Black Lives Matter calls for month-long boycott of ‘white companies

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

To be far the dems openy called for obstructing Trump. 

They may have called for it, but I don't recall the man attempting to do anything not initiated by McConnel.  The man did not understand how legislatures work.  Why would he? Even is his business had no real board to answer to. Well, we will always have Infrastructure Week. 

[Mike E 11,732]

1 hour ago, I751&waiting said:

 

Moscow Mitch 

Nah, Cocaine Mitch.  Coke was found in one of his wife’s family’s ships.  
 

i don’t have expect you  be finding many fans of Cocaine Mitch around here.  

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

2 hours ago, I751&waiting said:

Exactly.   Would not happen in a parliamentary Govt but Moscow Mitch truly started the scorched earth.   But there’s a big difference between trying to get citizen healthcare and infrastructure vs a fat payday for billionaires 

 

I think with the gerrymandering and other games the gop is doing to try and steal the election I think the DEMS don’t play hardball enough.  Should kill the filibuster and expand the SC with a punch in Moscow Mitch face.

 

Admittedly I hope tRump runs in 2024 as I do not think he can win (without some State legislators trying to overrule their state voters and use rogue process) America is tired of him

 

I also want the US to fail.    Then maybe change will happen.     

Most terrorists do.

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

57 minutes ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

They may have called for it, but I don't recall the man attempting to do anything not initiated by McConnel.  The man did not understand how legislatures work.  Why would he? Even is his business had no real board to answer to. Well, we will always have Infrastructure Week. 

To be fair, Trump was never a lawyer nor a politician.  He is, and always be, a NYC contractor.  Bold, blunt, and bulldozes his way to completion.

Having said that, the majority of politicians in recent history have only hurt the US.  Obama was pretty divisive.

[Dashinka 24,109]

10 hours ago, Mike E said:

Nah, Cocaine Mitch.  Coke was found in one of his wife’s family’s ships.  
 

i don’t have expect you  be finding many fans of Cocaine Mitch around here.  

Not really a fan of the man, but at least he did keep Garland from getting on the Supreme Court.

[Dashinka 24,109]

13 hours ago, Boiler said:

Separate by equal seems to be the current mantra.

Hmm, back to Plessy v. Ferguson?

[Dashinka 24,109]

13 hours ago, I751&waiting said:

Exactly.   Would not happen in a parliamentary Govt but Moscow Mitch truly started the scorched earth.   But there’s a big difference between trying to get citizen healthcare and infrastructure vs a fat payday for billionaires 

 

I think with the gerrymandering and other games the gop is doing to try and steal the election I think the DEMS don’t play hardball enough.  Should kill the filibuster and expand the SC with a punch in Moscow Mitch face.

 

Admittedly I hope tRump runs in 2024 as I do not think he can win (without some State legislators trying to overrule their state voters and use rogue process) America is tired of him

 

I also want the US to fail.    Then maybe change will happen.     

The scorched earth started before McConnell, but he certainly carried the torch when he became the majority leader in the Senate.  A lot of folks seem to think all this divisiveness started in 2017, Trump did not start this, he was the result of this.  I do agree, the federal government is out of control, and it truly is a swamp.  All political sides are responsible, and I agree term limits for Congress, and potentially the courts are warranted.  I would also add that the apportionment of the People's direct representatives (the House members) has to be re-visited.  Having a ratio of approximately 730,000 per House member is atrocious when compared to every other country.  Only India is worse.  This would be an easy fix as unlike term limits, it would not require a constitutional amendment. 

 

The US will fail if we allow progressivism to flourish. 

[Mike E 11,732]

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

I would also add that the apportionment of the People's direct representatives (the House members) has to be re-visited.  
 

Sounds dreadfully democratic.  

 

That 730K people per representative ration combined with the rule that each state gets a minimum of one representative gives disproportionate power to states with smaller populations and thus reduces the power of states with larger populations. 
 

We will get stuff like legislative  mandates to vaccinate if the House is  reorganized  to let a cartel of CA, NY, IL, Miami, Houston, and Dallas make all the decisions.   Look what happened in Switzerland the past weekend.  

 

 

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

 

The US will fail if we allow progressivism to flourish. 
 

Indeed. We do not need to add another 500 House members to the swamp.  
 

if anything we have too many House members.  The 1929 Reapportionment  Act should be amended. 200-300 House seats seems about right.  

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,367]

10 minutes ago, Mike E said:

Sounds dreadfully democratic.  

 

That 730K people per representative ration combined with the rule that each state gets a minimum of one representative gives disproportionate power to states with smaller populations and thus reduces the power of states with larger populations. 
 

We will get stuff like legislative  mandates to vaccinate if the House is  reorganized  to let a cartel of CA, NY, IL, Miami, Houston, and Dallas make all the decisions.   Look what happened in Switzerland the past weekend.  

 

 

Indeed. We do not need to add another 500 House members to the swamp.  
 

if anything we have too many House members.  The 1929 Reapportionment  Act should be amended. 200-300 House seats seems about right.  

Honestly I see it the opposite. Our forefathers in brilliant future vision designed our republic so that a handful of massive population centers, could not run  the whole country. States with big populations absolutely have far more representation in congress, but it is checked by every state having their interests equally represented in the Senate. 

 

Same thing with the electoral college. It prevents basically 2 or 3 states from electing the President. It does give the big population states more say in the election, but it prevents other states basically become serfs to the large states.

 

NJew York although small in geographical size has 27 seats in congress .

 

Montana, although the largest state in the lower 48 has only one   That hardly gives them any equal footing with New York

[Dashinka 24,109]

40 minutes ago, Mike E said:

Sounds dreadfully democratic.  

 

That 730K people per representative ration combined with the rule that each state gets a minimum of one representative gives disproportionate power to states with smaller populations and thus reduces the power of states with larger populations. 
 

We will get stuff like legislative  mandates to vaccinate if the House is  reorganized  to let a cartel of CA, NY, IL, Miami, Houston, and Dallas make all the decisions.   Look what happened in Switzerland the past weekend.  

 

 

Indeed. We do not need to add another 500 House members to the swamp.  
 

if anything we have too many House members.  The 1929 Reapportionment  Act should be amended. 200-300 House seats seems about right.  

I am not sure one House member can really adequately represent 700k+ people.  I am not sure what the number should be, but something more like 200k would seem appropriate.  Heck, even go back to the constitution of 30k.  The government was set up to have the House be the direct representation of the people, not the Senate, and not the President, but since 1913 when the House number was capped by legislation.  I contend that would end the Electoral College debate, and the entire Direct Election of the President debate.  I also think the 17th Amendment was a joke, Senators were supposed to represent the state's interests, so to me it was more appropriate for the state legislatures to choose the senators.  Anyway, dreaming, it will never happen, the House members want to have huge constituencies so it is easier to ignore them and listen instead to the lobbyist.

[Mike E 11,732]

Just now, Dashinka said:

I am not sure one House member can really adequately represent 700k+ people.  I am not sure what the number should be, but something more like 200k would seem appropriate.  Heck, even go back to the constitution of 30k.  The government was set up to have the House be the direct representation of the people, not the Senate, and not the President, but since 1913 when the House number was capped by legislation.  I contend that would end the Electoral College debate, and the entire Direct Election of the President debate.  I also think the 17th Amendment was a joke, Senators were supposed to represent the state's interests, so to me it was more appropriate for the state legislatures to choose the senators.  Anyway, dreaming, it will never happen, the House members want to have huge constituencies so it is easier to ignore them and listen instead to the lobbyist.

Then get ready for a permanent Democrat majority in the House.  
 

Fortunately the senators of the smallest states understand this as well as I do, and this nightmare will never come to pass. 

[TBoneTX 44,671]

36 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Montana, although the largest state in the lower 48

Uh...

Alaska (not lower 48)

Texas

California

Montana

 

Thats tudayz jeeografee lessun

[Dashinka 24,109]

19 minutes ago, Mike E said:

Then get ready for a permanent Democrat majority in the House.  
 

Fortunately the senators of the smallest states understand this as well as I do, and this nightmare will never come to pass. 

Hard to say, but who knows.  I really do not know how the Democrats with their divisive identity politics and regressive plans get people to vote for them, but I suppose there are a lot of people that still believe in Santa Claus.  I know if my congressional district were split up into 3 based on population, it would most likely be 2 Rs and 1 D.  Regardless, the elected members really have no connection with the people they supposedly represent. and that is not going to change anytime soon.  The political leaders in the US fancy themselves more as performers than elected leaders.

Edited December 2, 2021 by Dashinka

[Boiler 44,855]

You would need a really big trough.

[TBoneTX 44,671]

1 minute ago, Dashinka said:

how the Democrats with their divisive identity politics and regressive plans get people to vote for them

As Rush used to say, 45% of people automatically vote for anyone who has a "D" after his name.

 

Redistricting in Texas was approved with the specific condition that Sheila Jackson Me's district would remain untouched.