quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
https://www.politico.com/news/...ral-college-00135232

No, he hates minority rule.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
https://www.politico.com/news/...ral-college-00135232

No, he hates minority rule.

X2

So I guess America should be ruled by NY, LA, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, and Philadelphia voters. What a great idea but I’m pretty sure that’s why we have a republic and not a democracy…..

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
So I guess America should be ruled by NY, LA, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, and Philadelphia voters. What a great idea but I’m pretty sure that’s why we have a republic and not a democracy…..

Perhaps you can explain why a Wyoming voter's view is 3.6 times as influential as a Californian's.

He is a Democrat. By definition he is an enemy of America. Oppose them in all walks.

Actually ALL AMERICAN HATE AMERICA!

Depends on who you listen too.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
So I guess America should be ruled by NY, LA, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, and Philadelphia voters. What a great idea but I’m pretty sure that’s why we have a republic and not a democracy…..

Perhaps you can explain why a Wyoming voter's view is 3.6 times as influential as a Californian's.

Because it’s the law?? And in the case of CA vs WY, because one group is 3.6 times as productive as the other? Nothing short of a Constitutional Convention will change things, thank God. WE ARE NOT A PURE DEMOCRACY! Get over it

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
So I guess America should be ruled by NY, LA, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, and Philadelphia voters. What a great idea but I’m pretty sure that’s why we have a republic and not a democracy…..

Perhaps you can explain why a Wyoming voter's view is 3.6 times as influential as a Californian's.

Because it’s the law?? And in the case of CA vs WY, because one group is 3.6 times as productive as the other? Nothing short of a Constitutional Convention will change things, thank God. WE ARE NOT A PURE DEMOCRACY! Get over it

No you are not a pure democracy!

You are anything but democracy!

Why are you invading and destroying countries to give them democracy!

Run your own first and set an example!

Your current lot look like 7 year old children supported by 5 year old voters!

It shouldnt be 3.6, I agree. Wyoming should be worth 10 Californians.

Yes -
literally erasing (or suspending) parts of the Constitution to fundamentally change the nature of US Government is soo patriotic..

If Trump were calling for this, would you be so supportive?

Removing the EC results in "pure" democracy - which has... drumroll..... never worked UNLESS there are extreme limits on the franchise - We have to go back to Pre-Monarchy Athens-as-a-city-state to get even CLOSE to a functional democracy - and less than 5% of the inhabitants of the residents could vote. Removing the filibuster? I have some heart string tugs anytime a group tries this - it's a dedication thing, generally as passionate opposition to something that couldn't pass 2/3 anyway ... and it usually results in failure, but it's a noble try.

But in removing "random" "offensive" parts of the constitution, without following Article V is LITERALLY anti American

take 5 minutes, that 300 seconds, and read about the "Gobel's loophole" on article V - the TLDR s that if you can get 2/3 of the states to fundamentally change article V, it could be changed to simple majority, of any given body, rather than the states ...

But, yeah, party over country minds think "sure, must be a good idea, it comes from our side"

This is one of the reasons *I* am forced to be an actual independent Libertarian .. looks like a righty to the simple, looks like a liberal to a nut job ... i've been called both, with a free hand ...

nice, i recall a good chuckle when someone called me a soyboi beta liberal ..

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Yes -
literally erasing (or suspending) parts of the Constitution to fundamentally change the nature of US Government is soo patriotic..

If Trump were calling for this, would you be so supportive?

Removing the EC results in "pure" democracy - which has... drumroll..... never worked UNLESS there are extreme limits on the franchise - We have to go back to Pre-Monarchy Athens-as-a-city-state to get even CLOSE to a functional democracy - and less than 5% of the inhabitants of the residents could vote. Removing the filibuster? I have some heart string tugs anytime a group tries this - it's a dedication thing, generally as passionate opposition to something that couldn't pass 2/3 anyway ... and it usually results in failure, but it's a noble try.

But in removing "random" "offensive" parts of the constitution, without following Article V is LITERALLY anti American

take 5 minutes, that 300 seconds, and read about the "Gobel's loophole" on article V - the TLDR s that if you can get 2/3 of the states to fundamentally change article V, it could be changed to simple majority, of any given body, rather than the states ...

But, yeah, party over country minds think "sure, must be a good idea, it comes from our side"

This is one of the reasons *I* am forced to be an actual independent Libertarian .. looks like a righty to the simple, looks like a liberal to a nut job ... i've been called both, with a free hand ...

nice, i recall a good chuckle when someone called me a soyboi beta liberal ..

Nobody has proposed submitting every act of government to a vote of the people, only that the Chief Executive be democratically elected to spare us from future Bush the Lessers and Donald Trumps.

quote:

And in the case of CA vs WY, because one group is 3.6 times as productive as the other?

GDP per capita Wyoming 2022 $84,421 whereas California $93,305 2022

Try some other line

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
So I guess America should be ruled by NY, LA, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, and Philadelphia voters. What a great idea but I’m pretty sure that’s why we have a republic and not a democracy…..

Perhaps you can explain why a Wyoming voter's view is 3.6 times as influential as a Californian's.

Because it’s the law?? And in the case of CA vs WY, because one group is 3.6 times as productive as the other? Nothing short of a Constitutional Convention will change things, thank God. WE ARE NOT A PURE DEMOCRACY! Get over it

In 2022 Wyoming's per capita GDP was $62,516 compared to California's $73,934.

Link

That’s because 30-35%of the population in CA pay so much in taxes to support the remainder of the population who contribute very little. It’s a socialist welfare state. There’s a reason that retirees and businesses are leaving by the thousands. I lived there for 37 years and watched the downward spiral. How long did you live there, Jiffy?? There’s fewer welfare programs in a place like Wyoming so there is little reason for deadbeats to live there. The higher GDP/ capita in CA rides on the back of overtaxed middle class.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Yes -
literally erasing (or suspending) parts of the Constitution to fundamentally change the nature of US Government is soo patriotic..

If Trump were calling for this, would you be so supportive?

Nobody has proposed submitting every act of government to a vote of the people, only that the Chief Executive be democratically elected to spare us from future Bush the Lessers and Donald Trumps.

back to peekaboo, sarge?

yes, schiff hates america and wants the rule of a populist tyrant, that only has to cater to a small subset of states. I get it, that you might not "get it" ... but that's one of your features

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
That’s because 30-35%of the population in CA pay so much in taxes to support the remainder of the population who contribute very little. It’s a socialist welfare state. There’s a reason that retirees and businesses are leaving by the thousands. I lived there for 37 years and watched the downward spiral. How long did you live there, Jiffy?? There’s fewer welfare programs in a place like Wyoming so there is little reason for deadbeats to live there. The higher GDP/ capita in CA rides on the back of overtaxed middle class.

Please. There's little reason for anybody to live there....that's why almost no one does.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
That’s because 30-35%of the population in CA pay so much in taxes to support the remainder of the population who contribute very little. It’s a socialist welfare state. There’s a reason that retirees and businesses are leaving by the thousands. I lived there for 37 years and watched the downward spiral. How long did you live there, Jiffy?? There’s fewer welfare programs in a place like Wyoming so there is little reason for deadbeats to live there. The higher GDP/ capita in CA rides on the back of overtaxed middle class.

Please. There's little reason for anybody to live there....that's why almost no one does.

There 39.24 MILLIONS living in Kalifornia!

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
That’s because 30-35%of the population in CA pay so much in taxes to support the remainder of the population who contribute very little. It’s a socialist welfare state. There’s a reason that retirees and businesses are leaving by the thousands. I lived there for 37 years and watched the downward spiral. How long did you live there, Jiffy?? There’s fewer welfare programs in a place like Wyoming so there is little reason for deadbeats to live there. The higher GDP/ capita in CA rides on the back of overtaxed middle class.

quote:

According to the ITEP’s research, Texans whose salaries fall into the lowest 20% of income earners — those who earn less than $20,900 a year — pay about 13% of their income in state and local taxes. By comparison, Californians in the bottom 20% (who earn less than $23,200 annually) pay a rate of 10.5%.

That’s not the only income group where taxes are higher in Texas than California, either: The middle 20% of earners in Texas — making $35,800 to $56,000 a year — pay 9.7% in state and local taxes .Meanwhile, it’s 8.9% for middle income earners in Californian, whose pay ranges from $39,100 to $62,300 a year.

About the only Texans who fare better than Californians are the wealthy. The top 1% of earners in Texas — those making $617,900 or more annually — only pay 3.1% of their income in state and local taxes. That compares to a rate of 12.4% for top earners in California, who make $714,400 or more per year.

Link

I think income tax is only part of the picture.
How does Texas compare in property tax, sales tax, franchise tax, etc., compared to California?

I do not believe you can single out one tax. We have to look at the entire tax burden of the two states across comparable communities.

As for the Filibuster, is not a procedural rule created by the Constitution. It is simply a procedural rule created by the Senate in the 1800s. One use to actually speak. I preferred that to invoke the thing. I liked that. The Senate through its rule making may change it and has changed it as the Senate saw fit. I actually like the rule it forces consensus, compromise, or blocks a slim majority from running running shod. However, I recognize it is not protected practice by the Constitution. Of enough folks get elected to kill it, so be it.

I do not support amending the Constitution to do away w the E.C. The balance upon large states the E.C. provides along with each state only getting two votes in the Senate is essential to maintaining equality, balance of power among the states and the people of those states. In the Senate we all count the same, and every voice is heard.

If I were voting in that race, I would refer this from the article:
His rival, Democratic Rep. Katie Porter, released a plan earlier this week to “shake up the Senate” by banning earmarks and prohibiting stock trading by members of Congress and their families — long-held positions that are prominently featured in her first major campaign ad. (Schiff also included a ban on congressional stock trades in his proposal.)

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
That’s because 30-35%of the population in CA pay so much in taxes to support the remainder of the population who contribute very little. It’s a socialist welfare state. There’s a reason that retirees and businesses are leaving by the thousands. I lived there for 37 years and watched the downward spiral. How long did you live there, Jiffy?? There’s fewer welfare programs in a place like Wyoming so there is little reason for deadbeats to live there. The higher GDP/ capita in CA rides on the back of overtaxed middle class.

quote:

According to the ITEP’s research, Texans whose salaries fall into the lowest 20% of income earners — those who earn less than $20,900 a year — pay about 13% of their income in state and local taxes. By comparison, Californians in the bottom 20% (who earn less than $23,200 annually) pay a rate of 10.5%.

That’s not the only income group where taxes are higher in Texas than California, either: The middle 20% of earners in Texas — making $35,800 to $56,000 a year — pay 9.7% in state and local taxes .Meanwhile, it’s 8.9% for middle income earners in Californian, whose pay ranges from $39,100 to $62,300 a year.

About the only Texans who fare better than Californians are the wealthy. The top 1% of earners in Texas — those making $617,900 or more annually — only pay 3.1% of their income in state and local taxes. That compares to a rate of 12.4% for top earners in California, who make $714,400 or more per year.

Link

Then what’s your explanation as to why retirees and major corporations are leaving CA in droves? Why did its population drop enough to lose a congressional seat?

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
That’s because 30-35%of the population in CA pay so much in taxes to support the remainder of the population who contribute very little. It’s a socialist welfare state. There’s a reason that retirees and businesses are leaving by the thousands. I lived there for 37 years and watched the downward spiral. How long did you live there, Jiffy?? There’s fewer welfare programs in a place like Wyoming so there is little reason for deadbeats to live there. The higher GDP/ capita in CA rides on the back of overtaxed middle class.

quote:

According to the ITEP’s research, Texans whose salaries fall into the lowest 20% of income earners — those who earn less than $20,900 a year — pay about 13% of their income in state and local taxes. By comparison, Californians in the bottom 20% (who earn less than $23,200 annually) pay a rate of 10.5%.

That’s not the only income group where taxes are higher in Texas than California, either: The middle 20% of earners in Texas — making $35,800 to $56,000 a year — pay 9.7% in state and local taxes .Meanwhile, it’s 8.9% for middle income earners in Californian, whose pay ranges from $39,100 to $62,300 a year.

About the only Texans who fare better than Californians are the wealthy. The top 1% of earners in Texas — those making $617,900 or more annually — only pay 3.1% of their income in state and local taxes. That compares to a rate of 12.4% for top earners in California, who make $714,400 or more per year.

Link

Then what’s your explanation as to why retirees and major corporations are leaving CA in droves? Why did its population drop enough to lose a congressional seat?

Americans move around, always have.

Bullshit. TX gained 2 seats after the 2020 census and 4-5 states gained 1 seat. The majority of states making gains were red states. The majority losing seats are blue. It sure ain’t just because Americans are just moving around.

https://www.census.gov/newsroo...%20of%20seats%20will

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
That’s because 30-35%of the population in CA pay so much in taxes to support the remainder of the population who contribute very little. It’s a socialist welfare state. There’s a reason that retirees and businesses are leaving by the thousands. I lived there for 37 years and watched the downward spiral. How long did you live there, Jiffy?? There’s fewer welfare programs in a place like Wyoming so there is little reason for deadbeats to live there. The higher GDP/ capita in CA rides on the back of overtaxed middle class.

Yah, don't move here. The weather is overrated, the traffic is terrible, and the bigwigs who own everything charge too much rent.
And there's no water...

Oh, and Adam Schiff, the subject of the thread. My perception is that he's a flaming liberal and a gun-grabbing PITA.
Someone else's representative...

I fully agree with your post, especially the first 2 sentences…….However, you left out the overburdening taxes, sky high cost of housing, and horrendous cost of electricity (when it’s available).