap frog the more moderate party to support the more extreme party? If you have Trump, Biden, and Sanders as candidates, and you remove Trump because the Republican Party is no longer relevant, who do you think those right leaning independents and conservatives are going to vote for? Sanders or Biden? The left leaning independents were mostly already voting for Biden anyways. It has nothing to do with popularity, it has to do with where on the political spectrum the party is compared with where the voters are.

You can rank away all you want, but the shift in votes has to come from somewhere and we are already almost at 1 party rule as is. This will exacerbate it. Republicans already can’t even override a veto?

0

HeadPen5724 t1_j6oul8v wrote

Independents are generally to the right of democrats from progressives. The majority of those votes will go the democrats, and in far greater numbers than democrats switching to progressive. We will end up with 75% Democratic representation in Montpelier. It will be 1 party rule.

Realistically I don’t see it passing, but maybe we will get to see how it all works out 🤷🏼‍♂️

0