Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, December 03, 2017

Buried at the bottom of a recent column, the Wall Street Journal's Gerald Seib relayed a nugget of data he'd picked up. "David Birdsell, dean of the school of public and international affairs at Baruch College, notes that by 2040, about 70% of Americans are expected to live in the 15 largest states," Seib wrote. "They will have only 30 senators representing them, while the remaining 30% of Americans will have 70 senators representing them." ... Population projections from the University of Virginia's Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service offer a slightly lower distribution: By 2040, the 15 most populous states will be home to 67 percent of the U.S. population and represented by 30 percent of the Senate. But, then, that's already about the distribution -- and it has been for a long time.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The House of Representatives was designed to represent the interests of the people, regardless of which state they lived in. The Senate was designed to give equal representation to people from each state.

#1 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-12-03 08:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

Reverse the direct election of senators and return the Senate to its original purpose.

#2 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-12-03 09:11 AM | Reply

The headline should say "will be". Not "are".

#3 | Posted by eberly at 2017-12-03 09:18 AM | Reply

The headline should say "will be". Not "are".

#3 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Looking at the stupidity of the Trump tax cuts that just passed the Senate, we're basically already there.

#4 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2017-12-03 09:22 AM | Reply

2040, about 70% of Americans are expected to live in the 15 largest states...

With the trend of my millennial sistren and brethren heading forth to the countryside to plow fields and return to our agrian roots, {#MAGA} it is possible that the 2040 prediction will fall flat.

#5 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2017-12-03 10:28 AM | Reply

With the trend of my millennial sistren and brethren heading forth to the countryside to plow fields and return to our agrian roots, {#MAGA} it is possible that the 2040 prediction will fall flat.

#5 | POSTED BY GONOLES92

Not many of them are actually doing that...

#6 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-12-03 10:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

With the filibuster rule requiring a 60 vote margin the sparsely populated states can veto legislation. The big money interests can put their contributions into Senate races in those states and tilt the scales their way.

#7 | Posted by TenMile at 2017-12-03 03:10 PM | Reply

Ain't a republic a bitch?

#8 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-12-03 03:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

With the filibuster rule requiring a 60 vote margin the sparsely populated states can veto legislation.

Yep, and they can stop those overpopulated meccas from imposing their will on them.

A brilliant system.

#9 | Posted by boaz at 2017-12-03 04:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Yep, and they can stop those overpopulated meccas from imposing their will on them.
A brilliant system.

#9 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Yeah! Isn't it great that the minority can dominate everyone else because of technicalities?

Don't be such an ass. You scream bloody murder when any sort of LGBT issue comes along because they're "forcing their lifestyle down my throat". Why are you ok with doing the same to everyone else?

#10 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-03 04:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 5

Advertisement

Advertisement

It appears that one political party has recently had collective amnesia when it comes to understanding the concept of a Democratic-Republic.

#11 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2017-12-03 04:32 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 4

Yep, and they can stop those overpopulated meccas from imposing their will on them.

#9 | Posted by boaz

So why should underpopulated areas be able to impose their will on overpopulated areas?

Because they agree with you?

#12 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-03 04:49 PM | Reply

Let's ask Hawaiians what they think about this.

#13 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-12-03 05:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

As long s there are states with two senators with less area and population than single counties in Texas, I believe that the blue states should not complain too much.

#14 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-12-04 12:13 AM | Reply

It appears that one political party has recently had collective amnesia when it comes to understanding the concept of a Democratic-Republic.

Good. Because we are NOT a "democratic" republic. We are a Constitutional Republic...

So why should underpopulated areas be able to impose their will on overpopulated areas?

They shouldn't. We should be coming to agreements, hence the word "United" in our nations title. When we are not "United", nothing happens, as it should be..

#15 | Posted by boaz at 2017-12-04 07:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Yeah! Isn't it great that the minority can dominate everyone else because of technicalities?
Don't be such an ass. You scream bloody murder when any sort of LGBT issue comes along because they're "forcing their lifestyle down my throat". Why are you ok with doing the same to everyone else?
#10 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-03 04:28 PM

Your argument is nonsensical. Filibuster rules really can only prevent 'imposing their will', they can't cause 'forcing their lifestyle'. The Filibuster only prevents making changes (imposing their will) to the current system. You can't pass a law (forcing their lifestyle) by filibuster.

#16 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-12-04 08:41 AM | Reply

"You can't pass a law (forcing their lifestyle) by filibuster."

No, but you can keep any humane law from passing.

You can also get particular provisions into the wording by threatening a filibuster.

You know...politics.

#17 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-04 08:44 AM | Reply

"We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship."

- Alexander Hamilton

#18 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-12-04 09:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

- Thomas Jefferson

#19 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-12-04 09:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

[pure democracies] "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

- James Madison

#20 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-12-04 09:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The major problem is still the corrupting influence of big money on politicians and the manipulative influence of a consolidated corporate media on voters. If pols weren't being paid to screw over their constituency and voters weren't duped into unquestioning loyalty to a party that screws them,we would not be complaining about the senate.

#21 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-04 10:00 AM | Reply

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."

--Thomas Jefferson

#22 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-12-04 10:17 AM | Reply

I brought tofu to America

-- Benjamin Franklinstang

#23 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-12-04 10:22 AM | Reply

"Mom! Make me a chicken pot pie for lunch!"

- Chief Lives-With-Mom

#24 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-12-04 10:32 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Whales are fish"

-- George Washington

#25 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-12-04 10:42 AM | Reply

"The Moon is made of Swiss Cheese"

--John Adams

#26 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-12-04 10:44 AM | Reply

Your argument is nonsensical. Filibuster rules really can only prevent 'imposing their will', they can't cause 'forcing their lifestyle'. The Filibuster only prevents making changes (imposing their will) to the current system. You can't pass a law (forcing their lifestyle) by filibuster.

#16 | Posted by Avigdore

What's nonsensical is your rebuttal.

The primary concept here is imposition of one's ideology/policy onto unwilling participants. This will happen, to some degree, no matter what due to the nature of our system.

However, rules like the filibuster were implemented to mitigate the extent to which the majority could overpower the minority. Here we have a flipping of that concept, however, as the minority of voters is disproportionately powerful; meaning our government is now controlled by the minority instead of protecting it.

Don't take the LGBT reference too literally as it was only an example of times when a minority group gaining success makes Boaz lose his s---, whereas he's perfectly fine imposing his political views on everyone else via any means necessary.

#27 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-04 12:13 PM | Reply

You know...politics.

#17 | Posted by Danforth

The problem is that politics used to have an inherent understanding of compromise and governing in good faith.

Both of which are kryptonite in today's GOP.

#28 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-04 12:15 PM | Reply

"It appears that one political party has recently had collective amnesia when it comes to understanding the concept of a Democratic-Republic."

It appears that one political party has had collective amnesia about the affects of big tax cuts for the 1%. Apparently, Repubican memories last one decade only.

#29 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-04 12:24 PM | Reply

@#27 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-04 12:13 PM
That our government is resistant to change by the filibuster rule does not mean that the minority can force its will on the majority. The filibuster did not make the rules that are now in effect, they merely prevent their being changed. This means that the 'lifestyle' in questions has been in effect prior to the filibuster, the filibuster cannot be responsible for making to rules be in effect. The filibuster can't be blamed for enforcing anything because it is not a mechanism which allows anything to be passed. No result other than a continuation of current laws can be laid at the feet of the filibuster.

#30 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-12-04 12:42 PM | Reply

They shouldn't. We should be coming to agreements, hence the word "United" in our nations title. When we are not "United", nothing happens, as it should be..

#15 | Posted by boaz

Sure sounds like a good solution.

However your party's solution is to prevent those who don't agree with them from voting or being represented in government.

#31 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-04 01:32 PM | Reply

The major problem is still the corrupting influence of big money on politicians and the manipulative influence of a consolidated corporate media on voters. If pols weren't being paid to screw over their constituency and voters weren't duped into unquestioning loyalty to a party that screws them,we would not be complaining about the senate.

#21 | Posted by Sully

Next time a candidate who agrees with you runs for office, you should support them. There was one in 2016.

#32 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-04 01:33 PM | Reply

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
- Thomas Jefferson

#19 | POSTED BY MUSTANG AT 2017-12-04 09:45 AM | REPLY

It's so much better when 47 percent of the population get to take away the rights of the other 53

- Small State Conservatives

#33 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-12-04 01:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Re#32 - I did votè for Jill Stein.

You're the one who supported a big money candidate who could barely condescend to speak to regular Americans, going as far as saying that only rich donors can hear her true thoughts and everyone else gets her "public" positions.

There is little I can due about the prevalence of such ridiculous voting behavior

#34 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-04 02:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It appears that one political party has had collective amnesia about the affects of big tax cuts for the 1%."

Like when it was Kennedy doing the cutting?

"It's so much better when 47 percent of the population get to take away the rights of the other 53"

What rights are those?

Remember, in order for a bill to be successful, it also needs the support of the HoR.

#35 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-04 02:32 PM | Reply

I don't know who anyone who has ever taken a civics class could take this article seriously. The writer should be embarrassed as hell.

#36 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-04 02:32 PM | Reply

"You're the one who supported a big money candidate"

Every winner that's ever won has been a big money candidate.

That's a feature of our winner take all system, not of the candidate.

How come you can't figure that out?

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-04 02:42 PM | Reply

"The major problem is still the corrupting influence of big money on politicians and the manipulative influence of a consolidated corporate media on voters."

And you think Jill Stein was going to address either of those?

That's funny!

Jill Stein was supposed to ride into DC on her unfunded high horse and somehow undo Citizens United and undo media consolidation.

That's funny, that you would believe such a ridiculous thing. Pure fantasy. Jill Stein didn't even promise to do the stuff you were hoping for!

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-04 02:52 PM | Reply

You're the one who supported a big money candidate who could barely condescend to speak to regular Americans, going as far as saying that only rich donors can hear her true thoughts and everyone else gets her "public" positions.

There is little I can due about the prevalence of such ridiculous voting behavior

#34 | Posted by Sully

Me? I was one of the most anti hillary libs on this site. But if I lived in a swing state I'd have voted for her in the general because I'm not a moron and I can tell the difference between getting hit by a bike and getting hit by a truck.

#39 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-04 02:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#37 - don't tell me what I haven't figured out in a post where you casually try to defend the idea that the candidate who took the most from big money interests- not just for her campaign but PERSONALLY, is against big money in politics.

Worry about why you are willing to portray yourself as being so gullible before you criticize anyone else.

And newsflash- the voters can change any trend just as soon as they stop making excuses for repeating the same mistake over and over.

#40 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-04 02:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#38 - what I said is that she wasn't funded by big money, which is true,Jackass.

I won't speak to what you pretend I said.

#41 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-04 02:56 PM | Reply

#39 - well then why were you trying to "correct" my vote in your post?

Only butthurt Clinton shills do that

#42 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-04 02:58 PM | Reply

So now the left hates minorities?

#43 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-12-04 02:59 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"don't tell me what I haven't figured out in a post where you casually try to defend the idea that the candidate who took the most from big money interests- not just for her campaign but PERSONALLY, is against big money in politics."

Dude. You can't name a small money candidate that ever won anything.

So why vote for one? Lucy not gonna yank the football away this time?

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-04 03:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Actually apologies to Snoofy. I responded to Speaks and didn't really say anything about stein myself.

In any case it should be fairly obvious tha CU and media corruption are less of an issue if you don't vote for the people they are trying to manipulate you into voting for.

#45 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-04 03:03 PM | Reply

#44 - arguing that voting for corrupt shills is smart because they will likely win is not as smart as you think.

I'm going to keep voting for people I actually want to see in office.

You keep voting for people who are going to screw you and let me know when your "voted for the winning candidate" prize shows up on the mail. Lol

#46 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-04 03:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#39 - well then why were you trying to "correct" my vote in your post?

Only butthurt Clinton shills do that

#42 | Posted by Sully

You dont have to be a clinton shill to know crappy clinton is better than terrible trump. You just need a functioning brain.

#47 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-04 03:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#47 and I voted for someone who is better than both. It ain't my fault that you dummies constantly make excuses to vote like idiots. You are entitled to waste your vote on horrible candidates but stay the hell away from my vote.

#48 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-04 03:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"You keep voting for people who are going to screw you"

How exactly was Clinton going to screw me, you, or anyone?

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-04 03:28 PM | Reply

(I don't have to ask that about Trump, since his plans to screw over the non-rich were clear.)

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-04 03:31 PM | Reply

"It's so much better when 47 percent of the population get to take away the rights of the other 53"
What rights are those?
Remember, in order for a bill to be successful, it also needs the support of the HoR.

#35 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-12-04 02:32 PM | REPLY

You mean the HoR where Gerrymandering gave republicans 55.2% of the seats in spite of only getting 49.9% of the votes?

#51 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-12-04 03:33 PM | Reply

#47 and I voted for someone who is better than both. It ain't my fault that you dummies constantly make excuses to vote like idiots. You are entitled to waste your vote on horrible candidates but stay the hell away from my vote.

#48 | Posted by Sully

If you're in a swing state, you didn't waste your vote, you used it to help elect trump.

I get it if you're not in a swing state, use your vote to make a statement to the parties that they're not addressing your needs. But if you're in a swing state and you dont vote for the lesser evil, then you help elect the greater evil. And in this case the lesser and greater evil were FAR different levels of evil.

If you were going to get your ass kicked, would you rather get it kicked by a teenage hooligan or a trained MMA fighter?
If we apply your your voting strategy to this situation, you'd say "Neither! I'd rather just jump off a building so no one can beat me up!"

#52 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-04 03:34 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I voted for someone who is better than both."

Better at what??? You voted for a complete unknown.

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-04 03:35 PM | Reply

"It appears that one political party has had collective amnesia about the affects of big tax cuts for the 1%."
Like when it was Kennedy doing the cutting?

There's one major difference between then and now, the tax rates that were being slashed.

Income tax rates on the top bracket were at 91%. A very different environment and context compared to today. As such, directly comparing the two is ludicrous, especially since Reagan's tax cuts didn't stimulate the desired revenue growth.

#54 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-04 03:46 PM | Reply

#52 your first sentence indicates that you fail to understand how basic addition works. Peddle that nonsense to someone dumb enough to believe it. It is demonstrably wrong.

You should be ashamed to make claims that a primary school education could debunk.

#55 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-04 03:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Also, I find it interesting that the summary of effects of the 1964 cuts only describes increased revenues for two years after the cuts.

I'll have to dig some and find out if, like Reagan's cuts, the effect fizzled after a short time.

And then you'll be all out supply side excuses.

#56 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-04 03:48 PM | Reply

#53 I'm not interested in debunking your lies and will not answer any question premised on one. Keep it honest or bother someone else

#57 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-04 03:53 PM | Reply

#30 | Posted by Avigdore

Why are you stuck on the filibuster?

Do you not get the very simple premise of the article or headline even?

#58 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-04 04:00 PM | Reply

"debunking your lies"

It's not a lie that only big money candidates win Presidential elections.

It's been true your entire life.

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-04 04:00 PM | Reply

Yeah! Isn't it great that the minority can dominate everyone else because of technicalities?

Don't be such an ass. You scream bloody murder when any sort of LGBT issue comes along because they're "forcing their lifestyle down my throat". Why are you ok with doing the same to everyone else?

#10 | Posted by jpw

What minority?

#60 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-12-04 04:05 PM | Reply

What minority?

#60 | Posted by Sniper

Seriously. Do you really need this explained to you?

#61 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-04 04:09 PM | Reply

"David Birdsell, dean of the school of public and international affairs at Baruch College, notes that by 2040, about 70% of Americans are expected to live in the 15 largest states"

this generated what was intended....which is a complete acceptance of this as truth so we can argue about the problem it creates in the senate.

I get the problem if this is true.

but is it? There is a point where population can and will level off in those 15 states. There are only so many places you can live in those states.

#62 | Posted by eberly at 2017-12-04 04:10 PM | Reply

It appears that one political party has had collective amnesia about the affects of big tax cuts for the 1%. Apparently, Repubican memories last one decade only.

#29 | Posted by danni

Without re-writing the entire tax law, how can you cut taxes for mid income without cutting for all?

The top 50% of tax payers pay 97% of the taxes. The bottom 50% of the population pay no income tax at all, in fact most get refunds and have paid nothing into the fed income tax.

#63 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-12-04 04:11 PM | Reply

#59 that's not the post I was referencing. But you knew that because I posted the #.

The point about past results is simply irrelevant. Chance of winning is not a sensible criteria unless you benefit somehow by voting for the winning candidate regardless of his/her policies

#64 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-04 04:40 PM | Reply

The top 50% of tax payers pay 97% of the taxes. The bottom 50% of the population pay no income tax at all, in fact most get refunds and have paid nothing into the fed income tax.

#63 | POSTED BY SNIPER

You say the BOTTOM 50% but its not the BOTTOM 50% that pay no Federal Income Taxes.

First, actually this number is closer to 40% now that pay no Federal income tax. They still pay FICA/Medicare.

But the reason is that many are seniors with less than $25,000 in income.

But many in the top pay no income taxes either. Many have other federal tax deductions...like Donald Trump...

Moreover, the top 50% own about 90% of the nation's wealth so they benefit the most from the current set up hence they pay more to protect. The very bottom don't have much to lose.

#65 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-12-04 04:43 PM | Reply

Without re-writing the entire tax law, how can you cut taxes for mid income without cutting for all?
The top 50% of tax payers pay 97% of the taxes. The bottom 50% of the population pay no income tax at all, in fact most get refunds and have paid nothing into the fed income tax.

#63 | POSTED BY SNIPER

One more thing, you should try reading and thinking before you post stupid garbage that in no way bears upon reality.

It's actually quite easy to cut taxes for mid income without cutting for all. You simply shift the income tax brackets.

#66 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-12-04 04:45 PM | Reply

The top 50% of tax payers pay 97% of the taxes. The bottom 50% of the population pay no income tax at all, in fact most get refunds and have paid nothing into the fed income tax.

#63 | POSTED BY SNIPER AT 2017-12-04 04:11 PM | REPLY

That's because the tax code is written to reward the people at the top for paying the people at the bottom so little that they have no tax liability. If you want the bottom 50% to pay more taxes raise their wages so they actually have a tax liability.

We don't and never have taxed money needed for basic living expenses. That is the purpose of the graduated tax rates and standard deduction.

Lowering corporate tax rates does not incentivise raising wages. It does the opposite. If a corporation gives an employee a $1 raise, their employer share of taxes is 7.35 cents and there are no deductions or loopholes to get around it. The government collects 7.35 cents from the employer. If they take that $1 as profit the nominal rate is 39% but the actual collection rate for 2016 was $241 billion on $8.3 Trillion in profits = 2.9%

So even without the changes going through right now it costs them 4.45 cents more to give a dollar to an employee than to put it in their own pocket.

The idea that lowering taxes will lead to raises for employees is bunk. lowering corporate taxes makes it even more costly to pay employees.

#67 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-12-04 04:52 PM | Reply

"Chance of winning is not a sensible criteria"

No chance of winning is why Stein and Johnson couldn't get any big donor money.

If they had a chance, the money would start flowing in.

#68 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-04 05:01 PM | Reply

#68 there is no reason to believe that. The GOP and DNC get money because they provide results to their donors. If they were winning but not delivering, the money would dry up. Unlike you, big money donors know that their support only makes sense if the pol is serving them. If a pol is not acting in your interests, your support of them does nada for you.

#69 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-04 05:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Unlike you, big money donors know that their support only makes sense if the pol is serving them. If a pol is not acting in your interests, your support of them does nada for you.

#69 | Posted by Sully

Your support makes sense as long as the person you support is better than their opponent for you. If you live on planet earth and aren't a bigot or billionaires, that means you should vote democrat because their agenda helps you more than the republican agenda. Or you can throw away your vote on third parties or refuse to vote, let republicans win, and let them make you and your kids' lives worse than they would have been under democratic leadership.

#70 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-04 05:46 PM | Reply

"there is no reason to believe that. The GOP and DNC get money because they provide results to their donors. If they were winning but not delivering, the money would dry up."

BS showed that off-broadway candidates can enjoy broad-spectrum financial support from individuals operating outside the beltway. The problem as I see it is that an outsider isn't likely to get a whole lot of support (from the House and Senate) as president unless they have like minded elected officials in those places. Until third parties can start making a dent in lower offices, winning the presidency isn't going to do much. Imagine that Jill Stein had won. Then what? She'd be facing a House and a Senate full of politicians that weren't of her party, and may not like her much. How effective do you think a president is going to be in that position?

#71 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-04 05:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

but is it? There is a point where population can and will level off in those 15 states. There are only so many places you can live in those states.

#62 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2017-12-04 04:10 PM | REPLY

There isn't any place in America that is nearing some mythical population cap. If every square inch of LA County gets covered by 100 story skyscrapers they will merely start replacing them with 150 story skyscrapers. There are parts of the most densely populated counties where nothing has been built higher than 3 stories as of yet and there is still plenty of green space. As long as companies build in cities and people live where they work creating more customers for more businesses which need more workers, cities will continue to grow.

In fact not one of the 10 largest cities in the world is in America. Our largest city, NYC comes in at 28th

#72 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-12-04 06:04 PM | Reply

"BS showed that off-broadway candidates can enjoy broad-spectrum financial support from individuals operating outside the beltway."

So did Trump (and Obama before him).

Didn't you see a lot of Trump yard signs, at $20 a pop?

Stein and Johnson couldn't attract nearly as much individual money as Trump.

Sully wants to disqualify everyone who has taken corporate money, which is every President in his lifetime. It's puerile.

#73 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-04 06:16 PM | Reply

"Stein and Johnson couldn't attract nearly as much individual money as Trump."

Stein and Johnson didn't have a (D) or an (R) after their names. At least not now. And Bernie, off-Broadway candidate though he may be, clearly chose to run as a Dem because he wanted to utilize the DNC bandwidth for his own benefit. I think he still would have done as well or maybe better than Ron Paul has done, but by running as a (D) he was able to gain access to funding streams that would have otherwise ignored him.

"Sully wants to disqualify everyone who has taken corporate money, which is every President in his lifetime. It's puerile."

I have a sneaking suspicion that Sully is selective in his outrage...

#74 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-04 06:27 PM | Reply

Imagine that Jill Stein had won. Then what? She'd be facing a House and a Senate full of politicians that weren't of her party, and may not like her much. How effective do you think a president is going to be in that position?

#71 | Posted by madbomber

Your theory is ruined by the recent observation that republicans have shown no ability to resist the fake republican in the white house. He's never done anything for the GOP except insult its members, yet they fully support him because he is in line with their priorities.

If an independent like sanders were elected, do you think dems would refuse to work with him on healthcare or environmental protection simply because he wasn't from their party?

#75 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-04 06:43 PM | Reply

Sully you still haven't said how Clinton was going to screw me over, and you definitely haven't said how anyone else was going to screw me over less.

#76 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-04 07:31 PM | Reply

"If an independent like sanders were elected, do you think dems would refuse to work with him on healthcare or environmental protection simply because he wasn't from their party?"

Yes.

He wasn't even going to be able to secure all the delegate votes...even if he won.

Sanders staked out his territory on the far left...further than most Dems could be comfortable working in. That's not to say that Dems would do nothing, but I think it would be highly unlikely that his signature platforms would go anywhere.

#77 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-04 09:16 PM | Reply

#76 - i am not your dad. If the overall trend of wealth consolidation under both parties over the last few decades has escaped your notice, that is your problem.

#78 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-05 09:46 AM | Reply

#70 shilling for a party is not the same as making a point. We just had a Democrat president who not only forgave the biggest theft in history but who gave thieves billions so they could pay themselves bonuses for their efforts. If that doesn't tell you who establishment Democrats really serve, I can't help you and can't take you seriously. This is unacceptable and I will not vote for anyone who I have reason to believe will continue this trend.

#79 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-05 09:53 AM | Reply

The argument that electing a non puppet is bad because they won't have any easy time getting things done is absurd when you consider that the alternative is to have a puppet in office who will be able to implement an agenda that mostly serves the 1% at the expense of everyone else.

Critical thinking and party loyalty are like oil and water.

#80 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-05 09:57 AM | Reply

"If the overall trend of wealth consolidation under both parties over the last few decades has escaped your notice, that is your problem."

I've noticed, but that's not what I asked.

My question was, "Who is going to screw me over less?"

You decided you'd rather vote third party than think about it.

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-05 01:04 PM | Reply

"We just had a Democrat president who not only forgave the biggest theft in history but who gave thieves billions so they could pay themselves bonuses for their efforts."

Which also got us like 37 quarters of economic growth.

Whereas you wouldn't put out the bank that's on fire, even though your and everybody else's money is in it. That's not really going to help anyone in the short or the long term.

#82 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-05 01:13 PM | Reply

#82 disingenuous, stupid analogy. The institutions could have Ben saved without rewarding the thieves. Any fool could figure that out, Shill.

#83 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-05 01:23 PM | Reply

#81 - why vote for either corporate puppet? You're a dupe falling for an obvious con. The bar keeps being lowered because suckers like you always have an excuse to vote for crap people. Who is going to harm me less isn't a sane standard to use. duh

#84 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-05 01:27 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort