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.
As the efforts of democrat politics is to create a greater cohort of poor, dependent citizens through immigration, trade, and taxation policy, there has become more and more democrats. Democrats have succeeded in creating a lower standard of living, more poor people, and more democrats.
As a result, the "balance of power" has shifted from those with intiative, frugality, and innovation, to those who are dependent and lack skills for the benefit of the democrats.
How can this insidious, pernicious tide of democrat (treasonous) activity be culled?
MORE STATES.
When the voting record of COUNTIES in the last 15 more or less presidential elections are evaluated, the LAND MASS OF THE US overwhelmingly opposes liberal policy/candiadates. Fortunately for dems, the cities and large urban areas have been rendered to federal slaves, depenedent upon democrats to provide for thier food, housing, and clothing.
Recently we have seen initiatives on the part of many states to "break up" into additional states (the state of Jefferson in CA is a prime example), due to the tyranny of large urban centers over the land mass of the nation.
Given the fact that we have TWO senators per state, the best conservative intiative would be to break up the US into as many states as possible. In this fashion, the lower house (Congress) would be ceded to those who demand federal benefits. This would be countered by a much larger (than current) Senate, which would represent the equitable land mass of the US and balance the interests of those who want federal treats, vs those who provide the treats.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
As the efforts of democrat politics is to create a greater cohort of poor, dependent citizens through immigration, trade, and taxation policy, there has become more and more democrats. Democrats have succeeded in creating a lower standard of living, more poor people, and more democrats.
As a result, the "balance of power" has shifted from those with intiative, frugality, and innovation, to those who are dependent and lack skills for the benefit of the democrats.
How can this insidious, pernicious tide of democrat (treasonous) activity be culled?
MORE STATES.
When the voting record of COUNTIES in the last 15 more or less presidential elections are evaluated, the LAND MASS OF THE US overwhelmingly opposes liberal policy/candiadates. Fortunately for dems, the cities and large urban areas have been rendered to federal slaves, depenedent upon democrats to provide for thier food, housing, and clothing.
The "LAND MASS" opposes liberal policy? How the hell does the inanimate "LAND MASS" oppose anything?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
Recently we have seen initiatives on the part of many states to "break up" into additional states (the state of Jefferson in CA is a prime example), due to the tyranny of large urban centers over the land mass of the nation.
Given the fact that we have TWO senators per state, the best conservative intiative would be to break up the US into as many states as possible. In this fashion, the lower house (Congress) would be ceded to those who demand federal benefits. This would be countered by a much larger (than current) Senate, which would represent the equitable land mass of the US and balance the interests of those who want federal treats, vs those who provide the treats.
More states= less democrat tyranny
How sad that conservatives who were once represented by people like William F Buckley Jr. who could actually make sapient points have been superceded by those who believe inanimate objects have political viewpoints.
HEY! I know!
Let's break the US up into 300,000,000+ states and see how that works out, eh?
When the voting record of COUNTIES in the last 15 more or less presidential elections are evaluated, the LAND MASS OF THE US overwhelmingly opposes liberal policy/candiadates.
I hate to break it to you, but LAND MASS doesn't get a vote in this country. It's "One person, one vote", not "One acre, one vote." Hope this helps clear up your confusion.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 26 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,568 posts, read 16,556,695 times
Reputation: 6044
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
MORE STATES.
When the voting record of COUNTIES in the last 15 more or less presidential elections are evaluated, the LAND MASS OF THE US overwhelmingly opposes liberal policy/candiadates. Fortunately for dems, the cities and large urban areas have been rendered to federal slaves, depenedent upon democrats to provide for thier food, housing, and clothing.
Recently we have seen initiatives on the part of many states to "break up" into additional states (the state of Jefferson in CA is a prime example), due to the tyranny of large urban centers over the land mass of the nation.
Given the fact that we have TWO senators per state, the best conservative intiative would be to break up the US into as many states as possible. In this fashion, the lower house (Congress) would be ceded to those who demand federal benefits. This would be countered by a much larger (than current) Senate, which would represent the equitable land mass of the US and balance the interests of those who want federal treats, vs those who provide the treats.
More states= less democrat tyranny
Land Masses do not elect anyone, people do.
The only way you would actually create a situation in which there are less Democrats in congress would be to split the cities.
If you do it by "land mass" like that Map of 6 Californias, then you will have a total of 10 Democratic Senators, and 2 Republicans. Yes, there is a net gain for republicans , but in the proportion of the senate, you lose.
The same is true of Any large blue state, and small red states as well. If you split Florida, you will likely get 2 Democrats, and 2 Republicans, If you slip Georgia up North and South, the same happens. Heck, if you split Alabama right above the black belt, you are going to get some Democratic Senators in this state.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by scratchie
I hate to break it to you, but LAND MASS doesn't get a vote in this country. It's "One person, one vote", not "One acre, one vote." Hope this helps clear up your confusion.
If only. The Electoral College effectively negates the concept of "One person, one vote"
Let's not be dismissive out of hand. Take for instance Trotsky: "The history of a revolution is for us first of all a history of the forcible entrance of the masses into the realm of rulership over their own destiny" - see?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
Let's not be dismissive out of hand. Take for instance Trotsky: "The history of a revolution is for us first of all a history of the forcible entrance of the masses into the realm of rulership over their own destiny" - see?
Well, being ruled by clods of dirt might well be an improvement over some of the 'great' conservative leaders out there.
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.
How the hell does the inanimate "LAND MASS" oppose anything?
