Comments by "" (@timogul) on "WWLTV" channel.

Generally, yes, but when an area has a history of building districts against a certain race, you need to put in "lane bumpers" to prevent shenanigans. These states have proven themselves unworthy of being treated like adults.
21
There are fewer districts than there are counties.
5
@crazysquirrel9425 But that would give more votes to states that break up into more counties. Rhode Island could break into a thousand counties and get more Congressmen than the rest of the states combined currently get. This is for members of Congress, so you can only have as many districts as you have members of congress allotted to the state by the Constitution. Now, if you wanted to do away with Gerrymandering, you could have a system in which everyone votes in some way, and then the top X amount of candidates get picked, but it's tricky to make that a balanced system that accurately reflects the public, since it would tend to have some wild swings.
5
He puts political cowardice above the health of the public. It's as simple as that.
4
Because billionaires should not be able to buy governments.
3
@janetkaradenza4165 Are you arguing that the Republican party is not more pro-Confederacy than the Democratic party? Do you believe that you appear at all credible to others while making such wild claims?
2
@FortunaeSD The districts are what determine who ends up filling those seats though, at least in most states. If you get six seats, you will have six districts, and the people of each of those districts will choose one representative to go to Congress on their behalf. I don't know what your issue is regarding cities and rural areas though, they are both fairly represented relative to their populations. How else would you expect it to work? Go by square footage of land or something silly like that?
2
@crazysquirrel9425 But again, why involve counties at all? No county is ever guaranteed any amount of congressmen. So if we're going to "add up the votes" then we would ignore counties entirely and just add up all the votes in the state. Again, in most states the number of available counties has nothing to do with the number of congressmen they get. If you have a system in which "lesser populated counties" somehow get to choose more representatives than "higher populated counties" do, then that would be inherently anti-representational, and go against the core principles of the republic.
2
@crazysquirrel9425 If population is not meant to be the controlling factor, then why is number of representatives determined by population? And again, you are misapplying the term "mob rule." It does not mean the thing you are describing, much less the term "dictatorship." What you are advocating for is a tyranny, a situation in which the minority get to dictate to the majority, which goes against everything that the founders fought for. The city nearest to you does NOT and never will get to dictate what you can and cannot do, but the PEOPLE who live IN that city get to have fair representation in government, and if that means that what they want gets passed over what you would want, then I'm sorry, but that's just how a non-tyrannical government works. There is no fair system in which a smaller amount of people get to have an outsized share in how government functions, just by virtue of where their mailing address happens to be.
2
It was where he did it and what motivated him to do it just then and there. Why do you not believe this is relevant?
2
@_bando_ You can't claim that R stands for rational when they tend to vote for Trump.
2
@janetkaradenza4165 It's information provided by the Department of Energy, and would be federal law if they were misleading about it. Also I'm sure the current House would drag them over the coals for trying. What's your source that "it isn't?"
2
"Yes," you mean. That was the bad vote in this case.
2
The best way to do it would be to just remove districts entirely, and Louisiana could allow people to vote for the top 6 people they want, ranked choice, and then the top 6 candidates would get in.
2
What about herd immunity?
2
Because he's not up for a role in the EPA.
2
Mainly because it's a sign that Musk bought the US government.
1
@janetkaradenza4165 Yes, but that was over a hundred years ago,l and they would vote Republican today.
1
@janetkaradenza4165 Abraham Lincoln would be a Democrat if he were alive today, and Jefferson Davis would be a Republican. Lincoln was a liberal progressive, it's just that the parties had different positions back then than they do today.
1
@crazysquirrel9425 But county lines are not based on population, so while "locking the lines in" would prevent deliberate future shenanigans, it would not account for the fact that most states have county lines that have nothing whatsoever to do with their populations, and therefore couldn't possibly make for representative districts.
1
@crazysquirrel9425 The state is not owed any representatives. the PEOPLE are owed representatives, so if the representatives are not chosen by a fair representation of the PEOPLE of the state, then that is no longer a republic. Mob rule is something completely different, that is a direct form of democracy in which individuals rule on each issue, rather than electing representatives to settle specific issues for them. Should a city like Chicago run roughshod over their entire state? That depends entirely on the population of Chicago relative to the rest of the state. If there are more people there, then yeah. That is what it means to live in a republic, and not some form of tyranny.
1
@crazysquirrel9425 Again though, those are owed to the people of that state, not to the state itself. In America, government is people, by the people, for the people. "A city" does not get to decide anything, the people of that city get to decide. A state does not get to decide anything, the people of that state get to decide. It is a representative form of government, so the people choose people to represent them, but if they lose that right, if the people in government do not fairly represent them, then that is tyranny, plain and simple. Now representation does not mean that you will always get what you want, it only means that you have as much of a say in the outcome as any other single person. Cases in which two people say "no" to you is not tyranny against you.
1
@crazysquirrel9425 Again, "Chicago" never gets to "dictate" anything. The PEOPLE of Chicago get to decide things, because they make up MOST of the state. The square footage under their feet is completely irrelevant to that.
1
@crazysquirrel9425 People tend to say "tyranny of the majority" when they don't get their way on something, as if that's a bad thing. They forget that "tyranny of the minority" is far worse. Ideally, the majority will use their power wisely to chart a course that most people can agree with, but they are certainly better able to arrive at that outcome than any other system. You just don't deserve to have your way if you can't get a majority behind it. Also, there is nothing whatseover in law that gives congress any sort of "3/5th rule" as you put it. both branches of congress run on a strictly 50+1 voting system. You might be referring to the filibuster, which was NEVER an intentional element of law, it was just a custom of the Senate that came from unintended flaws in their debating procedures that they've decided to keep. Raising the bar does not empower the minority, it only leads to permanent stagnation. It's a system that only favors those who want nothing to get done, and inevitably thwarts those who actually want to make America great again.
1
@janetkaradenza4165 Then why is oil production higher today than at any point in the last administration. That doesn't make sense.
1
@janetkaradenza4165 The gas price at the end of 2020 was UP 35 cents a gallon from its minimum, which was in March, right as the pandemic hit. THAT was the only cause of any drop in gas prices, that during lockdowns, there were far fewer drivers, so global demand was way down relative to supply. As soon as things started opening up, the price started to rise again, so the only way to argue that they would not have continued to rise under Trump would be if you assume that we never would have opened up again if he were still President. Also, that wasn't the lowest price I've seen in my lifetime, not even close. It was slightly lower in 2016, while Obama was president, and was about half as much during the Bush administration and before that, so it was only "the lowest in your lifetime" during the Trump administration if you are less than seven years old.
1
@Sparks00psn There's an ongoing war between two of the worlds major oil producers (one of whom being Trump's friend and the other a US ally), and also oil producers around the world slowed oil production when covid hit, and then didn't ramp it up as quickly as they were able, because they prefer to sell at a higher price whenever possible. It's called "capitalism." What's your excuse for the current prices?
1
@Sparks00psn There is currently a war going on between two of the world's major oil producers, and also the rest of OPEC would prefer to keep prices higher, so they cut production when demand fell, and then didn't raise it back up as quickly when demand returned. Lower supply relative to demand, higher price.
1
@ The majority of Americans don't want Kennedy anywhere near the healthcare system.
1
@vasagowarlock8460 That would be the majority of Americans then.
1
@ That's the opposite of the truth. Herd immunity requires that the overwhelming majority of people get vaxed. When large portions of the population don't get vaccinated, then even the vaccinated populations are at greater risk. The best option is for everyone to be vaccinated, no matter how mentally incompetent they may be.
1
@ What eggs? You have eggs where you live?
1
The current system that leads to a 5:1 red majority in a close to 50/50 state.
1
@janetkaradenza4165 I am not a fan of "retaliatory racism," but I don't believe that this qualifies. The result is STILL a net negative to black people, not a net negative for white people. Louisiana is 33% black, and yet only one of their 6 Congressmen comes from a majority black district. 2/6th of their representatives coming from majority black districts is only fair, right? "Retaliatory racism" would be if three or more of those districts were made majority black, to correct for the decades in which black people were even more disenfranchised. Having two majority black districts is barely breaking even. And no, supporting a balance of the scales in no way validates the racism of the past, you defending unequal outcomes is what validates racism of the past, because that is exactly what they were doing.
1