Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Because state representatives in the state legislature are elected by the majority IN that district.
This is different than a representative being elected by majority vote of the entire state.
It was never meant to be a pure democracy... the state government was meant to have it's own representation, outside of the *direct* people's will.
Old Joe put it absolutely the best... "We now have to house of representatives..."
You have lost me now.
I understand that different districts in a state might have different interests, but they still have to come to a consensus on who to appoint as Senator. So how can a majority of state legislatures have a different interest than the population of the state that elected them?
I think it would help a lot if you could give me a specific example.
I understand that different districts in a state might have different interests, but they still have to come to a consensus on who to appoint as Senator. So how can a majority of state legislatures have a different interest than the population of the state that elected them?
I think it would help a lot if you could give me a specific example.
You sure are good at playing dumb. Or are you really that dim? We are not your students, we expect you to keep up with the conversation by thinking for yourself.
You sure are good at playing dumb. Or are you really that dim? We are not your students, we expect you to keep up with the conversation by thinking for yourself.
I don't take a position unless I can defend it. And by "defend" I mean more than just resorting to personal insults. Ad hominem arguments are logically fallacious. They avoid genuine debate by creating a personal attack as a diversion. So I don't use them.
I say that the majority of a state legislature should have the same interests as the citizens that elected them. That assumption is the very basis of a representative form of government. I'd say the burden is one you to show how it is not. If you can't then that is fine. But please don't waste our time just to throw out personal insults.
That was a compliment, followed by a question, followed by an observation.
It was not a personal insult.
I am not taking this bait.
No matter how you label it it was still 100% diversion to avoid the issue at debate. I am not going to get sidetracked by a person who does not think it is an insult to tell a person he can not think for himself.
The 17th Amendment should absolutely be overturned.
Amen
*and*
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) should also be overturned.
OH HAPPY DAY!...SCOTUS last Wednesday gave cert to TWO CASES that could very well END over 40 YEARS of the Chevron opinion.
That will go a very long way toward ENDING the "administrative state" power of the federal gooberment that has allowed an ever growing horde of un-elected federal agencies to create "law" out of thin air and cripple this country in many important ways.
The image of thousands of Leftist Wesley Mouch clones in every federal agency suddenly being rendered impotent and whining: "I can't help it. I need wider powers." makes me very happy.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-15-2024).]
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) should also be overturned.
OH HAPPY DAY!...SCOTUS last Wednesday gave cert to TWO CASES that could very well END over 40 YEARS of the Chevron opinion.
That will go a very long way toward ENDING the "administrative state" power of the federal gooberment that has allowed an ever growing horde of un-elected federal agencies to create "law" out of thin air and cripple this country in many important ways.
The image of thousands of Leftist Wesley Mouch clones in every federal agency suddenly being rendered impotent and whining: "I can't help it. I need wider powers." makes me very happy.
Lol... to be honest, it'll probably be a little scary at first. But I agree... the President should not have the authority to pass laws simply by passing edict through the agency directors and heads. These things need to come from the Legislature.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Lol... to be honest, it'll probably be a little scary at first. But I agree... the President should not have the authority to pass laws simply by passing edict through the agency directors and heads. These things need to come from the Legislature.
If "Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council" were to be reversed, diminishing the power of federal regulatory agencies and enlarging the role of Congress, perhaps that will be the impetus that brings an end to the so-called Senate "filibuster" requirement of a 60-vote majority that has been gumming up the "works" in so many malign ways for what now seems like time immemorial.
Originally posted by rinselberg: If "Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council" were to be reversed, diminishing the power of federal regulatory agencies and enlarging the role of Congress, perhaps that will be the impetus that brings an end to the so-called Senate "filibuster" requirement of a 60-vote majority that has been gumming up the "works" in so many malign ways for what now seems like time immemorial.
The only reason why Democrats wanted to do this, was "specifically" for the election laws which they'd hoped to pass at the Federal level. They wanted to pass the laws (which were overturned at the state level) across the entire country at the Federal level... saying things like... "protecting Democracy," and other really crazy slogans. This was shot down (told them that they couldn't), and the two Democrats in there (who will likely go red) said they wouldn't do it. But more importantly... if they did, Republicans could go nuts when they get into power... and Democrats know this. Next election cycle will almost assuredly see a Republican Senate... regardless of anything else.
I forget the numbers, but there are like 20 Democrat seats up, and 11 Republican seats. Almost all the Republican seats are in solid red states, and more than half of the Democrat seats are in swing states, and states which lean right.
No... no I haven't. You're just intentionally being ignorant. This isn't Socratic... this is just being an idiot.
I don't call people ignorant. But if I want to show that some one is ignorant I do it by posting information that proves they are wrong. So If I was really just being "intentionally ignorant" wouldn't it be more effective and satisfying to answer this question.
quote
Originally posted by BingB: So how can a majority of state legislatures have a different interest than the population of the state that elected them?
I think it would help a lot if you could give me a specific example.
That way you can actually "prove" my ignorance instead of just trying to claim it.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Lol... to be honest, it'll probably be a little scary at first. But I agree... the President should not have the authority to pass laws simply by passing edict through the agency directors and heads. These things need to come from the Legislature.
The legislature has the authority to override any executive order. That is a reasonable check on the executive branch that has always been in place. Problem is that our congress is now full of dysfunctional extremists that can't pass any legislation because all they want to do is have theatrical hearings and attack/investigate/impeach the elected officials from the opposing party.
The legislature has the authority to override any executive order. That is a reasonable check on the executive branch that has always been in place. Problem is that our congress is now full of dysfunctional extremists that can't pass any legislation because all they want to do is have theatrical hearings and attack/investigate/impeach the elected officials from the opposing party.
That's a bit dishonest. The process for Congress to pass something has always *INTENTIONALLY* been a long drawn out process. I think it's silly that you say it's full of extremists. Democrats view the Federal government as a means for societal change. That's not what it's for. I'm glad it takes as long as it does because it should be exceptionally important for laws to be created and passed.
Unfortunately, the President can issue executive orders as fast as his aides are capable of writing them. There literally exists absolutely no concept of "executive order" in the U.S. Constitution either... it's literally defined absolutely no where in it. Literally, the entire "executive order" philosophy is a bastardization of the phrase, "to faithfully execute the law." So I'm looking forward to the day that this is struck down on sheer principle.
quote
Originally posted by BingB:I don't call people ignorant. But if I want to show that some one is ignorant I do it by posting information that proves they are wrong. So If I was really just being "intentionally ignorant" wouldn't it be more effective and satisfying to answer this question.
That way you can actually "prove" my ignorance instead of just trying to claim it.
Nonsense... you're not asking serious questions for which you want an honest answer. You're just playing a stupid game.
I don't know about you... but I have a LOT going on. I come on here because I legitimately find Rinse to be a reasonable person with which to have a discussion from the other side, even if I disagree with the majority of what he says. With you, you're just intelligent enough to assume that everyone else isn't. So you don't realize that everyone else can clearly see what you're doing. You think you're being slick by rephrasing the same stupid questions with some goal of trying to catch me or someone else in a paradoxical answer. I don't have time to keep answer the same God-damned stupid questions you keep asking in order to satisfy whatever ridiculous game you're playing that you think is using the "Socratic Method." I've read Aristotle's Poetics a long ass time ago (I think that's where I first learned of it), and you sure as **** aren't doing it right.
Have an honest debate Fred, or stop wasting everyone's time.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 01-16-2024).]
And what is a specific example of an issue where the state "government" would have a different interest than the citizens of that state.
Let's say you have a state that has been divided into 10 districts. Each district elects a representative to the state legislature, based on the popular vote within the district.
Of the 10 districts, 9 are sparsely populated rural districts. The other district is an urban center that has more residents than all of the other 9 districts combined.
So you have a state legislature that has 9 representatives from the state's various versions of "Smallville" and just a single representative from "Gotham City." The 9 reps from "Smallville" easily outvote the 1 rep from "Gotham" in the state legislature, while the 9 reps from "Smallville" altogether represent only about 38 percent of the state's total residents... clearly just a minority of the statewide popular vote.
That's hypothetical, but I think it has a close resemblance to reality in the way that people in rural or lightly populated exurban districts tend to be overrepresented in state legislatures, in the sense that each of their votes counts for more on a representational basis, compared to the vote of any one person who resides in one of a state's more densely populated urban districts.
I think this provides the example that almost any issue could be an issue where a state legislature has a different "interest" than the citizens of the state, considered at large, and without respect to district within the state.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: With you, you're just intelligent enough to assume that everyone else isn't. So you don't realize that everyone else can clearly see what you're doing. You think you're being slick by rephrasing the same stupid questions with some goal of trying to catch me or someone else in a paradoxical answer.
Have an honest debate Fred, or stop wasting everyone's time.
I hate to have to keep repeating it, but; NEVER allow a Leftist to frame the question, (or state the premise).
.
Also:
NEVER allow a Leftist to attempt, (and spectacularly FAIL), to explain Congressional districts to anyone.
Leftists gotta Leftist ...even when they don't have a clue why we have a federal census
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-16-2024).]
Let's say you have a state that has been divided into 10 districts. Each district elects a representative to the state legislature, based on the popular vote within the district.
Of the 10 districts, 9 are sparsely populated rural districts. The other district is an urban center that has more residents than all of the other 9 districts combined.
So you have a state legislature that has 9 representatives from the state's various versions of "Smallville" and just a single representative from "Gotham City." The 9 reps from "Smallville" easily outvote the 1 rep from "Gotham" in the state legislature, while the 9 reps from "Smallville" altogether represent only about 38 percent of the state's total residents... clearly just a minority of the statewide popular vote.
That's hypothetical, but I think it has a close resemblance to reality in the way that people in rural or lightly populated exurban districts tend to be overrepresented in state legislatures, in the sense that each of their votes counts for more on a representational basis, compared to the vote of any one person who resides in one of a state's more densely populated urban districts.
I think this provides the example that almost any issue could be an issue where a state legislature has a different "interest" than the citizens of the state, considered at large, and without respect to district within the state.
Let's say, in your mind, that's how it works.
But, in reality, voting districts are based on population base, so every representative is representing the same number of people.
Is addressing or referring to "BingB" as "Fred" a way of othering him? A way of dissing his thoughts without doing the work or taking the responsibility of meeting his thoughts head on?
I'm not convinced it's the same guy.
It would be an interesting research project to really explore it forensically, but is it interesting enough? Not for me.
It's no small chore to figure out how to use an automated stylometry tool like WebSty for authorship analysis in an unimpeachably accurate way. There are other aspects of "BingB v. fredtoast" that could be scrutinized, such as origin stories, as (possibly) represented within the forum, and quantifiers having to do with "their" footprints in other sections of the forum, v. this Politics (& Religion) section. IP addresses could come into play, if data were available.
Therein lies the problem. It would be a research project.
I'd rather not be singled out as a counterexample, even in a friendly way—as "82-T/A" has just done—in these subtexts about the merits of BingB's way of "doing" this forum.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-16-2024).]
Originally posted by rinselberg:Let's say you have a state that has been divided into 10 districts. Each district elects a representative to the state legislature, based on the popular vote within the district.
...
I think this provides the example that almost any issue could be an issue where a state legislature has a different "interest" than the citizens of the state, considered at large, and without respect to district within the state.
This is to a degree what I'm talking about. Though it's not as pronounced as that, because the Constitution states that the districts must have the same amount of people being represented (within an acceptable variance). Some states have more variance, while others have less... it just has to be justified by state law within the states why that variance is acceptable. Right or wrong, you have gerrymandering that's done by the states (which obviously you know... and I'm not just responding to you but to everyone). And Democrat states, just like with Republican states, will often create districts to maximize one particular party vote to the best of their ability. For example... in an city that has 3 districts that are made up mostly of Democrats, a Democrat legislature will redistrict to make sure the three districts are solid blue... while a Republican legislature might modify those three districts to keep two of them solid blue, but map the third district in a way that it captures whatever Republican vote exists all into at least one of them to put that into play.
Either way... what you say is correct. If you have a Republican legislature, and a Democrat governor (which can happen because of gerrymandering), the Federal senators were supposed to represent the state... e.g., the state legislature. So to answer Fred's question about "how can this be..." this is a situation in which the popular opinion of the state might differ from that of the state legislature. Be that public opinion, or even the view of a Governor if a different party from the legislature.
To quote Old Joe... now we basically have two House of Representatives. I'd never heard it phrased that way, but he's totally correct. That's essentially what we've created.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:I'd rather not be singled out as a counterexample, even in a friendly way—as "82-T/A" has just done—in these subtexts about the merits of BingB's way of "doing" this forum.
Obviously, I know you don't like being called out as a hammer against your party colleagues here. But I do so to emphasize the difference. You and I can have a discussion... there's a mutual respect. With Patrick, it's like my mom is watching her child do something bad that she just told him not to do, and he's doing it anyway... followed by constant gasps. With Ray, it's like there's a crazy man on the street corner who keeps screaming at people while they're trying to have a conversation. With Fred, it's like he doesn't "grasp" the room, and keeps persisting on something with this idea that he's going to eventually get to a gotcha, but never does. Every conversation with him is like that. There's no normal back and forth discussion like I can have with you.
You think you're being slick by rephrasing the same stupid questions with some goal of trying to catch me or someone else in a paradoxical answer. I don't have time to keep answer the same God-damned stupid questions you keep asking in order to satisfy whatever ridiculous game you're playing
I don't know what this guy Fred did to you, but you need to step back and take a deep breath. Stop attacking me for whatever he did. I don't do personal attacks. I don't post misinformation. Why are you attacking me?
I have not asked any "stupid questions". I just seriously can not understand how a state legislature would have a different interest than the citizens who elected them. That argument does not make any sense to me. But since it upsets you so much I will drop it.
Sorry that I often ask questions when people make arguments that I do not understand. I don't know any other way to get the information I need to debate them. Maybe we could come up with a "safe word" for you to use so that you won't have to go off on me with personal insults, That way you can just say the word when you feel threatened by my questions and I will back off.
BTW why will no one tell me what happened to Mr. Toast? What did he do to get banned? Or did he lose a bet?
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 01-17-2024).]
Originally posted by BingB:I don't know what this guy Fred did to you, but you need to step back and take a deep breath. Stop attacking me for whatever he did. I don't do personal attacks. I don't post misinformation. Why are you attacking me?
I have not asked any "stupid questions". I just seriously can not understand how a state legislature would have a different interest than the citizens who elected them. That argument does not make any sense to me. But since it upsets you so much I will drop it.
Sorry that I often ask questions when people make arguments that I do not understand. I don't know any other way to get the information I need to debate them. Maybe we could come up with a "safe word" for you to use so that you won't have to go off on me with personal insults, That way you can just say the word when you feel threatened by my questions and I will back off.
BTW why will no one tell me what happened to Mr. Toast? What did he do to get banned? Or did he lose a bet?
You've had both Republicans and Democrats on here tell you. If multiple people explaining it to you didn't work, then I think we just need to move on.
No one is answering your question because we think you're Fred, and no one wants to waste their time.
But I think the post on supporting animal sex, and the comments he made about my daughter and a sex dungeon are not lost on anyone.
Let's say, in your mind, that's how it works. But in reality, voting districts are based on population base, so every representative is representing the same number of people.
Yes. I went off the rails (so to speak) with my hypothetical. I was thinking about some of the reports I had seen about gerrymandering and I thought I remembered some of it having to do with districts that did not represent roughly the same number of people.
When I saw this remark from "olejoedad" I searched for reports about what I thought I had remembered, but came up empty.
I fault myself for not getting my ducks in a row before going public in the way that I went public.
This is a case where Memory Did Not Serve Me.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-17-2024).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: You've had both Republicans and Democrats on here tell you. If multiple people explaining it to you didn't work, then I think we just need to move on. .
The only one who attempted to explain it was Rinse, and he was wrong. He thought it was because you guys supported inequality in representation i.e., smaller population districts having as much representation as more populated ones.
Nihilists failing ! When he begins to care about something, he will attempt to communicate using the internet and language. Why the 5th grade failed him, that nasty teacher, a RW nut job, a Nixon freak ! Somewhere out there is a wall that he strikes with his forehead, imprinting regret for not doing the work teach sent him home with. ' Lazy, ignorant, unwilling to read the books assigned, Fail ! '
Originally posted by BingB: I don't know what this guy Fred did to you, but you need to step back and take a deep breath. Stop attacking me for whatever he did. I don't do personal attacks. I don't post misinformation. Why are you attacking me?
I have not asked any "stupid questions". I just seriously can not understand how a state legislature would have a different interest than the citizens who elected them. That argument does not make any sense to me. But since it upsets you so much I will drop it.
Sorry that I often ask questions when people make arguments that I do not understand. I don't know any other way to get the information I need to debate them. Maybe we could come up with a "safe word" for you to use so that you won't have to go off on me with personal insults, That way you can just say the word when you feel threatened by my questions and I will back off.
BTW why will no one tell me what happened to Mr. Toast? What did he do to get banned? Or did he lose a bet?
It's easy enough for you to read his posts on this Forum, they are all there.
With Patrick, it's like my mom is watching her child do something bad that she just told him not to do, and he's doing it anyway... followed by constant gasps.
I haven't posted in this thread for a month, yet you bring my name up here with some sort of convoluted nonsense.
