Thom Hartmann: Break up California into 3 states & help fix America

[thomhartmann]

Run time: 05:25 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5LL5GTME1g   Posted on YouTube: May 31, 2011 By YouTube Member: TheBigPictureRT Views on YouTube: 132   Posted on DU: May 31, 2011 By DU Member: thomhartmann Views on DU: 1705

 
The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann on RT TV "live" 9pm and 11pm check www.thomhartmann.com/tv for local listings

[Yukari Yakumo]

1. Step 5

Booby Trap the stalemate button!

...

ok ok, better idea than those four: GET RID OF THE SENATE.

[truedelphi]

2. I really don't want to pay for more Corporate Controlled

People in Washington DC. (Although I do like the notion of California's population of 37 million folks being split up once or even twice over.)

We don't have a clean energy policy because we have a Congress happily licking the boots of the Energy Company.

We don't have a Single Payer Universal Health Care system because Rahm Emanuel and his boss were more interested in keeping their buddies in the insurance industry happy.
And on and on.

End the corruption, and that means end all Corporate-Sponsored Campaign Finance of politicians.

[mopinko]

3. call them

log, fog and smog.

sorry, old dumb joke.

[MindPilot]

8. What? Nothing abut "nuts & flakes"?

How about "shake & bake" Can you get that one in there?


DUDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SoapBox]

4. Oh for heaven's sakes...Thom, I luvs ya but...NO! What a dumb idea.

What we need are the citizens of our wonderful state to WAKE the F up and stop voting idiots into office (Ahnold?!)

I love this state and would fight tooth-and-nail to keep it together.

...go pick on Texas...it needs to be give to Mexico.

[LaPera]

5. I think CA should have 6 senators-Should CA have just 2 like ND SD WY etc. etc.

These states with very few people under a million that have the same amount of senators (2) as California (2) with nearly 40 million people....Split the fucking state up in three parts - with 2 senators & separate state governments for each region, northern CA central CA & southern CA!!

[diane in sf]

6. Who gets stuck with the central valley?

[MindPilot]

7. Maybe we are just a little tired of being governed from the south and the east

One of the very few good things can say about Reagan; he did understand the west.

[Merlot]

9. Usually Thom is brilliant, but this is NOT one of his better ideas

California in 3 states means three more elections that need to be protected and fought from repub corruption. And who's to day that just because you split it in three, that they'd all stay blue? Orange county and the central valley are very reliably red, and there are a lot of rural areas that would go red as well.

I rather see Cali work to regain the status of 6th largest economy in the world, as we were for many years before the repub "guvernors" did their handiwork.

[Moostache]

10. Why not just eliminate some of the smaller states?

Do we REALLY need North AND South Carolina?
Scratch two useless in-breds from Columbia...

How about going down to a single Dakota?
Getting rid of two more Tea-bagging fools...

Senate is down to 46 now...

Hell, why stop there?
Alabama and Mississippi? "Missabama"
(This will REALLY kill some of them good old boys because it sounds an awful lot like politeness to our current first lady...)

Tennessee and Kentucky? "Tentucky"


Wyoming, Utah, Idaho and Colorado? "Wyutahorado"
(Pronounced "Why-you-ta-rado"?)

With these changes, we can be down to 38 states, 76 Senators and a permanent Democratic majority from now on...

[ptownbro]

11. Love Thom, but this is a terrible Idea

Not only is this impossible, but it also won't fix the problem of the filibuster at all and could hurt liberals/progressives in the long run by adding more red state senators.

If you really want to fix the filibuster problem all you need to do is this:

Limit the number of filibuster that can be used per session by any party.

I could go on with a lengthy defense, but I'll try to keep it as short as possible... This idea will still keep the meaning of the filibuster intact (which is to protect the interests of the minority) while preventing the abuse of its use. With a limited number, the party which tries to use it will be forced to wait for the more important issues to apply it. Also, it's the only idea that actually has a chance of happening.