Discussion:
CNN: Break California into three states, eliminate the liberal mess that has plagued it
(too old to reply)
RichA
2018-06-13 15:13:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/13/us/california-three-states-initiative-ballot/index.html
Darrel Knutson
2018-06-13 15:43:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
RichA <***@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/13/us/california-three-states-initiative-bal
lot/index.html

Cascadia is a better idea, where part of my country and part of yours
become a separate nation.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_(independence_movement)>

These separatist movements in California are quite obviously Russian
funded and being promoted by idiots who believe they're hearing
something else.

Mass illusion collusion delusion.

How much are the Ruskies paying you? Gee, and I always thought that
Canadians were our friends.
Ed Stasiak
2018-06-13 17:11:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Darrel Knutson
These separatist movements in California are quite obviously Russian
funded and being promoted by idiots who believe they're hearing
something else.
Loading Image...
FPP
2018-06-14 01:59:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ed Stasiak
Darrel Knutson
These separatist movements in California are quite obviously Russian
funded and being promoted by idiots who believe they're hearing
something else.
https://s33.postimg.cc/5ec4ucizz/1520549680169.png
Um... the guy that originally started the movement is Russian, and has
since gone back to, guess where? Yup. Russia.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/is-russia-behind-a-secession-effort-in-california/517890/

So... you were saying...
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
Darrel Knutson
2018-06-14 05:41:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by Ed Stasiak
Darrel Knutson
These separatist movements in California are quite obviously Russian
funded and being promoted by idiots who believe they're hearing
something else.
https://s33.postimg.cc/5ec4ucizz/1520549680169.png
Um... the guy that originally started the movement is Russian, and has
since gone back to, guess where? Yup. Russia.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/is-russia-behind-a-
secession-effort-in-california/517890/
Post by FPP
So... you were saying...
Just wait a month or two. The connections will appear yet again I am
sure.

References? None, just a hunch. A good one I think.
RichA
2018-06-13 22:14:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Im not promoting it, are all liberals this paranoid?
trotsky
2018-06-13 23:42:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RichA
Im not promoting it, are all liberals this paranoid?
No I think it's the fact that you're not conveying any real information
and hence coming off like a syphilitic sack o' shit like your buddy
Trump that's the problem. Any questions?


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
RichA
2018-06-14 00:38:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by trotsky
Post by RichA
Im not promoting it, are all liberals this paranoid?
No I think it's the fact that you're not conveying any real information
and hence coming off like a syphilitic sack o' shit like your buddy
Trump that's the problem. Any questions?
The article conveyed more information in a few paragraphs than you do in years of usenet attacks!
BTR1701
2018-06-14 02:54:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RichA
Im not promoting it, are all liberals this paranoid?
I'm voting yes!

(I'm to the point where I'm just voting for chaos these days.)
FPP
2018-06-14 03:21:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by RichA
Im not promoting it, are all liberals this paranoid?
I'm voting yes!
(I'm to the point where I'm just voting for chaos these days.)
Yeah, it's not like the country is at stake, or anything.
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
BTR1701
2018-06-14 04:20:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by RichA
Im not promoting it, are all liberals this paranoid?
I'm voting yes!
(I'm to the point where I'm just voting for chaos these days.)
Yeah, it's not like the country is at stake, or anything.
No, whether California stays one or becomes three does not put the
country at stake, you melodramatic dumbass.
FPP
2018-06-14 05:33:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by RichA
Im not promoting it, are all liberals this paranoid?
I'm voting yes!
(I'm to the point where I'm just voting for chaos these days.)
Yeah, it's not like the country is at stake, or anything.
No, whether California stays one or becomes three does not put the
country at stake, you melodramatic dumbass.
That isn't what you said, though, is it?

"I'm to the point where I'm just voting for chaos these days." kind of
gives the lie to that idea that all you're talking about is just California.

You said it... not me. It's a blanket statement.
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
Darrel Knutson
2018-06-14 05:41:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by RichA
Im not promoting it, are all liberals this paranoid?
I'm voting yes!
(I'm to the point where I'm just voting for chaos these days.)
Yeah, it's not like the country is at stake, or anything.
No, whether California stays one or becomes three does not put the
country at stake, you melodramatic dumbass.
You insulting cunt. Stop it.
Darrel Knutson
2018-06-14 05:41:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by RichA
Im not promoting it, are all liberals this paranoid?
I'm voting yes!
(I'm to the point where I'm just voting for chaos these days.)
When logic, reason and sanity go out the window, you may as well jump,
too. Sounds like a plan.
trotsky
2018-06-14 11:01:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by RichA
Im not promoting it, are all liberals this paranoid?
I'm voting yes!
This coming from a Libertarian. More hypocrisy.
Darrel Knutson
2018-06-14 05:41:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RichA
Im not promoting it, are all liberals this paranoid?
1. You are promoting it. Just like you post other batshit crazy stuff
with faux outrage.

2. Your definition of "liberal" may very well include 95% of the
population. Consider other options such as "people" or "normal folks".
Sure, lots of them will be liberals, but then again, lots of them won't.
You apparently don't know the words "moderate" or "centrist".

3. Your definition of paranoid is vastly different from the norm. Please
be aware of this, but do not dwell on it.

You're doing the job of the Russians by attempting to sow confusion. How
much are they paying you? And if you are not being paid, WTF?
The Horny Goat
2018-06-14 22:43:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Darrel Knutson
How much are the Ruskies paying you? Gee, and I always thought that
Canadians were our friends.
It certainly does seem that the President is cosying up to America's
enemies and sticking it to America's friends.

As for Canada, Canada is the biggest trading partner of 38 of 50
states and does more trade with the United States than China, the EU
and UK put together.

Not particularly clear on why being rotten to friends and lovey-dovey
to enemies makes good sense but...
FPP
2018-06-14 23:10:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Darrel Knutson
How much are the Ruskies paying you? Gee, and I always thought that
Canadians were our friends.
It certainly does seem that the President is cosying up to America's
enemies and sticking it to America's friends.
As for Canada, Canada is the biggest trading partner of 38 of 50
states and does more trade with the United States than China, the EU
and UK put together.
Not particularly clear on why being rotten to friends and lovey-dovey
to enemies makes good sense but...
Trump makes perfect sense... all you have to understand is that he's NOT
your friend.

He's Putin's friend - and nobody benefits more than Putin when the EU
and Nato partners are feuding.

Trump wants to be a stongman, like those he's praised in Turkey, S
Korea, Russia, and South America.

He isn't because he's one yuuugge pussy who can't even take on Trudeau
until he's safely on AF-1, and then only by tweet.
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
The Horny Goat
2018-06-15 17:33:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Trump makes perfect sense... all you have to understand is that he's NOT
your friend.
He's Putin's friend - and nobody benefits more than Putin when the EU
and Nato partners are feuding.
Trump wants to be a stongman, like those he's praised in Turkey, S
Korea, Russia, and South America.
He isn't because he's one yuuugge pussy who can't even take on Trudeau
until he's safely on AF-1, and then only by tweet.
There was a great cartoon in the New Yorker showing Trump giving Kim a
cell phone and saying ".... and now you push this 'tweet' button then
sit back and watch the world go crazy!"
Adam H. Kerman
2018-06-14 23:10:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Darrel Knutson
How much are the Ruskies paying you? Gee, and I always thought that
Canadians were our friends.
It certainly does seem that the President is cosying up to America's
enemies and sticking it to America's friends.
As for Canada, Canada is the biggest trading partner of 38 of 50
states and does more trade with the United States than China, the EU
and UK put together.
Ah ha! Trump was right. Which 12 states is Canada discriminating against
in trade?
Post by The Horny Goat
Not particularly clear on why being rotten to friends and lovey-dovey
to enemies makes good sense but...
The Horny Goat
2018-06-15 17:36:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 23:10:37 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by The Horny Goat
As for Canada, Canada is the biggest trading partner of 38 of 50
states and does more trade with the United States than China, the EU
and UK put together.
Ah ha! Trump was right. Which 12 states is Canada discriminating against
in trade?
Try http://www.businessinsider.com/state-and-country-trade-maps-2015-7
and note the figures are different for imports vs exports - and that
there are more states whose #1 export nation is Canada than imports.
BTR1701
2018-06-15 03:02:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Darrel Knutson
How much are the Ruskies paying you? Gee, and I always thought that
Canadians were our friends.
It certainly does seem that the President is cosying up to America's
enemies and sticking it to America's friends.
As for Canada, Canada is the biggest trading partner of 38 of 50
states and does more trade with the United States than China, the EU
and UK put together.
Not particularly clear on why being rotten to friends and lovey-dovey
to enemies makes good sense but...
Well, when your friends are doing this to you...

Loading Image...

...it's hardly out of line to address the issue.
David Johnston
2018-06-15 03:10:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Darrel Knutson
How much are the Ruskies paying you? Gee, and I always thought that
Canadians were our friends.
It certainly does seem that the President is cosying up to America's
enemies and sticking it to America's friends.
As for Canada, Canada is the biggest trading partner of 38 of 50
states and does more trade with the United States than China, the EU
and UK put together.
Not particularly clear on why being rotten to friends and lovey-dovey
to enemies makes good sense but...
Well, when your friends are doing this to you...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/iqcwx6fcsrqs0as/Tariffs.jpg?dl=0
...it's hardly out of line to address the issue.
Oh? Are the Americans going to stop protecting their agriculture industry?
Adam H. Kerman
2018-06-15 03:40:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Darrel Knutson
How much are the Ruskies paying you? Gee, and I always thought that
Canadians were our friends.
It certainly does seem that the President is cosying up to America's
enemies and sticking it to America's friends.
As for Canada, Canada is the biggest trading partner of 38 of 50
states and does more trade with the United States than China, the EU
and UK put together.
Not particularly clear on why being rotten to friends and lovey-dovey
to enemies makes good sense but...
Well, when your friends are doing this to you...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/iqcwx6fcsrqs0as/Tariffs.jpg?dl=0
...it's hardly out of line to address the issue.
Oh? Are the Americans going to stop protecting their agriculture industry?
I'd be in favor of that.
Adam H. Kerman
2018-06-15 03:25:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Darrel Knutson
How much are the Ruskies paying you? Gee, and I always thought that
Canadians were our friends.
It certainly does seem that the President is cosying up to America's
enemies and sticking it to America's friends.
As for Canada, Canada is the biggest trading partner of 38 of 50
states and does more trade with the United States than China, the EU
and UK put together.
Not particularly clear on why being rotten to friends and lovey-dovey
to enemies makes good sense but...
Well, when your friends are doing this to you...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/iqcwx6fcsrqs0as/Tariffs.jpg?dl=0
...it's hardly out of line to address the issue.
Table linen? I had no idea, but I'm not surprised.

All that shit was negotiated in NAFTA. NAFTA is free trade... except for
a laundry list of items each of the three trading partners insisted on
protecting. NAFTA is responsible, in part, for the demise of American
newspapers as it's kept the cost of newsprint much higher than if we had
actual free trade.

I wanted it to lead to a customs union. I don't think Clinton brought it
up seriously.

Ah, the halcyon days of the 1990s... Very few Democrats supported the
administration. NAFTA based with Republican support.
The Horny Goat
2018-06-15 18:59:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 03:25:13 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
All that shit was negotiated in NAFTA. NAFTA is free trade... except for
a laundry list of items each of the three trading partners insisted on
protecting. NAFTA is responsible, in part, for the demise of American
newspapers as it's kept the cost of newsprint much higher than if we had
actual free trade.
I wanted it to lead to a customs union. I don't think Clinton brought it
up seriously.
Ah, the halcyon days of the 1990s... Very few Democrats supported the
administration. NAFTA based with Republican support.
With respect I don't think it's the cost of newsprint that has hurt
the newspaper industry. Do you seriously think Canadian papers are in
good shape? Or newspapers pretty much anywhere in the world?

Yet I'd be very sorry if the only way to get your news was on a tablet
or other online format - that's for sure!
Adam H. Kerman
2018-06-15 19:16:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Adam H. Kerman
All that shit was negotiated in NAFTA. NAFTA is free trade... except for
a laundry list of items each of the three trading partners insisted on
protecting. NAFTA is responsible, in part, for the demise of American
newspapers as it's kept the cost of newsprint much higher than if we had
actual free trade.
I wanted it to lead to a customs union. I don't think Clinton brought it
up seriously.
Ah, the halcyon days of the 1990s... Very few Democrats supported the
administration. NAFTA based with Republican support.
With respect I don't think it's the cost of newsprint that has hurt
the newspaper industry. Do you seriously think Canadian papers are in
good shape? Or newspapers pretty much anywhere in the world?
The cost of newsprint is their largest supply cost in production, so
yeah, absolutely, it hurt business terribly during a time that newspapers
absolutely couldn't afford to be burdened with additional costs.
Post by The Horny Goat
Yet I'd be very sorry if the only way to get your news was on a tablet
or other online format - that's for sure!
trotsky
2018-06-15 10:58:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Darrel Knutson
How much are the Ruskies paying you? Gee, and I always thought that
Canadians were our friends.
It certainly does seem that the President is cosying up to America's
enemies and sticking it to America's friends.
As for Canada, Canada is the biggest trading partner of 38 of 50
states and does more trade with the United States than China, the EU
and UK put together.
Not particularly clear on why being rotten to friends and lovey-dovey
to enemies makes good sense but...
Well, when your friends are doing this to you...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/iqcwx6fcsrqs0as/Tariffs.jpg?dl=0
...it's hardly out of line to address the issue.
Any chance you can corroborate those figures?
The Horny Goat
2018-06-15 18:57:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Well, when your friends are doing this to you...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/iqcwx6fcsrqs0as/Tariffs.jpg?dl=0
...it's hardly out of line to address the issue.
What is your source on this graphic?
FPP
2018-06-15 20:27:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by BTR1701
Well, when your friends are doing this to you...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/iqcwx6fcsrqs0as/Tariffs.jpg?dl=0
...it's hardly out of line to address the issue.
What is your source on this graphic?
Oh, fuck, you just asked "THE QUESTION".
You're NEVER supposed to ask "THE QUESTION".
"THE QUESTION" must never be uttered.

When *I* asked the question once, I was told "George Magazine"... a
publication by JFK Jr. that ceased to exist in 2001.

Pull up them boots... you're about to be knee-deep in bullshit.
--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)
Michael OConnor
2018-06-13 15:46:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I started reading the article, until the author started whining about how, even if California was split into three states and given a total of six Senators, they would still be underrepresented in the Senate in regards to the ratio of population per Senator. I guess somebody must have forgotten to take American history or else they would have known about the whole Great Compromise big state vs. little state thingy. I won't be too hard on the author, as I hear these days most schools teach American history starting not with the Pilgrims but instead with the Civil War. I guess this way they can spend a lot of time talking about what great people Wilson, FDR, Obama and Hillary Clinton are.
Adam H. Kerman
2018-06-13 22:02:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Michael OConnor
I started reading the article, until the author started whining about
how, even if California was split into three states and given a total of
six Senators, they would still be underrepresented in the Senate in
regards to the ratio of population per Senator. I guess somebody must
have forgotten to take American history or else they would have known
about the whole Great Compromise big state vs. little state thingy. I
won't be too hard on the author, as I hear these days most schools teach
American history starting not with the Pilgrims but instead with the
Civil War. I guess this way they can spend a lot of time talking about
what great people Wilson, FDR, Obama and Hillary Clinton are.
When California was first admitted to the union, it was a small state.

The Founding Fathers weren't trying to predict which states would be
large or small. At the time, Virginia dominated.
RichA
2018-06-14 00:39:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Michael OConnor
I started reading the article, until the author started whining about
how, even if California was split into three states and given a total of
six Senators, they would still be underrepresented in the Senate in
regards to the ratio of population per Senator. I guess somebody must
have forgotten to take American history or else they would have known
about the whole Great Compromise big state vs. little state thingy. I
won't be too hard on the author, as I hear these days most schools teach
American history starting not with the Pilgrims but instead with the
Civil War. I guess this way they can spend a lot of time talking about
what great people Wilson, FDR, Obama and Hillary Clinton are.
When California was first admitted to the union, it was a small state.
The Founding Fathers weren't trying to predict which states would be
large or small. At the time, Virginia dominated.
5th largest economy in the world, if it were its own country now.
BTR1701
2018-06-14 02:55:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RichA
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Michael OConnor
I started reading the article, until the author started whining about
how, even if California was split into three states and given a total of
six Senators, they would still be underrepresented in the Senate in
regards to the ratio of population per Senator. I guess somebody must
have forgotten to take American history or else they would have known
about the whole Great Compromise big state vs. little state thingy. I
won't be too hard on the author, as I hear these days most schools teach
American history starting not with the Pilgrims but instead with the
Civil War. I guess this way they can spend a lot of time talking about
what great people Wilson, FDR, Obama and Hillary Clinton are.
When California was first admitted to the union, it was a small state.
The Founding Fathers weren't trying to predict which states would be
large or small. At the time, Virginia dominated.
5th largest economy in the world, if it were its own country now.
Sixth, not fifth. Theoretically. There's actually a lot of caveats to
that oft-repeated stat.
trotsky
2018-06-14 11:02:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by RichA
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Michael OConnor
I started reading the article, until the author started whining about
how, even if California was split into three states and given a total of
six Senators, they would still be underrepresented in the Senate in
regards to the ratio of population per Senator. I guess somebody must
have forgotten to take American history or else they would have known
about the whole Great Compromise big state vs. little state thingy. I
won't be too hard on the author, as I hear these days most schools teach
American history starting not with the Pilgrims but instead with the
Civil War. I guess this way they can spend a lot of time talking about
what great people Wilson, FDR, Obama and Hillary Clinton are.
When California was first admitted to the union, it was a small state.
The Founding Fathers weren't trying to predict which states would be
large or small. At the time, Virginia dominated.
5th largest economy in the world, if it were its own country now.
Sixth, not fifth. Theoretically. There's actually a lot of caveats to
that oft-repeated stat.
The theoretical caveats are the worst. And the most nonsensical.
Michael OConnor
2018-06-14 01:02:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
When California was first admitted to the union, it was a small state.
The Founding Fathers weren't trying to predict which states would be
large or small. At the time, Virginia dominated.
It's a catch-22, this bicameral legislature thing we have, in that larger population states like California, Florida and Texas have more representatives but their Senators have fewer to cover the needs of more constituents, but the smaller population states like Delaware and Alaska have fewer representatives but their Senators have to cover the needs of fewer constituents. All in all, it really is the fairest way to do it.
IAM
2018-06-14 02:02:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Michael OConnor
I started reading the article, until the author started whining about how, even if California was split into three states and given a total of six Senators, they would still be underrepresented in the Senate in regards to the ratio of population per Senator. I guess somebody must have forgotten to take American history or else they would have known about the whole Great Compromise big state vs. little state thingy. I won't be too hard on the author, as I hear these days most schools teach American history starting not with the Pilgrims but instead with the Civil War. I guess this way they can spend a lot of time talking about what great people Wilson, FDR, Obama and Hillary Clinton are.
relative points. Federalist papers say 1 Congress for every 35,000 Americans, period. does not care about boarders or laws of states.
Michael OConnor
2018-06-14 02:36:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by IAM
Post by Michael OConnor
I started reading the article, until the author started whining about how, even if California was split into three states and given a total of six Senators, they would still be underrepresented in the Senate in regards to the ratio of population per Senator. I guess somebody must have forgotten to take American history or else they would have known about the whole Great Compromise big state vs. little state thingy. I won't be too hard on the author, as I hear these days most schools teach American history starting not with the Pilgrims but instead with the Civil War. I guess this way they can spend a lot of time talking about what great people Wilson, FDR, Obama and Hillary Clinton are.
relative points. Federalist papers say 1 Congress for every 35,000 Americans, period. does not care about boarders or laws of states.
One Congressperson per 35K people in today's USA would be a Congress of nearly ten thousand people. With a group of politicians that size in this country, it would probably still come down to one major representative in each state (surely chosen by a majority of the Congresspeople in each particular state) doing the majority of the speaking on most matters while the entire rank and file votes. In that way, it would almost be like a two stage legislature, as there would still be an inner circle for politicians.
Ed Stasiak
2018-06-14 05:56:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Michael OConnor
Post by IAM
IAM
Federalist papers say 1 Congress for every 35,000 Americans, period. does not care
about boarders or laws of states.
One Congressperson per 35K people in today's USA would be a Congress of nearly
ten thousand people.
Right now, we’ve got one Representative for every 709,760 people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929

The Reapportionment Act of 1929 continued to establish a 435-member House of Representatives
where it has since stayed, excepting a slight increase to 437 members with the admission of Alaska
and Hawaii into the United States. It allowed states to lose seats at each apportionment based on
their relative population growth to other states, rather than increasing the size of the House. In order
to avoid future failures of reapportionment as in 1921, the Act established apportionment according
to the method of equal proportions. It eliminated debates about the proper divisor for district size;
any divisor that gives 435 members has the same apportionment.

The permanent House size has generated some controversy because, combined with continued
population growth, it leads to larger Congressional districts for each Representative. Opponents of
a constant House size claim that the framers of the Constitution intended each district size to remain
between 30,000 and roughly 60,000 constituents, and that larger district sizes take away representation
from the people.

According to the 2010 census, the average district size is more than 700,000 constituents per
representative. However, it would require a House size of over 5,000 members in order to keep
the average district size below 60,000 constituents.

The Reapportionment Act of 1929 also did away with any mention of districts at all. This provided a
solution to the problem of threatened incumbents by allowing the political parties in control of the state
legislatures to draw districting lines at will and to elect some or all representatives at large.
RichA
2018-06-14 07:35:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ed Stasiak
Michael OConnor
Post by IAM
IAM
Federalist papers say 1 Congress for every 35,000 Americans, period. does not care
about boarders or laws of states.
One Congressperson per 35K people in today's USA would be a Congress of nearly
ten thousand people.
Right now, we’ve got one Representative for every 709,760 people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929
The Reapportionment Act of 1929 continued to establish a 435-member House of Representatives
where it has since stayed, excepting a slight increase to 437 members with the admission of Alaska
and Hawaii into the United States. It allowed states to lose seats at each apportionment based on
their relative population growth to other states, rather than increasing the size of the House. In order
to avoid future failures of reapportionment as in 1921, the Act established apportionment according
to the method of equal proportions. It eliminated debates about the proper divisor for district size;
any divisor that gives 435 members has the same apportionment.
The permanent House size has generated some controversy because, combined with continued
population growth, it leads to larger Congressional districts for each Representative. Opponents of
a constant House size claim that the framers of the Constitution intended each district size to remain
between 30,000 and roughly 60,000 constituents, and that larger district sizes take away representation
from the people.
According to the 2010 census, the average district size is more than 700,000 constituents per
representative. However, it would require a House size of over 5,000 members in order to keep
the average district size below 60,000 constituents.
The Reapportionment Act of 1929 also did away with any mention of districts at all. This provided a
solution to the problem of threatened incumbents by allowing the political parties in control of the state
legislatures to draw districting lines at will and to elect some or all representatives at large.
I suggest the portion of California containing L.A. be called "The People's Republic of California" and their elected state body could be the "California Politburo."
BTR1701
2018-06-14 08:17:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RichA
I suggest the portion of California containing L.A. be called "The People's
Republic of California" and their elected state body could be the "California
Politburo."
If you're going to go with those names, then you're missing the real
communists in the state. L.A. may be bad, but it ain't nothing compared
to the Marxists in San Francisco and Sacramento.
trotsky
2018-06-14 10:48:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by RichA
I suggest the portion of California containing L.A. be called "The People's
Republic of California" and their elected state body could be the "California
Politburo."
If you're going to go with those names, then you're missing the real
communists in the state. L.A. may be bad, but it ain't nothing compared
to the Marxists in San Francisco and Sacramento.
LOL! What exactly are the "Marxists" doing to make your stupid
motherfucking Libertarian ass feel so threatened?
Adam H. Kerman
2018-06-14 17:57:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by RichA
I suggest the portion of California containing L.A. be called "The
People's Republic of California" and their elected state body could be
the "California Politburo."
If you're going to go with those names, then you're missing the real
communists in the state. L.A. may be bad, but it ain't nothing compared
to the Marxists in San Francisco and Sacramento.
PICKERING. Have you no morals, man?

DOOLITTLE [unabashed] Can't afford them, Governor. Neither could
you if you was as poor as me.

Pygmalion, G.B. Shaw
The Horny Goat
2018-06-14 22:45:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 08:46:15 -0700 (PDT), Michael OConnor
Post by Michael OConnor
I guess this way they can spend a lot of time talking about what great people Wilson, FDR, Obama and Hillary Clinton are.
Guess we had best not tell them Woodrow Wilson was the greatest
segregationist of his age!
Adam H. Kerman
2018-06-14 23:21:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Michael OConnor
I guess this way they can spend a lot of time talking about what great people Wilson, FDR, Obama and Hillary Clinton are.
Guess we had best not tell them Woodrow Wilson was the greatest
segregationist of his age!
Fairly typical opinions for a southerner.
The Horny Goat
2018-06-15 17:32:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 23:21:31 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Michael OConnor
I guess this way they can spend a lot of time talking about what great people Wilson, FDR, Obama and Hillary Clinton are.
Guess we had best not tell them Woodrow Wilson was the greatest
segregationist of his age!
Fairly typical opinions for a southerner.
Fairly typical opinions for a southerner in the 1910-25 era.

In Canada both our first prime minister MacDonald and a chief cabinet
minister Langevin (who until recently one of the three main buildings
of Parliament was named after) held what were for the time (1850-1890)
fairly typical views on the subject of aboriginal peoples and have
been sliced and diced in the present day.

No doubt the United States will be retroactively vilified for
abolishing slavery 40 years after the UK and 25 years before
Brazil.....

All sorts of things were commonplace 100+ years ago that would set the
SJWs' hair on fire and apparently the new norm is that historical
figures are judged by today's standards.

Presumably Ike will be on trial next for leading America's segregated
army to war - army integration was done in the Truman era (apparently
with DDE's full blessing) and was a done deal by the time he became
president.
Adam H. Kerman
2018-06-15 17:47:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Michael OConnor
I guess this way they can spend a lot of time talking about what great people Wilson, FDR, Obama and Hillary Clinton are.
Guess we had best not tell them Woodrow Wilson was the greatest
segregationist of his age!
Fairly typical opinions for a southerner.
Fairly typical opinions for a southerner in the 1910-25 era.
In Canada both our first prime minister MacDonald and a chief cabinet
minister Langevin (who until recently one of the three main buildings
of Parliament was named after) held what were for the time (1850-1890)
fairly typical views on the subject of aboriginal peoples and have
been sliced and diced in the present day.
No doubt the United States will be retroactively vilified for
abolishing slavery 40 years after the UK and 25 years before
Brazil.....
It's not comparable. UK didn't have slavery at home, just abroad, which
is why the issue didn't trigger civil war in the UK. Furthermore, slavery
was largely abolished, but there were numerous exceptions allowing certain
types of slavery to continue for decades.

Curiously, the UK forgot to abolish the nobility and the massive
portions of the country at home it was allowed to control, plus massive
amounts of Irish land it controlled. So I fail to see how that wasn't
comparable to a southern plantation.

The UK doesn't have the moral high ground, not at all.
Post by The Horny Goat
All sorts of things were commonplace 100+ years ago that would set the
SJWs' hair on fire and apparently the new norm is that historical
figures are judged by today's standards.
Presumably Ike will be on trial next for leading America's segregated
army to war - army integration was done in the Truman era (apparently
with DDE's full blessing) and was a done deal by the time he became
president.
Quite frankly, Eisenhower had two significant periods during his
presidency in which the federal government was enforcing desegration,
something it had barely done since the end of Reconstruction. Given that
Eisenhower was a southerner, that's actually impressive.
David Johnston
2018-06-14 13:25:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RichA
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/13/us/california-three-states-initiative-ballot/index.html
...yeah that's what would happen. You wouldn't just end up with 4 more Dem Senators. <snort>
Loading...