Main Menu |
Most Favorited Images |
Recently Uploaded Images |
Most Liked Images |
Top Reviewers |
cockalatte |
646 |
MoneyManMatt |
490 |
Still Looking |
399 |
samcruz |
399 |
Jon Bon |
394 |
Harley Diablo |
375 |
honest_abe |
362 |
DFW_Ladies_Man |
313 |
Chung Tran |
288 |
lupegarland |
287 |
nicemusic |
285 |
You&Me |
281 |
Starscream66 |
275 |
George Spelvin |
263 |
sharkman29 |
255 |
|
Top Posters |
DallasRain | 70718 | biomed1 | 62720 | Yssup Rider | 60438 | gman44 | 53234 | LexusLover | 51038 | offshoredrilling | 48470 | WTF | 48267 | pyramider | 46370 | bambino | 41773 | CryptKicker | 37184 | Mokoa | 36491 | The_Waco_Kid | 36149 | Chung Tran | 36100 | Still Looking | 35944 | Mojojo | 33117 |
|
|
12-20-2016, 11:32 AM
|
#16
|
Valued Poster
Join Date: Jan 16, 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 51,038
|
"Only 55 percent say they have a lot or some trust in Obama to tell the public accurate information about foreign intelligence and what's going on overseas. Fifty-one percent say the same of Trump."
"Thirty-two percent said Russia influenced the election's results, while 44 percent said they didn't, and 24 percent said they were unsure or had no opinion."
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...OGR?li=BBnbcA1
Snipe Hunting 101!
|
|
Quote
| 1 user liked this post
|
12-27-2016, 04:58 PM
|
#17
|
Premium Access
Join Date: Jan 9, 2010
Location: Nuclear Wasteland BBS, New Orleans, LA, USA
Posts: 31,921
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bambino
Great, and take their 55 Electoral votes with them.
|
actually, the 55 votes would be distributed to other states if California leaves.
|
|
Quote
| 1 user liked this post
|
12-28-2016, 06:53 AM
|
#18
|
Valued Poster
Join Date: Jan 16, 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 51,038
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm
actually, the 55 votes would be distributed to other states if California leaves.
|
Why?
The Electors are based on districts and senators. They will not be "distributed to other states" .... They will just disappear.
|
|
Quote
| 1 user liked this post
|
12-28-2016, 06:29 PM
|
#19
|
AKA Admiral Waco Kid
Join Date: Jan 8, 2010
Location: The MAGA Zone
Posts: 36,149
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover
And Pendleton. Except unlike Guantanamo it won't be a lease.
|
Camp Pendleton. been there. several times. always a blast to get sent up to Pendleton for weapons qualifications. and you usually get to watch live fire tank maneuvers too. yeehaw!!
semper fi jarheads!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budman
We should keep all of California. We just need to deport all of the fucking libs. It's beautiful country but run by retards.
|
exactly. we took it, why give it up fer nada? just dump the libs and illegals and it will be a new west coast just waiting to be settled bahahaaaa
|
|
Quote
| 1 user liked this post
|
12-28-2016, 10:34 PM
|
#20
|
Premium Access
Join Date: Jan 9, 2010
Location: Nuclear Wasteland BBS, New Orleans, LA, USA
Posts: 31,921
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm
actually, the 55 votes would be distributed to other states if California leaves.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover
Why?
The Electors are based on districts and senators. They will not be "distributed to other states" .... They will just disappear.
|
I made an error in my post. I meant 53, not 55.
there is legislation that fixed congressional districts at 435 seats.
the senate would be reduced to 98 seats.
|
|
Quote
| 1 user liked this post
|
12-29-2016, 12:59 AM
|
#21
|
Valued Poster
Join Date: May 20, 2010
Location: Wichita
Posts: 28,730
|
The loss of two California senators would increase the IQ and effectiveness of Congress.
|
|
Quote
| 1 user liked this post
|
12-29-2016, 01:01 AM
|
#22
|
Valued Poster
Join Date: Nov 11, 2014
Location: dallas
Posts: 1,630
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budman
We should keep all of California. We just need to deport all of the fucking libs.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rey Lengua
And depot the wetbacks and gang bangers while we're at it !
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
just dump the libs and illegals and it will be a new west coast just waiting to be settled bahahaaaa
|
To the Black Sea, I surmise....
|
|
Quote
| 1 user liked this post
|
12-29-2016, 03:13 AM
|
#23
|
Valued Poster
Join Date: Jan 16, 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 51,038
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm
there is legislation that fixed congressional districts at 435 seats.
|
Based on the number of districts in California, when those are eliminated then the total number is reduced.
U.S. Constitution Art. I, Section 2:
"... The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative;..."
This is a decent explanation of how and why it would be adjusted to meet the change from California leaving the Union .... it also address the Electoral College formula as well ....
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/docum...11July1995.pdf
California has 53 U.S. Representatives ...
The incentive for reducing the number of seats is seen here:
http://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/9c14ec...3daa1640e4.pdf
Roughly $1.5 million annually per seat .... in budget savings.
The two Senate seats would reduce it annually about $7-8 million.
So it would reduce costs annually to about $90 million.
|
|
Quote
| 1 user liked this post
|
12-29-2016, 11:55 PM
|
#24
|
Valued Poster
Join Date: May 20, 2010
Location: Wichita
Posts: 28,730
|
Are you saying that each congressional district is capped at 30,000 population? What's the population of your district?
|
|
Quote
| 1 user liked this post
|
12-30-2016, 01:29 AM
|
#25
|
Premium Access
Join Date: Jan 9, 2010
Location: Nuclear Wasteland BBS, New Orleans, LA, USA
Posts: 31,921
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover
Based on the number of districts in California, when those are eliminated then the total number is reduced.
U.S. Constitution Art. I, Section 2:
"... The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative;..."
This is a decent explanation of how and why it would be adjusted to meet the change from California leaving the Union .... it also address the Electoral College formula as well ....
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/docum...11July1995.pdf
California has 53 U.S. Representatives ...
The incentive for reducing the number of seats is seen here:
http://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/9c14ec...3daa1640e4.pdf
Roughly $1.5 million annually per seat .... in budget savings.
The two Senate seats would reduce it annually about $7-8 million.
So it would reduce costs annually to about $90 million.
|
it would require an act of congressto make that change.
don't think that will happen, 53 seats is too juicy to pass up. they think power over common sense.
|
|
Quote
| 1 user liked this post
|
12-30-2016, 03:33 AM
|
#26
|
Valued Poster
Join Date: Jan 16, 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 51,038
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
Are you saying that each congressional district is capped at 30,000 population? What's the population of your district?
|
No. I didn't say that.
|
|
Quote
| 1 user liked this post
|
12-30-2016, 03:37 AM
|
#27
|
Valued Poster
Join Date: Jan 16, 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 51,038
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm
it would require an act of congressto make that change.
don't think that will happen, 53 seats is too juicy to pass up. they think power over common sense.
|
And you don't "think that will happen" based on what legal argument?
It is adjusted every 10 years and what happens every 10 years.
Secondly, if the seats are based on "population" in the constitution (which they are), being "too juicy" doesn't satisfy the standard set by the U.S. Constitution.
Go back and see in the legislative history how many times it has been changed as the population has grown.
Haven't we had too much "too juicy" decisions lately?
|
|
Quote
| 1 user liked this post
|
12-30-2016, 10:21 AM
|
#28
|
Premium Access
Join Date: Jan 9, 2010
Location: Nuclear Wasteland BBS, New Orleans, LA, USA
Posts: 31,921
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover
And you don't "think that will happen" based on what legal argument?
It is adjusted every 10 years and what happens every 10 years.
Secondly, if the seats are based on "population" in the constitution (which they are), being "too juicy" doesn't satisfy the standard set by the U.S. Constitution.
Go back and see in the legislative history how many times it has been changed as the population has grown.
Haven't we had too much "too juicy" decisions lately?
|
legislation has changed a bunch of times until 1911 which was the last year of an increase. there was two attempts to add more seats in 1929 & in 2000's (adding 2 more seats).
of course, the next census Will determine who will get those 53 seats.
Quote:
And you don't "think that will happen" based on what legal argument
|
this is not about a legal argument, but about politics.
|
|
Quote
| 1 user liked this post
|
12-31-2016, 02:06 AM
|
#29
|
Valued Poster
Join Date: May 20, 2010
Location: Wichita
Posts: 28,730
|
I think the House of Representatives should be increased to 1500 members. The cost would be offset by more intimate connections with their constituents and less influence of special interests. There would be greater turnover, and much less concentration of power. The people would have a much clearer voice, which would limit the passage of stupid bills. More people would be acquainted with their representatives.
I know you're going to flame away, but understand, the Establishment will never let this happen, and so far, I'm the only one with this idea, and Mike Pompeo doesn't like talking to me.
|
|
Quote
| 1 user liked this post
|
12-31-2016, 03:23 AM
|
#30
|
Premium Access
Join Date: Jan 9, 2010
Location: Nuclear Wasteland BBS, New Orleans, LA, USA
Posts: 31,921
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
I think the House of Representatives should be increased to 1500 members. The cost would be offset by more intimate connections with their constituents and less influence of special interests. There would be greater turnover, and much less concentration of power. The people would have a much clearer voice, which would limit the passage of stupid bills. More people would be acquainted with their representatives.
I know you're going to flame away, but understand, the Establishment will never let this happen, and so far, I'm the only one with this idea, and Mike Pompeo doesn't like talking to me.
|
congressional seats need to be increased to at least 1305 or 2175.
|
|
Quote
| 1 user liked this post
|
|
AMPReviews.net |
Find Ladies |
Hot Women |
|