The Case for Enlarging the House of Representatives

[Harpy Eagle]

Whatever. And you people are fucking disingenuous liars.

He's a globalist.

Of course they all believe in "austerity" ostensibly.

Till they don't.

There was never a bank or corporate bail-out they didn't like. It is always 'bout their portfolios. His motivations are as transparent as a pain of glass. As are yours, like usual.

How's your Pfizer investments doing? Eh?

He doesn't give a shit about the nation, or it's people. Only the financialization of what the cultural, financial, and political elites can extract from the nation and the world is of interest to folks like this. National sovereignty and the destiny of little people are of very little real concern to folks like him. Nor is the real destiny of the nation.

If stripping folks liberty and creating a police state will lead to more profit? Oh well. . .

Damn, that was an epic rant. Well done.

 

[MisterBeale]

Damn, that was an epic rant. Well done.

Make fun all you like wise ass.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Make fun all you like wise ass.

Dude, that rant was epic. 100% wrong, but epic none the less. It is amazing how many of you people just assume anyone that does not have their head up Trump's ass is a progressive that cares about nothing but money....when in reality it is your fucking god that is a progressive that cares about nothing but money

 

[g5000]

Whatever. And you people are fucking disingenuous liars.

He's a globalist.

Of course they all believe in "austerity" ostensibly.

Till they don't.

There was never a bank or corporate bail-out they didn't like. It is always 'bout their portfolios. His motivations are as transparent as a pain of glass. As are yours, like usual.

How's your Pfizer investments doing? Eh?

He doesn't give a shit about the nation, or it's people. Only the financialization of what the cultural, financial, and political elites can extract from the nation and the world is of interest to folks like this. National sovereignty and the destiny of little people are of very little real concern to folks like him. Nor is the real destiny of the nation.

If stripping folks liberty and creating a police state will lead to more profit? Oh well. . .

Are you talking about me?

Because if you are, have the balls to confront me directly with your bullshit straw men.

 

[MisterBeale]

Are you talking about me?

Because if you are, have the balls to confront me directly with your bullshit straw men.

 

[MisterBeale]

Dude, that rant was epic. 100% wrong, but epic none the less. It is amazing how many of you people just assume anyone that does not have their head up Trump's ass is a progressive that cares about nothing but money....when in reality it is your fucking god that is a progressive that cares about nothing but money

 

[g5000]

There was never a bank or corporate bail-out they didn't like. It is always 'bout their portfolios. His motivations are as transparent as a pain of glass. As are yours, like usual.

Well, you are a known drinker of piss of every conspiracy theory out there, so it is not surprising you have no problem making up lies about me.

So let's address this bailout bullshit straw man you made up about me, shall we?

Read this, and then let's see if you have the integrity to admit you fucked up:

My problem with the way the economic collapse caused by the big banks was handled is that we did not unwind those bastards. Every last zombie bank should have been broken up and the pieces sold off, just like what was done with LTCM.

The SEC and the Fed chose the winners and losers instead. They allowed some zombie banks to murder other zombie banks in broad daylight. It was not a coincidence the former Goldman Sachs employees in government allowed Goldman to be the top ax murderer with police protection as they murdered Washington Mutual.

If you rescue a failed business model and let it live, you do not allow better business models to enter the competition and succeed.

We need a big insurance pool. We need every hedge fund and financial institution to pay into that fund. And that fund should be there for the next crash, so the zombie banks can be kept on life support long enough to unwind them and sell them off.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Read this, and then let's see if you have the integrity to admit you fucked up:

I am not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen for the first time in his life

 

[MisterBeale]

Well, you are a known drinker of piss of every conspiracy theory out there, so it is not surprising you have no problem making up lies about me.

So let's address this bailout bullshit straw man you made up about me, shall we?

Read this, and then let's see if you have the integrity to admit you fucked up:

My apologies.

Truly.

 

[g5000]

My apologies.

Truly.

Thank you!

 

[MisterBeale]

I am not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen for the first time in his life

You don't know me very well then.

If you did, you would know I have some of the most integrity on this board.

I drove GT to leave. I had apologized to him when I was wrong. . . drove him nuts.

I readily admit when I am wrong. . . what of it?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You don't know me very well then.

If you did, you would know I have some of the most integrity on this board.

I drove GT to leave. I had apologized to him when I was wrong. . . drove him nuts.

I readily admit when I am wrong. . . what of it?

If you had integrity you would not make up lies about people that do not agree with your opinion.

But it is good to see you admit you were wrong this once, good on you

 

[imawhosure]

Very consistent. Another trial balloon going up that they want to argue about.

Let us see--------->

1. We want 2 new states.

2. We want 4 new Senators.

3. We want to add 4 new Justices to the Supreme Court.

4. We want to add new citizens, that aren't really citizens, well just because.

And now we want to virtually triple the House of Representatives.

Now, who/which party's disciples do you think want this! I will give you 3 guesses, and the 1st two do not count.

Like I said, another trial balloon. Throw their policy poopy at the wall, and see what they can get to stick.

 

[MisterBeale]

If you had integrity you would not make up lies about people that do not agree with your opinion.

But it is good to see you admit you were wrong this once, good on you

But, I don't.

I make mistakes and forget things about the position folks take, but no, I don't intentionally, "lie," or, perchance intend to deceive.

If you have ever gotten the impression that I have? That is probably a point of view colored by the political positions you have, as an outgrowth of your political interests.

I have no political interests. Only a search for truth.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

If you have ever gotten the impression that I have?

The rant that started this whole discussion gives me that impression

 

[candycorn]

States with bigger populations already have more seats than smaller states. The only real effect would be that Representatives would each represent half a million people instead of the current three-quarters of a million people.

I can't see rural states ever going for it. And assuming the US Senate has to approve of this plan as well....that isn't likely to happen since the states nobody ever use have just as much representation as the ones where people actually live.

At 1/500K ratio like you state...California would have 80 electors (78 in the House, 2 in the Senate)--an increase of 26 electoral votes while Wyoming at a population of 500K and some change.... would maybe get 4 electors (2 in the House, 2 in the Senate)--an increase of 1. And you'd have a similar dichotomy with 2 states like New York and Utah, Illinois and Alaska.

So even though this should have happened decades ago from the standpoint of sound representation, I don't see it passing the Congress due to the electoral math.

 

[evenflow1969]

Split California in half between the Conservatives and the whackamole Batshit Crazy Left, then I will agree to that.

Lol ya know ya just asked for communism right. The people who live in California bought their property through the free market system. Ya wanna have half of California get off your lazy conservative asses get a job and start purchasing.

 

[BlackSand]

.

No matter what they do in the House, it won't change the Senate.
If the American People want a 1000 or so more useless idiots in the Beltway figuring out ways to screw us ... What's new?

Elected Officials are supposedly easier to get rid of than appointed and tenured bureaucrats.

.​

 

[JusticeHammer]

The Bill of Rights was originally going to be 12 Amendments instead of 10.

James Madison wanted the First Amendment to be a formula for apportioning the House of Representatives.* If his Amendment had been accepted, the House would currently have 1,625 members instead of 435.

Instead, the ratio of one House member for every 30,000 constituents was enshrined in the Constitution. By 1800, it was 34,609 constituents per. By 1900, it was 193,167 per.

In 1929, Congress froze the number of Representatives at 435, even though we had only 48 states and a population of 121 million at the time.

Today, with 50 states and frozen at 435 representatives, the ratio is 762,000 constituents per House member, and climbing.

Our Representatives are completely out of touch with the People.

It is time to rethink apportionment.

Lots of stuff to think about here: The Case for Enlarging the House of Representatives


*The second of the 12 amendments proposed later became the 27th Amendment.

If things don't go the libtards Way they always want to change the rules.

 

[ThisIsMe]

So you are admitting you don't want the House to actually represent the People!

By the way, the number of Democrats and Republicans is about the same.

Independents are by far the largest demographic and they have no representation at all in Congress.

So you are admitting you don't want the House to actually represent the People!

By the way, the number of Democrats and Republicans is about the same.

Independents are by far the largest demographic and they have no representation at all in Congress.

So you are admitting you don't want the House to actually represent the People!

I didn't say that. I was merely pointing out that the constitution doesn't specify that you need 1 per 30,000, but, you can't have more than 1 per 30,000. I was also pointing out, as most say that dems outnumber repubs, that if we did what you suggest, dems would stand to gain a lot more.

For the record, I'm all in favor of having 10,000 representatives in the house. I think it would be extremely funny. Even 1600 would get quite a chuckle...often.