Trump In Charge: Wrecking Ball

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well one state they get 2 senators smd probably 4 congressional seats.
If canada was admitted as a single state, you are right about 2 senators, but it would be more like the same number of congressional seats as California (52). Exact number would have to crunch the numbers as every state would have to be re-proportioned because of new population size of country (what % of population each state has of country's total population). So other states will lose congressional seats to make room for what is being added by Canada, unless they expand the current size of congress.
 
No country with the land area and population even remotely that large would apply to join the US as a single state. It would be preposterous to give up all those potential Senators.

The next US State (if any) is probably going to be Puerto Rico... and yes if Puerto Rico joins, the large population states like California, Texas, New York and Florida are going to lose House members to go over to Puerto Rico instead. No House Members can be added.
 
Yeah, even though the US annexing Canada is never going to happen, if it were to happen they'd join as ~8 states (maybe the smaller eastern canadian administrative entities would merge but not much more).

Why is it so hard to add more house members ? Originally there were less members, and it would make sense to have more members now.
 
Yeah, even though the US annexing Canada is never going to happen, if it were to happen they'd join as ~8 states (maybe the smaller eastern canadian administrative entities would merge but not much more).

Why is it so hard to add more house members ? Originally there were less members, and it would make sense to have more members now.
Here you go.


To fix the physical problem of space, Congress would need to get an airline CEO in to redesign the seats and double the number to 870. Easy peasy.
 
Yeah, even though the US annexing Canada is never going to happen, if it were to happen they'd join as ~8 states (maybe the smaller eastern canadian administrative entities would merge but not much more).

Why is it so hard to add more house members ? Originally there were less members, and it would make sense to have more members now.

As usual with our problems, basically some racist guys in the 1920s decided it, and since then we have treated it as divinely ordained and unchangeable.

 
The sad thing is expanding the house could literally be done via normal legislation. It's not locked behind something with a high bar like DC Statehood or EC reform. The 1929 bill is just that, a bill; congress could expand it today if they wanted too but nobody in power wants that. I've heard the ballpark of 700ish wpuld be good there's some kind of mathematical formula that's population based giving that ballpark but I don't remember what it's called off the top of my head.
 
While you're at it, territories should have legislative representation too, like in a normal federation.
 
Here you go.

Thanks for the article. This chart is an eye-opener. The US has the second worst representation ratio of relevant comparable Democracies and even if we were to follow the so-called "Wyoming Rule" which would essentially expand the House to give each state a Representative for every 500k people, we would still be second worst in terms of representation :shake: :sad:. To get to where the UK is in terms of representation, our House of Representatives would have to expand roughly 3,311 members :eek:. That ain't happening :nope:, for numerous reasons, not the least of which, is that it would dramatically reduce the power of all the current members of the House, which of course, the current members of the House would never vote for.


1736878101430.png

To fix the physical problem of space, Congress would need to get an airline CEO in to redesign the seats and double the number to 870. Easy peasy.
:lol: That's funny, but there's a much easier fix. Just repurpose the Gallery (balcony) seating, which is currently reserved for guests/observers. The Gallery seats an additional 500 people. You can give the new Reps seats in the Gallery, and seats on the floor would be assigned based on seniority, so the longer you serve, the better your chance of getting one of the floor seats as longer serving members lose elections, resign and/or otherwise leave the position.
 
Last edited:
I don't get the whole debate. WTH gender got to do w sports? Sports are separated because men will have an advantage (worst NBA team will crush best WNBA in team).

Just organize sport based on biological sex, use whatever pronouns you like but wrestle or play rugby or whatever based on sex.
 
Because the biology is far more complicated than most people upset about theoretical trans people in sports would like to admit, and it comes down to whatever ruling bodies decide is acceptable. A blanket ban, for adolescent athletes who haven't even fully developed yet, is simply harming kids on the basis of pure ideology and has little to do with any sport involved.
 
NBA team will crush best WNBA in team
The question of children's teams is completely different to professional sports. For a start there is a lot more overlap between "normal" people than professionals, and it does not matter who wins.
 
I don't get the whole debate. WTH gender got to do w sports? Sports are separated because men will have an advantage (worst NBA team will crush best WNBA in team).

Just organize sport based on biological sex, use whatever pronouns you like but wrestle or play rugby or whatever based on sex.

Your ignorance isn't our problem
 
I don't get the whole debate. WTH gender got to do w sports? Sports are separated because men will have an advantage (worst NBA team will crush best WNBA in team).

Just organize sport based on biological sex, use whatever pronouns you like but wrestle or play rugby or whatever based on sex.
Do you see the tension between saying this...
I don't get the whole debate.
but then offering your take on it anyway? I mean if you don't get it/ understand it, then it undermines any position you would take on the debate, right?

Or are you saying "I don't get it" as a rhetorical device/euphemism for "my opinion/position, is that there should not be any debate, because there is obviously only one correct way to look at the issue"?

In other words... is your "I don't get it", more like when people say "I don't understand X" when what they really mean is "I don't agree with X"?

The issue has been debated extensively on these threads. I obviously can't paraphrase everything, and this really isn't even the Thread for that anyway, but the debate was a huge wedge issue in the campaign and Trump and the Republicans campaigned heavily on it.
 
One can boggle, or rage, sometimes at the battle line chosen, while still agreeing with the cause. There have be maybe no braver soldiers with no greater a cause than the union boys that marched into hails of gunfire at Fredericksburg. But the Confederates had set up there, hoping somebody would make a mistake. Which Burnside did.

For a less charitable comparison, Longstreet could not bring himself to articulate the order for Picket's charge.
 
One can boggle, or rage, sometimes at the battle line chosen, while still agreeing with the cause. There have be maybe no braver soldiers with no greater a cause than the union boys that marched into hails of gunfire at Fredericksburg. But the Confederates had set up there, hoping somebody would make a mistake. Which Burnside did.

For a less charitable comparison, Longstreet could not bring himself to articulate the order for Picket's charge.
Boggling and raging can also seem counterproductive, especially when a lack of knowledge is simultaneously professed. Maybe in that case the decisionmaking needs to be made by others?

In a vain attempt to tie this back to this topic, looks like we're in for another four years of Culture War Yet Again: The Enculturing. As predictable as it will be damaging.
 
Yes, but. The men who boggled at Sickle's advance on the 2nd day of Gettysburg were also were not the ones making the call in their lack of knowledge.
 
I don't think it does.

But I hear ya.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom