Trump impeachment,would witnesses have made a difference?

[Subduction Zone]

You think that the 'main difference' is the term length?

California has 53 representatives to Congress right now. 45 of them are Democrats.
California has 2 Senators. Both are Democrats.

Montana has one representative to Congress. A Republican
Montana has two Senators; one Republican, one Democrat.

I have given you the state with the most representatives to the House, and one of the states with the fewest. There can be no fewer representatives to the House than one.

The upshot here is this: without that 'difference,' the government would be utterly run by California, Florida and New York. Texas would fit in that top four somewhere, but frankly, with most states having fewer than 8 representatives, that would be, pretty much, that. California, with its 45 Democrats in the House, more than offsets the votes of seventeen states. Seventeen. If you add in New York and Florida, you have three states dictating the composition of the house for considerably over half the nation. AT LEAST 26 states.

But those 26 states each have two Senators, and California, Florida and New York each have two Senators. So the 'tyranny of the majority' that is so ruthlessly administered in the HOUSE by these coastal, populace rich states, can't entirely lord it over the rest of the nation, much as they try to...as witnessed by this recent set of shenanigans.

Sorry but your claim about being run by three states simply fails. The top three California, Texas and Florida are roughly 26% of the population. Add in the fourth most popular state, New York, and you are at only 32%:

List of states and territories of the United States by population - Wikipedia

And even with just those top four we already see huge differences in politics. Those fears of yours are not based on reality.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Even if President Trump were to have done what he has been accused of doing by the House impeachment managers, Trump still would not have done any impeachable offenses.

Funny how we always end up in this place, with Trump's actions, isn't it?

This is after months and months of Trump and his followers claiming he didn't do the thing he's accused of doing. And months and months of him and his followers going on about how there's definitely no "quid pro quo." Then you all finally admitted that there was a quid pro quo, but then suddenly that wasn't a bad thing anymore either. You just keep on moving those goal posts to accomodate his lies and unethical and illegal behaviors.

Funny with Trump's actions how we always end up at "Turns out he did do the thing he's accused of after all and you know what? We don't think it's all that bad, despite whatever we may have said before when we believed him when he said he didn't do it." Meanwhile, if a Democrat was doing it (or doing something like say, wearing a tan suit) you'd be screaming for their head on a pyke. It's cult-like behavior in my opinion. And it's alarming how easily some people just go along with it.

 

[esmith]

So why do people keep referring to Trump as elected?
Why do they think that the USA public support his policies when he lost the election quite decisively?
Tom

Well he didn't lose the election but those that live in a metropolis, and especially around salt water, are affected by the lemming syndrome and do not understand our Republic voting system for President.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Which is totally indeterminable in this case...

Oh come on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well he didn't lose the election but those that live in a metropolis, and especially around salt water, are affected by the lemming syndrome and do not understand our Republic voting system for President.

Sorry, but our the flaws in our election system have nothing to do with it being a Republic.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Anybody whom Trump were to shoot on Fifth Avenue, would likely be somebody who'd deserve to be shot.

Spoken like a true cultist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh come on.

Supporters of Trump do not seem to realize that the only alternative to it being corruption is that Trump is incredibly incompetent and an idiot.

 

[dianaiad]

If all of the people are in California, Florida and New York, why shouldn't they have the majority of the say in what is going on?

Hmnn.

Because it would be like China (which has most of the people) telling us how to run the USA. They do, after all, have a LOT more people than we do.

Or....

Once upon a time a group of people moved into the states of New York, Illinois and Missouri ...not necessarily in that order. there were a LOT of people in that group. Their neighbors were slave owners and really objected to the mass move in, even though those people actually built the second largest city in the USA at the time, second only to Chicago (New York was in third place). The neighbors objected highly...to the point of burning them out, attacking their settlements, and having the governor of Missouri issue an 'extermination order" (his term, not that of the people whose target it was) that made it legal to kill any member of that group on sight if they didn't leave the area on a certain date.

Very much what the king in the book of Esther tried, come to think of it....even though the results were very different.

ANYway, the biggest problem the neighbors had was the fear that so many people would out vote them, get rid of slavery, run the government, etc., because there were so many of them, and so few of the original inhabitants.

You, personally, probably remember this stuff, enough to insure that other readers know that this really happened....

ANYway, the crux is this: if those who are on the side of the group with the most people should have the say, then I would still own 10 miles of prime river front property on the Mississippi. Dunno where you would be, but it wouldn't be wherever you are. You and I have a case for arguing for direct democracy and control of everything by one philosophical group. If the other guys had a point...that just because a whole bunch of people have the same philosophical ideas, they have the right to deny everybody else THEIR ideas....


As to the idea that because California and New York have the most people that those two states should have all the say over everybody else?

I'm sorry, but no. Californians and New Yorkers have NO CLUE what it's like to 'live in the middle,' and supply all the food for the coastal regions, and should NOT have the absolute right to run roughshod over everybody else, because nobody else is represented well.

 

[dianaiad]

Sorry but your claim about being run by three states simply fails. The top three California, Texas and Florida are roughly 26% of the population. Add in the fourth most popular state, New York, and you are at only 32%:

List of states and territories of the United States by population - Wikipedia

And even with just those top four we already see huge differences in politics. Those fears of yours are not based on reality.

That makes it worse.

Because I was going by the number of representatives the states have in Congress. If you are correct, then right now 26% of the population runs 74% of the nation, IN THE HOUSE.

It's a darn good thing that each state has two Senators, isn't it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That makes it worse.

Because I was going by the number of representatives the states have in Congress. If you are correct, then right now 26% of the population runs 74% of the nation, IN THE HOUSE.

It's a darn good thing that each state has two Senators, isn't it?

Not at all. Why do you think that this is a problem? You are not making any sense. States are not people. You want to give far too much power to empty land. Why should empty land tell you what to do?

 

[SoyLeche]

Hmnn.

Because it would be like China (which has most of the people) telling us how to run the USA. They do, after all, have a LOT more people than we do.

Or....

Once upon a time a group of people moved into the states of New York, Illinois and Missouri ...not necessarily in that order. there were a LOT of people in that group. Their neighbors were slave owners and really objected to the mass move in, even though those people actually built the second largest city in the USA at the time, second only to Chicago (New York was in third place). The neighbors objected highly...to the point of burning them out, attacking their settlements, and having the governor of Missouri issue an 'extermination order" (his term, not that of the people whose target it was) that made it legal to kill any member of that group on sight if they didn't leave the area on a certain date.

Very much what the king in the book of Esther tried, come to think of it....even though the results were very different.

ANYway, the biggest problem the neighbors had was the fear that so many people would out vote them, get rid of slavery, run the government, etc., because there were so many of them, and so few of the original inhabitants.

You, personally, probably remember this stuff, enough to insure that other readers know that this really happened....

ANYway, the crux is this: if those who are on the side of the group with the most people should have the say, then I would still own 10 miles of prime river front property on the Mississippi. Dunno where you would be, but it wouldn't be wherever you are. You and I have a case for arguing for direct democracy and control of everything by one philosophical group. If the other guys had a point...that just because a whole bunch of people have the same philosophical ideas, they have the right to deny everybody else THEIR ideas....


As to the idea that because California and New York have the most people that those two states should have all the say over everybody else?

I'm sorry, but no. Californians and New Yorkers have NO CLUE what it's like to 'live in the middle,' and supply all the food for the coastal regions, and should NOT have the absolute right to run roughshod over everybody else, because nobody else is represented well.

None of that has anything to do with having the Presidency decided by the popular vote though.

I'm acutally not even all that opposed to how the Senate is set up (although, if I had my 'druthers I'd put their selection back into the hands of the state legislatures). I would like to see some consolidation of states though. Wyoming has way too much power for what it is.

 

[SoyLeche]

That makes it worse.

Because I was going by the number of representatives the states have in Congress. If you are correct, then right now 26% of the population runs 74% of the nation, IN THE HOUSE.

It's a darn good thing that each state has two Senators, isn't it?

I question those numbers. Can you back them up?

 

[dianaiad]

I question those numbers. Can you back them up?

Please look at post 256, where I gave everybody the numbers, which I got from government lists of which states have how many representatives, using my calculator to first, add the numbers of the reps from New York, Florida and California, and then, going from the states with the smallest representatives on up, figuring out how many of those states it would take to equal the number of reps coming from New York, Florida and California.

Other states also have reps that number over 20...all but Texas are as heavily weighted Democrat as California and New York is....Texas has 36 congress people, 23 Republicans and 13 Democrats.

 

[dianaiad]

Funny how we always end up in this place, with Trump's actions, isn't it?

This is after months and months of Trump and his followers claiming he didn't do the thing he's accused of doing. And months and months of him and his followers going on about how there's definitely no "quid pro quo." Then you all finally admitted that there was a quid pro quo, but then suddenly that wasn't a bad thing anymore either. You just keep on moving those goal posts to accomodate his lies and unethical and illegal behaviors.

Funny with Trump's actions how we always end up at "Turns out he did do the thing he's accused of after all and you know what? We don't think it's all that bad, despite whatever we may have said before when we believed him when he said he didn't do it." Meanwhile, if a Democrat was doing it (or doing something like say, wearing a tan suit) you'd be screaming for their head on a pyke. It's cult-like behavior in my opinion. And it's alarming how easily some people just go along with it.

Y'know, I'd have a lot more respect for positions like yours if y'all hadn't been screaming for his impeachment since before he took office.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please look at post 256, where I gave everybody the numbers, which I got from government lists of which states have how many representatives, using my calculator to first, add the numbers of the reps from New York, Florida and California, and then, going from the states with the smallest representatives on up, figuring out how many of those states it would take to equal the number of reps coming from New York, Florida and California.

Other states also have reps that number over 20...all but Texas are as heavily weighted Democrat as California and New York is....Texas has 36 congress people, 23 Republicans and 13 Democrats.

The states are not individuals. They are merely organizations. You are giving states "rights" that they really do not deserve.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Y'know, I'd have a lot more respect for positions like yours if y'all hadn't been screaming for his impeachment since before he took office.

Has he? I do not remember that. Some opposers to Trump have been screaming for his impeachment since he took office. They have been a minority. I personally did not support it until his corruption in the Ukraine. That he should b prosecuted for some of his law breaking I have been in favor of, but I know that cannot happen until after he leaves office.

Don't listen to the extremeists. If one does then one could equally claim that all Republicans are immoral fascists and I know that is not the case. I am sure that it irritates you when people make that sort of claim due to a few far right loons. You should not make the same claim about the Democrats based upon a few far left loons.

 

[SoyLeche]

Please look at post 256, where I gave everybody the numbers, which I got from government lists of which states have how many representatives, using my calculator to first, add the numbers of the reps from New York, Florida and California, and then, going from the states with the smallest representatives on up, figuring out how many of those states it would take to equal the number of reps coming from New York, Florida and California.

Other states also have reps that number over 20...all but Texas are as heavily weighted Democrat as California and New York is....Texas has 36 congress people, 23 Republicans and 13 Democrats.

Yeah, I looked at the post. It doesn't clarify the "26% of the population controls 74% of the nation IN THE HOUSE" though.

Unless you mean they are underrepresented in land or cows or something like that.

 

[columbus]

do not understand our Republic voting system for President.

I do understand it.
I also recognize that the purview of POTUS was extremely different 200 years ago.
The President wasn't expected to get involved in domestic issues much. The three biggest campaign issues in 2016, federal policy concerning income tax, healthcare, and immigration, didn't even exist when Jefferson was made President.
The president was appointed by state legislatures to represent them to foreign governments, primarily. But the real domestic legislation was at the state level and House of Representatives. The states were far more sovereign back then.

But that was then, and this is now.
Tom

 

[dianaiad]

The states are not individuals. They are merely organizations. You are giving states "rights" that they really do not deserve.

the people IN those states have rights, and there is a reason that the name of this country is "the United States of America."

 

[dianaiad]

Has he? I do not remember that. Some opposers to Trump have been screaming for his impeachment since he took office. They have been a minority. I personally did not support it until his corruption in the Ukraine. That he should b prosecuted for some of his law breaking I have been in favor of, but I know that cannot happen until after he leaves office.

Don't listen to the extremeists. If one does then one could equally claim that all Republicans are immoral fascists and I know that is not the case. I am sure that it irritates you when people make that sort of claim due to a few far right loons. You should not make the same claim about the Democrats based upon a few far left loons.

do you understand the difference between 'you' and 'y'all?"