Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Akkula

In 2040, 30 percent will control 68 percent of the Senate

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Akkula said:

Which is EXACTLY what the US Senate & Electoral College are supposed to do, by design of the Framers.

 

BTW, it's too late for the Left to get onto the "States Rights" train, since you've fought for authoritarian centralized control of everything for over 100 years now.

States Rights is a right wing issue, police-state is the dream of the Left.

Too little, too late, once you finally realize that an all-powerful Federal Govt is a BAD idea, and exactly what the Framers intended to avoid.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NV legislature is a microcosm of this when any tax bill comes up - NV requires a 2/3rds vote to pass a tax, so essentially a minority can stop any tax increase 

This article shows how the US senate could swing to a GOP majority for a long time..........though the House will be more evenly apportioned due to changing districts, especially if the millennial party preference trend holds ......the large states will become more blue and even some red states will see some blue or purple districts  - This can be seen in NV04 District which covers about 50% of NV and is geographically 90% rural, but the 10% most populated area of the district is the northern half of the Las Vegas area, meaning this seat could be blue most of the time - So it really doesn't matter what Hawthorn, Tonopah, Ely or Beatty vote as they are only about 20% of the voters in the district 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, UNLV2001 said:

NV legislature is a microcosm of this when any tax bill comes up - NV requires a 2/3rds vote to pass a tax, so essentially a minority can stop any tax increase 

This article shows how the US senate could swing to a GOP majority for a long time..........though the House will be more evenly apportioned due to changing districts, especially if the millennial party preference trend holds ......the large states will become more blue and even some red states will see some blue or purple districts  - This can be seen in NV04 District which covers about 50% of NV and is geographically 90% rural, but the 10% most populated area of the district is the northern half of the Las Vegas area, meaning this seat could be blue most of the time - So it really doesn't matter what Hawthorn, Tonopah, Ely or Beatty vote as they are only about 20% of the voters in the district 

Arent Mesquite and that other little town up towards the AZ border blue already, too, even tho rural?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UNLV2001 said:

Mesquite is majority Mormon, so it's GOP majority 

I know it's a historical mormon trail town, but I thought it had like quadrupled in size over 25 years- looks like it when driving thru on the freeway.

You mean all those new move ins are also Mormon? I find that unlikely.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2018 at 6:01 AM, Akkula said:

LOL. Trading in the ol' Hammer and Sickle? Commie got the sadz? Mean ol' 2nd Amendment stopping  you from the commie's favorite way to gain power through mass murder? Fly dat  Northern Virginia Battle flag BabY!  States Rights!

151012-confederate-flag-mn-1510_36e30b20

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

-Richard Feynman

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."

-P.J. O’Rourke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article, though as others have said our Constitution has been designed to give less populated states an equal say in the Senate as part of being in the union.

The House of Representatives, on the other hand, will be dominated by those same eight to ten states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CV147 said:

Interesting article, though as others have said our Constitution has been designed to give less populated states an equal say in the Senate as part of being in the union.

The House of Representatives, on the other hand, will be dominated by those same eight to ten states.

Math is hard. Those same eight states can't dominate the house, its structurally impossible. There must be something else at play. Could it be that most Americans are more conservative than the extreme, crazed, far left pile of kooks, malcontents and America haters that the Democratic ( using the term ironically) Party has become?

Nah. That cant be it.

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

-Richard Feynman

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."

-P.J. O’Rourke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the problem with this is when you have one party who has shown absolutely no willingness or ability to pass any bills other than a tax cut for their donors and this is in the HOUSE.  You know the chamber where the majority basically gets to run their will over the minority with impunity?  What happens when you get a party in power who can only throw bombs but is completely unable to actually pass any laws?  

Furthermore, how many voters will a party like this need in order to get the votes necessary to grind the country to a halt with the filibuster?  Can 10% of the population of the USA control the entire agenda of the federal government so we are held hostage by an even smaller minority?

This is another example of why the legislative filibuster needs to end or we won't ever pass any laws.  This is also why we need to stop thinking the federal government is the key to solving problems.  Nothing of major substance will likely ever pass the senate in the future.  We need major decisions to be made by the state legislatures and government who are used to being forced to balance a budget every year and actually have to pass legislation.  The federal government, at this point, can only handle very bare bones governing, it appears.

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Thomas said:

I know it's a historical mormon trail town, but I thought it had like quadrupled in size over 25 years- looks like it when driving thru on the freeway.

You mean all those new move ins are also Mormon? I find that unlikely.

 

Not all Mormons, but if not LDS, then probably retired older people who lean GOP 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post is almost certainly a giant waste of my time.

The idea of the original compromise the founders made was to prevent a "tyranny of the majority". In other words, to protect minority rights.

I highly doubt they intended a tyranny by MINORITY.  I don't think they envisioned a situation where a party that constantly lost the popular vote would have unchecked power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2018 at 1:59 PM, UNLV2001 said:

NV legislature is a microcosm of this when any tax bill comes up - NV requires a 2/3rds vote to pass a tax, so essentially a minority can stop any tax increase 

This article shows how the US senate could swing to a GOP majority for a long time..........though the House will be more evenly apportioned due to changing districts, especially if the millennial party preference trend holds ......the large states will become more blue and even some red states will see some blue or purple districts  - This can be seen in NV04 District which covers about 50% of NV and is geographically 90% rural, but the 10% most populated area of the district is the northern half of the Las Vegas area, meaning this seat could be blue most of the time - So it really doesn't matter what Hawthorn, Tonopah, Ely or Beatty vote as they are only about 20% of the voters in the district 

It's called gerrymandering and it is what the democrats have done to Nevada.  12 rural Nevada counties have 0 representation in the assembly or Senate because the politicians owe their allegiance to Washoe, Clark, Elko or Churchill counties.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nocoolnamejim said:

This post is almost certainly a giant waste of my time.

The idea of the original compromise the founders made was to prevent a "tyranny of the majority". In other words, to protect minority rights.

I highly doubt they intended a tyranny by MINORITY.  I don't think they envisioned a situation where a party that constantly lost the popular vote would have unchecked power.

The only reason you have any rights left and this isn't as authoritarian a country as England is that minority.  You should thank them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

The only reason you have any rights left and this isn't as authoritarian a country as England is that minority.  You should thank them.

Sigh. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nocoolnamejim said:

This post is almost certainly a giant waste of my time.

The idea of the original compromise the founders made was to prevent a "tyranny of the majority". In other words, to protect minority rights.

I highly doubt they intended a tyranny by MINORITY.  I don't think they envisioned a situation where a party that constantly lost the popular vote would have unchecked power.

Unchecked power? 

So you are advocating for the tyranny of the majority because of sour grapes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, HR_Poke said:

Unchecked power? 

So you are advocating for the tyranny of the majority because of sour grapes?

I think you maybe might have missed what I was really saying.

My post was saying that the founders didn't want tyranny of the majority. I was conceding that point.

But if they didn't want tyranny of the majority, I think it is a good bet that they were not fans of tyranny of the minority either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...