I came across this is little story today, it's not breaking news. I suspect that a member of the housekeeping staff knows something about the bomb threat that required the sweep for weapons.
According to police in Secaucus, the bomb threat — which later was determined to be bogus — was called in to Hudson Regional Hospital on July 18. During a search, bomb detection dogs led investigators to an unlocked office closet containing dozens of firearms.
Among the weapons were 11 handguns and 27 rifles or shotguns, according to police. The closet also contained a .45 caliber semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine that was determined to be an assault rifle, and a 14-round high-capacity handgun magazine.
The arrested the guy the next day.
What the heck do you think this guy was doing? It sounds very ominous that he was keeping those weapons there.
I thought there were other reasons for counting every person, like allotment of federal funds.
It's pretty ironic when conservatives are worried about equal representation in Congress, yet support each state having 2 senators, no matter what the size. A tumbleweed in Wyoming has more say in presidential elections than I do in Washington state.
Yes, as per the Consitution conservatives support equal representation for each state in one chamber of Congress.
In the House, representation is based on population.
Washington state has 15 electoral votes compared to Wyomings 3. Not sure why you're under the impression that Wyoming residents have a bigger influence in presidential elections than WA.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
Yes, as per the Consitution conservatives support equal representation for each state in one chamber of Congress.
In the House, representation is based on population.
Washington state has 15 electoral votes compared to Wyomings 3. Not sure why you're under the impression that Wyoming residents have a bigger influence in presidential elections than WA.
Probably because sparsely population populated states each have two senators. The 800,000 residents of Alaska have exactly the same senate representation as the 39 million people of California.
Probably because sparsely population populated states each have two senators. The 800,000 residents of Alaska have exactly the same senate representation as the 39 million people of California.
At this point, it's unclear.
Not impressed by this observation. Way back when they still taught civics in school, the explanation for the difference between the House and Senate representation was balance. House representation, based on population, resulted in more political power going to states with higher populations. That inequity was balanced by the numerically equal representation, aka voting power, in the Senate. That's why both houses need to agree on legislation.
Seems like all the whining about Senate representation ignores this context. Making the Senate representation dependent on population functionally disenfranchises citizens in states with lower populations.
In your example, Alaska, because of its sparse population, is effectively powerless to protect its interests in the House. No so in the Senate, where every state has the identical number of members. Balance.
Changing to a population-based Senate representation would have California making decisions for Alaskan citizens. Is that what you want?
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
heron said:
Not impressed by this observation. Way back when they still taught civics in school, the explanation for the difference between the House and Senate representation was balance. House representation, based on population, resulted in more political power going to states with higher populations. That inequity was balanced by the numerically equal representation, aka voting power, in the Senate. That's why both houses need to agree on legislation.
Seems like all the whining about Senate representation ignores this context. Making the Senate representation dependent on population functionally disenfranchises citizens in states with lower populations.
In your example, Alaska, because of its sparse population, is effectively powerless to protect its interests in the House. No so in the Senate, where every state has the identical number of members. Balance.
Changing to a population-based Senate representation would have California making decisions for Alaskan citizens. Is that what you want?
No. I don't want that. I was simply trying to explain to the member who was unsure why someone might make a comment about sparsely populated states like WY or AK having some increased power over densely populated states.
So, no.
What I want is revision of our electoral college process that gives the power to the people.
My spouse was livid about this exchange. She said that it was the epitome of Trumpian dishonesty.
Do you think that the question posed to her was intended to shame her? Or was she simply trying to change the narrative away from that which acknowledges that Trump is a sexual abuser and defamer of his victims?
The bill was approved despite the objections of Republican Senate Health and Human Resources Chair Mike Maroney, a trained doctor, who called the bill "an embarrassment" and said he believed lawmakers were harming the state.
"I took an oath to do no harm. There's zero chance I can vote for this bill,” Maroney said before the bill passed the Senate 18-12. The House already approved a version of the bill in February and swiftly approved the Senate bill on Saturday, the last day of the state's 60-day legislative session.
"It's a bad bill for West Virginia, it's a step backward. There's no question, no question there will be negative effects,” Maroney said. He added, "It's an embarrassment for me to be a part of it, it should be an embarrassment to everybody.”
I don't want that. I was simply trying to explain to the member who was unsure why someone might make a comment about sparsely populated states like WY or AK having some increased power over densely populated states.
No. I was unsure why that person would say sparsely populated states have more influence in a presidential election:
"A tumbleweed in Wyoming has more say in presidential elections than I do in Washington state."
No. I don't want that. I was simply trying to explain to the member who was unsure why someone might make a comment about sparsely populated states like WY or AK having some increased power over densely populated states.
So, no.
What I want is revision of our electoral college process that gives the power to the people.
My spouse was livid about this exchange. She said that it was the epitome of Trumpian dishonesty.
Do you think that the question posed to her was intended to shame her? Or was she simply trying to change the narrative away from that which acknowledges that Trump is a sexual abuser and defamer of his victims?
Kudos to Stephanopolos for trying to get an answer to his question. I thought Mace was doing the usual Trump tactic of playing the victim. And it was ridiculous to say that a finding of rape was less valid in a civil court than criminal court.
Beerman, BSN
4,327 Posts
What is it that you think I'm trying to say?