by 2040, half the population will live in 8 states (illegal, lobbyists, illegals)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's a cop out. Your original post - like most of what you post - was meant to advocate for the superiority of Democrat and Blue State mentality and liberal thought.
A good example is your post above.
Nevada will be out of water by then, so nobody will be living there....if they don't change their water usage habits.
Las Vegas:
According to the National Park Service, 25,000,000 people rely on Lake Mead for their water and “it is unlikely that the Southwest could have developed as it has without it.” However, protracted drought and population growth in the area have caused the water table to fall 131 feet since 1999. The lake is further handicapped by a high propensity for evaporation.
In 2015, Lake Mead made headlines when the water level hit a record low of 1,080 feet. The following year it was lower still — 1,074.
Your gripe is with the Constitution . It is doing exactly what it was intended to do . Protect a vulnerable part of the populace from tyranny by the larger part .
One line in a novel spelled this attitude out perfectly "The virtue that sustains a nation rests in its small towns. The rot that destroys a nation festers in its cities".
Make of that what you will. But one question I have is that if big city people are so stupid and rural people are so smart, then how come the job seekers and ambitious people move to the cities and leave the countryside with a talent deficit? And did I forget to mention the "net tax contributors" and "net tax takers" map, showing the most highly urbanized areas contributing more to the nation's tax coffers than they get in return? Sounds like the cities are the place to be self-sufficient.
Cities have a higher poverty rate than rural areas. Why? The highest income/wealth gaps are in blue cities/states. Why? Blue cities/states are more racially segregated than red cities/states. Why?
Interesting fact that few know about very blue Chicago...
White Democrats in Chicago insisted that Chicago's "Equity Insurance" program be implemented.
VERY important to read the Chicago Magazine article. Much of the info is just simply jaw-dropping. For example, it was White Democrats who in the 1980s insisted the City of Chicago implement "equity insurance" in case they had to sell their homes at a loss because Blacks had moved into the neighborhood and torpedoed property values. The "equity insurance" program is still in place to this day.
The media never mentions it because the City of Chicago equity insurance program benefits White Democrat voters. They're protected from the loss of equity in their homes caused by what they've identified as "minority creep" into their lily White neighborhoods.
More background info on Chicago's "equity insurance" program:
1988, the inception of Chicago's "equity insurance" program was fairly recent, not pre-Civil Rights. And, as I said, the "equity insurance" program still exists to this day.
In the Electoral College. That means Trump is the legitimate Constitutionally elected President. It does not mean that his election represents a popular mandate...a claim that he and many of his supporters often try to make...and Dems are correct to say no, it does not. Clinton was the American people's choice.
No, neither one was the American people's choice. More people voted for candidates other than Clinton than they did for Clinton. More people voted against Trump than for him. Neither one can really claim a popular mandate.
Of course a popular mandate is completely and utterly meaningless. The Constitution does not even guarantee you the right to vote for President, and in point of fact, in many states there was no popular vote even conducted for the Presidency in early elections. The Constitution specifies that the POTUS will be selected by a majority of the electoral college and that each state will select a number of electors equal to its total number of Representatives and Senators in a manner of its choosing. A state can choose to have the governor select its electors without any consultation with the general population. A state can choose electors by a vote of the legislature. A state can round up some random homeless guy and have him decide who the electors will be. There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees a popular election to determine a state's electors.
Since the only way it "gives" is by a constitutional amendment passed by all the smaller states giving away their power, no chance in Hell it ever happens .
Even if you COULD get the small states to go along with eliminating their equal representation in the Senate, you still couldn't do it. Article V of the Constitution (the one dealing with amendments) explicitly lists two items that cannot be changed via the amendment process. One of those had to deal with elimination of the slave trade prior to 1808 and is thus no longer applicable. The other explicitly prohibits any amendment that results in unequal representation of all states in the Senate. It simply cannot be done (unless we have some kind of revolution and completely overthrow our current Constitution.)
Your gripe is with the Constitution . It is doing exactly what it was intended to do . Protect a vulnerable part of the populace from tyranny by the larger part .
It sounds like textbook affirmative action for rural states to me.
I thought conservatives thought that affirmative action went against the constitution and created an un-level playing field. What happened? I guess forced representation of a minority is a ok when it benefits rural conservatives.
On a less snarky note, the electoral college paradigm was set up when states actually had real power to determine their own destiny, before the federal government took all of the power from the states, before we ended up with a pattern of both parties winning with 47% of the vote and then acting like that was a mandate to force their most extreme agenda on the states that disagree with those in power.
Either return power to the states or get rid of the electoral college, the executive branch was never meant to have this much power on domestic issues.
It sounds like textbook affirmative action for rural states to me.
I thought conservatives thought that affirmative action went against the constitution and created an un-level playing field. What happened? I guess forced representation of a minority is a ok when it benefits rural conservatives.
Actually it sounds like following the Constitution to me . No reasons or apologies needed for that . Your gripe would be with the Constitution , not those that follow it as required by law.
Quote:
On a less snarky note, the electoral college paradigm was set up when states actually had real power to determine their own destiny, before the federal government took all of the power from the states, before we ended up with a pattern of both parties winning with 47% of the vote and then acting like that was a mandate to force their most extreme agenda on the states that disagree with those in power.
Either return power to the states or get rid of the electoral college, the executive branch was never meant to have this much power on domestic issues.
One thing for certain is that the EC isn't going anywhere . No chance in Hell the conservative states agree to an amendment changing it .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The virtue that sustains a nation rests in its small towns. The rot that destroys a nation festers in its cities". 
