Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[DB]

You can see a trend in many radical organisations. What may start out with the best of intentions morphs over time into more extreme positions, with each successive generation outdoing the previous.

 

Of course, it doesn't just apply to radicals. Reactionaries get ever more defensive as generations pass.

[sunday]

You can see a trend in many radical organisations. What may start out with the best of intentions morphs over time into more extreme positions, with each successive generation outdoing the previous.

 

Of course, it doesn't just apply to radicals. Reactionaries get ever more defensive as generations pass.

Nope. There are slack times, and there are times when people gets more believing.

 

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

[Jeff]

Well, both of her brain cells just quit so what's she going to do now?

 

Upheaval: AOC's chief of staff and top spokesman quit

[Ivanhoe]

Well, both of her brain cells just quit so what's she going to do now?

 

Upheaval: AOC's chief of staff and top spokesman quit

 

Considering the stuff she says on the record, can you imagine the stuff she says in private?

[Stargrunt6]

 

 

Well, both of her brain cells just quit so what's she going to do now?

 

Upheaval: AOC's chief of staff and top spokesman quit

Considering the stuff she says on the record, can you imagine the stuff she says in private?

[DKTanker]

 

Well, both of her brain cells just quit so what's she going to do now?

 

Upheaval: AOC's chief of staff and top spokesman quit

 

Considering the stuff she says on the record, can you imagine the stuff she says in private?

 

"Did you know that a Cuba Libre is just a rum and coke? I learned that in bartending school."

[rmgill]

That's worth a Max Cady laugh.

[Murph]

Our rocket scientist Occasional Cortex now says that the Electorial College is racist. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/08/20/aoc-wants-to-abolish-a-system-that-protects-rural-americans-n2551989

[sunday]

Mexico went downhill quite quickly after independence...

[Paul G.]

Our rocket scientist Occasional Cortex now says that the Electorial College is racist. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/08/20/aoc-wants-to-abolish-a-system-that-protects-rural-americans-n2551989

1st not many members of Congress are rocket scientists.

 

2nd what was is the effect of the electoral college construct on minority voters?

[Harold Jones]

 

Our rocket scientist Occasional Cortex now says that the Electorial College is racist. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/08/20/aoc-wants-to-abolish-a-system-that-protects-rural-americans-n2551989

1st not many members of Congress are rocket scientists.

 

2nd what was is the effect of the electoral college construct on minority voters?

 

It's the same effect on non-minority voters. If you live in a populous state your vote counts for less than if you live in a low population state. The constitution was written to take as much power from individual voters as it could manage. This was done because the founders didn't believe in direct democracy and because the only way the smaller states would agree to giving so much power to the central government was by ensuring that there were limits on the power of large states. Under the constitution as written, the people elect members of congress for their district, the Governor of a state selected the senators and the states elected the president. The only reason the Democrats are currently whining about the Electoral College is because it delivered a result they didn't like. Had the vote count in the EC been reversed the party doing the whining would have been as well.

[Paul G.]

 

 

 

Our rocket scientist Occasional Cortex now says that the Electorial College is racist. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/08/20/aoc-wants-to-abolish-a-system-that-protects-rural-americans-n2551989

1st not many members of Congress are rocket scientists.

 

2nd what was is the effect of the electoral college construct on minority voters?

It's the same effect on non-minority voters. If you live in a populous state your vote counts for less than if you live in a low population state. The constitution was written to take as much power from individual voters as it could manage. This was done because the founders didn't believe in direct democracy and because the only way the smaller states would agree to giving so much power to the central government was by ensuring that there were limits on the power of large states. Under the constitution as written, the people elect members of congress for their district, the Governor of a state selected the senators and the states elected the president. The only reason the Democrats are currently whining about the Electoral College is because it delivered a result they didn't like. Had the vote count in the EC been reversed the party doing the whining would have been as well.

I understand how the EC works and justifications for its existance Harold. But opinions differ. The effect is disproportionate to minorities. Politics is is a neutral factor. Justice, and governance is not. It is either citizens are equal under the law, or it is skewed.

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/the-racial-history-of-the-electoral-college-and-why-efforts-to-change-it-have-stalled

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/electoral-college-slavery-constitution

 

So it is Constitutional Scholars where AOC got here opinions. Not "Rocket Scientists" I grant you, but at least valid in terms of debate.

Edited August 21, 2019 by Paul G.

[DKTanker]

It's the same effect on non-minority voters. If you live in a populous state your vote counts for less than if you live in a low population state. The constitution was written to take as much power from individual voters as it could manage. This was done because the founders didn't believe in direct democracy and because the only way the smaller states would agree to giving so much power to the central government was by ensuring that there were limits on the power of large states. Under the constitution as written, the people elect members of congress for their district, the Governor of a state selected the senators and the states elected the president. The only reason the Democrats are currently whining about the Electoral College is because it delivered a result they didn't like. Had the vote count in the EC been reversed the party doing the whining would have been as well.

Whiners and detractors of the EC know all of this full well, they use the methodology of the EC to further their agenda. In this case, racial divisiveness. If they really wanted to make a useful suggestion it would be a serious push to increase the size of the House of Representatives. The population of the US has increased threefold since the 1929 Apportionment act capped the number of representatives at 435.

[Harold Jones]

 

It's the same effect on non-minority voters. If you live in a populous state your vote counts for less than if you live in a low population state. The constitution was written to take as much power from individual voters as it could manage. This was done because the founders didn't believe in direct democracy and because the only way the smaller states would agree to giving so much power to the central government was by ensuring that there were limits on the power of large states. Under the constitution as written, the people elect members of congress for their district, the Governor of a state selected the senators and the states elected the president. The only reason the Democrats are currently whining about the Electoral College is because it delivered a result they didn't like. Had the vote count in the EC been reversed the party doing the whining would have been as well.

Whiners and detractors of the EC know all of this full well, they use the methodology of the EC to further their agenda. In this case, racial divisiveness. If they really wanted to make a useful suggestion it would be a serious push to increase the size of the House of Representatives. The population of the US has increased threefold since the 1929 Apportionment act capped the number of representatives at 435.

 

 

 

 

Our rocket scientist Occasional Cortex now says that the Electorial College is racist. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/08/20/aoc-wants-to-abolish-a-system-that-protects-rural-americans-n2551989

1st not many members of Congress are rocket scientists.

 

2nd what was is the effect of the electoral college construct on minority voters?

It's the same effect on non-minority voters. If you live in a populous state your vote counts for less than if you live in a low population state. The constitution was written to take as much power from individual voters as it could manage. This was done because the founders didn't believe in direct democracy and because the only way the smaller states would agree to giving so much power to the central government was by ensuring that there were limits on the power of large states. Under the constitution as written, the people elect members of congress for their district, the Governor of a state selected the senators and the states elected the president. The only reason the Democrats are currently whining about the Electoral College is because it delivered a result they didn't like. Had the vote count in the EC been reversed the party doing the whining would have been as well.

I understand how the EC works and justifications for its existance Harold. But opinions differ. The effect is disproportionate to minorities. Politics is is a neutral factor. Justice, and governance is not. It is either citizens are equal under the law, or it is skewed.

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/the-racial-history-of-the-electoral-college-and-why-efforts-to-change-it-have-stalled

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/electoral-college-slavery-constitution

 

So it is Constitutional Scholars where AOC got here opinions. Not "Rocket Scientists" I grant you, but at least valid in terms of debate.

 

 

Based on the original story she got her opinions from reading a story in New York Magazine. Not sure which article, but maybe this one http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/why-every-argument-for-preserving-the-electoral-college-is-wrong-warren-cnn.html I don't find it particularly persuasive but I take a dim view of direct democracy at just about any level of government.

[Harold Jones]

 

It's the same effect on non-minority voters. If you live in a populous state your vote counts for less than if you live in a low population state. The constitution was written to take as much power from individual voters as it could manage. This was done because the founders didn't believe in direct democracy and because the only way the smaller states would agree to giving so much power to the central government was by ensuring that there were limits on the power of large states. Under the constitution as written, the people elect members of congress for their district, the Governor of a state selected the senators and the states elected the president. The only reason the Democrats are currently whining about the Electoral College is because it delivered a result they didn't like. Had the vote count in the EC been reversed the party doing the whining would have been as well.

Whiners and detractors of the EC know all of this full well, they use the methodology of the EC to further their agenda. In this case, racial divisiveness. If they really wanted to make a useful suggestion it would be a serious push to increase the size of the House of Representatives. The population of the US has increased threefold since the 1929 Apportionment act capped the number of representatives at 435.

 

Does adding more representives really do much? I would think that if anything it would just make the house even more unwieldy (not necessarily bad) and make the big states even more lucrative in terms of EC votes.

[Paul G.]

 

 

 

 

It's the same effect on non-minority voters. If you live in a populous state your vote counts for less than if you live in a low population state. The constitution was written to take as much power from individual voters as it could manage. This was done because the founders didn't believe in direct democracy and because the only way the smaller states would agree to giving so much power to the central government was by ensuring that there were limits on the power of large states. Under the constitution as written, the people elect members of congress for their district, the Governor of a state selected the senators and the states elected the president. The only reason the Democrats are currently whining about the Electoral College is because it delivered a result they didn't like. Had the vote count in the EC been reversed the party doing the whining would have been as well.

Whiners and detractors of the EC know all of this full well, they use the methodology of the EC to further their agenda. In this case, racial divisiveness. If they really wanted to make a useful suggestion it would be a serious push to increase the size of the House of Representatives. The population of the US has increased threefold since the 1929 Apportionment act capped the number of representatives at 435.

Does adding more representives really do much? I would think that if anything it would just make the house even more unwieldy (not necessarily bad) and make the big states even more lucrative in terms of EC votes.

Well it would obviously decrease the consistancy size per representative, which is a positive for representative government.

[DKTanker]

 

 

It's the same effect on non-minority voters. If you live in a populous state your vote counts for less than if you live in a low population state. The constitution was written to take as much power from individual voters as it could manage. This was done because the founders didn't believe in direct democracy and because the only way the smaller states would agree to giving so much power to the central government was by ensuring that there were limits on the power of large states. Under the constitution as written, the people elect members of congress for their district, the Governor of a state selected the senators and the states elected the president. The only reason the Democrats are currently whining about the Electoral College is because it delivered a result they didn't like. Had the vote count in the EC been reversed the party doing the whining would have been as well.

Whiners and detractors of the EC know all of this full well, they use the methodology of the EC to further their agenda. In this case, racial divisiveness. If they really wanted to make a useful suggestion it would be a serious push to increase the size of the House of Representatives. The population of the US has increased threefold since the 1929 Apportionment act capped the number of representatives at 435.

 

Does adding more representives really do much? I would think that if anything it would just make the house even more unwieldy (not necessarily bad) and make the big states even more lucrative in terms of EC votes.

 

What adding more representatives does is make each representative more local giving greater voice to constituency groups. Granted, it accomplishes this at the expense of diluting the power of the individual representatives. Which is quite likely a reason why the issue hasn't been seriously addressed in almost a century.

 

Regarding the HoR being unwieldy, as far as parliamentary bodies go, the HoR is relatively small. The British House of Commons is 650 seats, the German Bundestag is 709, and while the Russian Duma is, at 450 seats, just a bit larger than the US HoR, the Russian population is less than half that of the United States.

Edited August 21, 2019 by DKTanker

[Harold Jones]

 

 

 

It's the same effect on non-minority voters. If you live in a populous state your vote counts for less than if you live in a low population state. The constitution was written to take as much power from individual voters as it could manage. This was done because the founders didn't believe in direct democracy and because the only way the smaller states would agree to giving so much power to the central government was by ensuring that there were limits on the power of large states. Under the constitution as written, the people elect members of congress for their district, the Governor of a state selected the senators and the states elected the president. The only reason the Democrats are currently whining about the Electoral College is because it delivered a result they didn't like. Had the vote count in the EC been reversed the party doing the whining would have been as well.

Whiners and detractors of the EC know all of this full well, they use the methodology of the EC to further their agenda. In this case, racial divisiveness. If they really wanted to make a useful suggestion it would be a serious push to increase the size of the House of Representatives. The population of the US has increased threefold since the 1929 Apportionment act capped the number of representatives at 435.

Does adding more representives really do much? I would think that if anything it would just make the house even more unwieldy (not necessarily bad) and make the big states even more lucrative in terms of EC votes.

Well it would obviously decrease the consistancy size per representative, which is a positive for representative government.

 

Yeah, I could see the appeal in that. The original plan was 1 per 30k, bringing it up to 1/300k would would more or less double the size of congress. Based on quick google of population numbers Montana goes from 1 congressman to 3, California goes from 53 to 151. That last number may make it a hard sell.

Edited August 21, 2019 by Harold Jones

[Paul G.]

 

 

 

 

 

It's the same effect on non-minority voters. If you live in a populous state your vote counts for less than if you live in a low population state. The constitution was written to take as much power from individual voters as it could manage. This was done because the founders didn't believe in direct democracy and because the only way the smaller states would agree to giving so much power to the central government was by ensuring that there were limits on the power of large states. Under the constitution as written, the people elect members of congress for their district, the Governor of a state selected the senators and the states elected the president. The only reason the Democrats are currently whining about the Electoral College is because it delivered a result they didn't like. Had the vote count in the EC been reversed the party doing the whining would have been as well.

Whiners and detractors of the EC know all of this full well, they use the methodology of the EC to further their agenda. In this case, racial divisiveness. If they really wanted to make a useful suggestion it would be a serious push to increase the size of the House of Representatives. The population of the US has increased threefold since the 1929 Apportionment act capped the number of representatives at 435.

Does adding more representives really do much? I would think that if anything it would just make the house even more unwieldy (not necessarily bad) and make the big states even more lucrative in terms of EC votes.

Well it would obviously decrease the consistancy size per representative, which is a positive for representative government.

Yeah, I could see the appeal in that. The original plan was 1 per 30k, bringing it up to 1/300k would would more or less double the size of congress. Based on quick google of population numbers Montana goes from 1 congressman to 3, California goes from 53 to 151. That last number may make it a hard sell.

And DK actually brings up a good point that the US Congress is relatively small.

[sunday]

(...)

Yeah, I could see the appeal in that. The original plan was 1 per 30k, bringing it up to 1/300k would would more or less double the size of congress. Based on quick google of population numbers Montana goes from 1 congressman to 3, California goes from 53 to 151. That last number may make it a hard sell.

California could be easily divided into three new states.

[urbanoid]

 

(...)

Yeah, I could see the appeal in that. The original plan was 1 per 30k, bringing it up to 1/300k would would more or less double the size of congress. Based on quick google of population numbers Montana goes from 1 congressman to 3, California goes from 53 to 151. That last number may make it a hard sell.

California could be easily divided into three new states.

 

How many of those three would be as retarded as current California?

[DKTanker]

 

 

California could be easily divided into three new states.

 

How many of those three would be as retarded as current California?

 

With the fall of Orange County to the imperial Left, they would be indistinguishable.

[rmgill]

 

 

(...)

Yeah, I could see the appeal in that. The original plan was 1 per 30k, bringing it up to 1/300k would would more or less double the size of congress. Based on quick google of population numbers Montana goes from 1 congressman to 3, California goes from 53 to 151. That last number may make it a hard sell.

California could be easily divided into three new states.

 

How many of those three would be as retarded as current California?

 

Well, if you draw the line based on West of the Coastal Mountain range, then that would contain MOST of the retarded.

[FlyingCanOpener]

 

 

(...)

Yeah, I could see the appeal in that. The original plan was 1 per 30k, bringing it up to 1/300k would would more or less double the size of congress. Based on quick google of population numbers Montana goes from 1 congressman to 3, California goes from 53 to 151. That last number may make it a hard sell.

California could be easily divided into three new states.

 

How many of those three would be as retarded as current California?

 

 

Four.

[Colin]

Reducing your senate to 2 Senators per State, would likely make that House far more efficient and effective. Increase their staffing allowance to deal with local issues.