- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Racist NYT Editor Sarah Jeong forgets the constitution
Posted on 2/21/19 at 10:46 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 2/21/19 at 10:46 pm to AggieHank86
quote:You know how Amazon hauled azz from NY due to their policies? What do you think will happen when there are no other states to go to?
How do you contend that internal politics in those two states will destroy the United States?
0
Posted on 2/22/19 at 12:07 am to NIH
quote:Clearly you do not, since I asked you to explain your (poorly) stated position and you did nothing but dodge the question.
Are you slow or do you not understand what Jeong is really getting at?
You said that “mob rule” IN California and NY would ruin the country. I think that is stupid beyond words. If they continue on their current internal course, businesses will just continue to move to civilized places like Texas.
PERHAPS you were TRYING to say “mob rule BY California and NY” ... if the Senatorial apportionment system were to be changed ... but that is NOT what you said. If that IS what you meant, I agree with you ... as I said several times that I would not favor a change in Senatorial apportionment..
Again, please either explain the asinine “IN” assertion or just admit that you misspoke and meant “BY.”
Posted on 2/22/19 at 12:12 am to tiggerthetooth
quote:Why would you or I give a damn about whatever regulations New York and California may place on their internal oil and gas development (if NY even HAS any OGM deveropment)? Neither of them will have any effect upon the rules or regs of the Texas Railroad commission, or whatever the equivalent might be in your state.
How do you this they'd treat the oil & gas sector ? Assuming we turn all decisions over to LA and NYC.
Again, NIH mentioned “mob rule” IN California and NY.
Posted on 2/22/19 at 12:27 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Let's not forget the context of why our legislature took its current form. It was a compromise that was necessary to form a u ion. Just because something was necessary to form a government doesn't mean it should be kept in perpetuity.
Indeed. But the population density disparity has risen, not decreased.
So you think that mitigates toward keeping the same system as was when the population disparity was not anywhere nearly as great, and to the extent it is today, not foreseen.
Posted on 2/22/19 at 12:57 am to HonoraryCoonass
quote:What makes you think that?
Why did we change to elected senators?
One of the worst mistakes this country ever made.
Posted on 2/22/19 at 1:12 am to Ebbandflow
quote:
Even dumber that you believe she doesn't understand. Her whole point is to address a change that needs to be made. It's a point that a lot of liberal people have been bringing up lately. It's normal to change things over time as the situation changes itself
Do liberals not know anything about the constitution? Its writers realized change would be required over the course of time, that is why there is a amendment process.
Posted on 2/22/19 at 1:50 am to texridder
quote:
So you think that mitigates toward keeping the same system as was when the population disparity was not anywhere nearly as great, and to the extent it is today, not foreseen.
this may be the dumbest thing I've read all week. The founders solved a problem that is now worse than it was then... you solution... end the solution. Makes total sense.Posted on 2/22/19 at 2:08 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
this may be the dumbest thing I've read all week. The founders solved a problem
Please explain this problem the founding fathers addressed ahead of time and don't be afraid to be specific.
Posted on 2/22/19 at 2:09 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
The recent result that's caused this is proof it doesn't need changing. The metro-coastal areas already have too much influence on places that have not relation to them.
Set about geographical regions so much as number of people. Why should Wyoming have the same amount of Senators of California? What real relevant answer can you give me to that question?
Posted on 2/22/19 at 2:39 am to Ebbandflow
quote:
Set about geographical regions so much as number of people. Why should Wyoming have the same amount of Senators of California? What real relevant answer can you give me to that question?
You can look that up yourself, lazy POS
after you give us a caravan update
Posted on 2/22/19 at 6:37 am to AggieHank86
You knew exactly what I said and meant. You’re coming across as pathetic
Posted on 2/22/19 at 6:40 am to Ebbandflow
quote:
Please explain this problem the founding fathers addressed ahead of time and don't be afraid to be specific.
Are you seriously claiming that you aren't aware that population disparity was one of the hurdles the founders had to overcome to get the less populated states to sign on to the constitution in the first place? I mean are you really asking somebody to explain basic American history to you?
This post was edited on 2/22/19 at 6:41 am
Posted on 2/22/19 at 6:45 am to Ebbandflow
quote:
Set about geographical regions so much as number of people. Why should Wyoming have the same amount of Senators of California? What real relevant answer can you give me to that question?
Holy shite
Posted on 2/22/19 at 6:56 am to ShortyRob
First, I do not think that a change is a good idea, DESPITE the fact that I live in a high population state (the highest population red state) and would benefit greatly by a change in the senatorial apportionment process (Texas would likely have 8 Senators)
Second, we are talking about a constitutional amendment. By definition, that would require the approval of 3/4 of the states ... which again (by definition) would include some low population states.
if low population states vote to change to a pro rata (as opposed to two per state) senatorial apportionment, that tends to argue against the proposition that concern over “under-representation” continues to be an issue as significant as was the case in 1789.
in other words, a constitutional amendment would require that the people who live in States which are to be “under represented“ would vote to say “we really don’t care. One-man, one-vote is now more imoortant to us.”
AGAIN, I think this would be a bad idea… But the founders formulated the amendment process to allow people, by a super majority, to make whatever decisions they wanted to make… Good or bad.
Second, we are talking about a constitutional amendment. By definition, that would require the approval of 3/4 of the states ... which again (by definition) would include some low population states.
if low population states vote to change to a pro rata (as opposed to two per state) senatorial apportionment, that tends to argue against the proposition that concern over “under-representation” continues to be an issue as significant as was the case in 1789.
in other words, a constitutional amendment would require that the people who live in States which are to be “under represented“ would vote to say “we really don’t care. One-man, one-vote is now more imoortant to us.”
AGAIN, I think this would be a bad idea… But the founders formulated the amendment process to allow people, by a super majority, to make whatever decisions they wanted to make… Good or bad.
Posted on 2/22/19 at 6:57 am to NIH
quote:it is hardly my fault that your proficiency with the English language is… limited
You knew exactly what I said and meant. You’re coming across as pathetic
Posted on 2/22/19 at 7:00 am to AggieHank86
Jeong is not just getting at changing the senate apportionment process, she is indirectly mentioning the electoral college. You know it. I know it. Be better for the sake of whatever few clients you have.
Posted on 2/22/19 at 7:00 am to texridder
quote:
So you think that mitigates toward keeping the same system as was when the population disparity was not anywhere nearly as great, and to the extent it is today, not foreseen.
do we still have states?
do we still have a federal government?
if the answer to those questions is yes, then yes
we are a system of states and a federal government. until that reality ceases to be, we need things like the senate to protect states on the national level
Posted on 2/22/19 at 7:01 am to TrackDawg
quote:EVERYONE ... Left, Right and Center ... understands the historical reasons for the current senatorial apportionment system. Please stop acting as if those who oppose a change to that system have some monopoly on understanding history.quote:Holy shite
Set about geographical regions so much as number of people. Why should Wyoming have the same amount of Senators of California? What real relevant answer can you give me to that question?
Some people simply think that other concerns now override those historical issues. I disagree with them, but stop acting as if they are illiterate. It is childish.
This post was edited on 2/22/19 at 7:05 am
Posted on 2/22/19 at 7:02 am to AggieHank86
Your mamma
Posted on 2/22/19 at 7:02 am to Ebbandflow
quote:
Please explain this problem the founding fathers addressed ahead of time and don't be afraid to be specific.
ensuring that states are protected within the federal framework
the explosion of the federal government and the explosion in population differences are 2 arguments for the Senate, not against
Page 8 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News