β² 30 βΌ Does this plan make sense? (lemmy.world) submitted 2 years ago by 3volver@lemmy.world to c/general@lemmy.world 89 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[β] Melkath@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Income tax and senate are important. permalink fedilink source hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Chriswild@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (2 children) Fuck the Senate and giving representation unequally. Why the fuck do CA and WY get the same representation in the Senate other than because some old slave owners pitched a fit about not having power over more populated states. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] grue@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) The Senate makes sense under two circumstances: The US is a confederation, with the majority of the sovereignty resting with individual states rather than the Federal government, and Senators are appointed by state legislatures and not directly elected, giving them a meaningfully different constituency and perspective than House reps. Those circumstances existed when the Senate was initially conceived of by the founding fathers, but no longer do. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Chriswild@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago How does that make the Senate important? permalink fedilink source parent [β] Melkath@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) That is why the House exists. some old slave owners pitched a fit about not having power over more populated states. You are aware that when Congress as a whole was established, everyone owned slaves. Everyone. The House prevents all of the red states from getting together and patently overruling California. The Senate prevents the entire country being ruled by California. Only through striking balance through both checks can a law that impacts everyone be advanced. The system is build the way it is built for a reason. California can pass all the state legislation it wants. It needs to get a bill through both house and senate to impose their will on the other 49 states. If anything, the idea of the House of Representatives at a FEDERAL level is the stupid one. If we got rid of the Senate, we should just change the name of the country to The United State of California. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] Chriswild@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) You're literally arguing that people shouldn't get equal representation because you think land votes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm literally not. I'm saying checks and balances should exist because we are a country of states with different environments, different hardships, and different cultures, not a country of Californians. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Chriswild@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Checks and balances that give inequality. Lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Okay, one more go at trying to teach Civics 101 to the one who cant walk and chew bubblegum at the same time. So 1 state having all the power is equality? In your mind, equal = Californian? 1 large homogenized (probably too big a world for you, but you can google) population has the right to rule over every other population? 49 groups of people get overruled because 1 of the groups has more people? That is why checks and balances are in place. To ensure EVERYONE gets representation, not just one powerful group. Each state does have States rights though, so they can do as they please with their group. Unless it is something that has successfully made it through checks and balances to be enforced on the nation as a whole. EVERYONE should be represented at the Federal level, not just the majority group. With your throwing around of the topic of slavery earlier in the conversation, I'd think you would be for that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Chriswild@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) So Californians should just live in Wyoming to get represented? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social -1 points 2 years ago (2 children) Californians are the only people in America that have more representation than someone in any other state. They just cant steam roll the other 49 states in the Federal legislative branch because the Senate protects those 49 states from California, the state with the most legislative representation in America. Seriously dude, shut your mouth and read a book. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] Chriswild@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago They have the least representation per capita permalink fedilink source parent [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Californians are the only people in America that have more representation than someone in any other state. This is false. They are extremely under represented in the Senate, and the House scales with population. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) This is true, they have more representatives in congress than any other state. Thank you for explaining how Congress works, and contradicting yourself in the process. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You clearly misunderstand proportionality. You keep referring to the raw number of representatives they have without factoring in their population. I'd be surprised if you've ever passed a mathematics class in your entire life. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (3 children) You're just being willfully moronic now. You are 1 person with 54 representatives in congress, 52 in House, 2 in Senate. I am 1 person with 8 representatives in congress, 6 in House, 2 in Senate. A) You have more federal representation than me. B) That is exactly how the system was designed. To have 2 bodies in congress, one population based, and one not. It was designed that way for a reason. What a knuckle dragging fucking idiot you are. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Each 1 Wyoming voter is worth about 67 Californians in the senate due to the fact that California has about 67 times the population but still only 2 senators. 38,940,231 Californians / 576,851 Wyomingites = ~67.5 ratio permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) And that is what the house is for, dipshit. The Senate is to check an overpopulated state from having complete control over the other 49 states and whatever amount of territories or whatever we are calling them. Seriously dude. Try rubbing 2 brain cells together. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago Nothing you've written amounts to an argument. Your appeals to tradition are a logical fallacy. I suggest you read about the Connecticut Compromise and stop writing unnecessary insults which do nothing productive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise permalink fedilink source parent [+] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It was designed that way for a reason. This is never a good argument. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago Just because you don't understand federal civics and checks and balances doesn't mean you deserve EVEN MORE control over the rest of the nation. permalink fedilink source parent [β] Anticorp@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You are aware that when Congress as a whole was established, everyone owned slaves. Everyone. Not even remotely true. Slaves were very expensive and only rich people could afford to buy and own slaves. Or did you mean everyone who established Congress? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I meant everyone who established Congress. Congress didn't get established as it is by a slave owning south to the chagrin of the not-slave-owning-north. Slavery was only ever (very rightfully) addressed far after. That was the point I was making. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Anticorp@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Gotcha. Then yes, all of the forefathers were rich enough to own slaves and did so. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Chriswild@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (2 children) Fuck the Senate and giving representation unequally. Why the fuck do CA and WY get the same representation in the Senate other than because some old slave owners pitched a fit about not having power over more populated states. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] grue@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) The Senate makes sense under two circumstances: The US is a confederation, with the majority of the sovereignty resting with individual states rather than the Federal government, and Senators are appointed by state legislatures and not directly elected, giving them a meaningfully different constituency and perspective than House reps. Those circumstances existed when the Senate was initially conceived of by the founding fathers, but no longer do. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Chriswild@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago How does that make the Senate important? permalink fedilink source parent [β] Melkath@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) That is why the House exists. some old slave owners pitched a fit about not having power over more populated states. You are aware that when Congress as a whole was established, everyone owned slaves. Everyone. The House prevents all of the red states from getting together and patently overruling California. The Senate prevents the entire country being ruled by California. Only through striking balance through both checks can a law that impacts everyone be advanced. The system is build the way it is built for a reason. California can pass all the state legislation it wants. It needs to get a bill through both house and senate to impose their will on the other 49 states. If anything, the idea of the House of Representatives at a FEDERAL level is the stupid one. If we got rid of the Senate, we should just change the name of the country to The United State of California. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] Chriswild@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) You're literally arguing that people shouldn't get equal representation because you think land votes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm literally not. I'm saying checks and balances should exist because we are a country of states with different environments, different hardships, and different cultures, not a country of Californians. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Chriswild@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Checks and balances that give inequality. Lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Okay, one more go at trying to teach Civics 101 to the one who cant walk and chew bubblegum at the same time. So 1 state having all the power is equality? In your mind, equal = Californian? 1 large homogenized (probably too big a world for you, but you can google) population has the right to rule over every other population? 49 groups of people get overruled because 1 of the groups has more people? That is why checks and balances are in place. To ensure EVERYONE gets representation, not just one powerful group. Each state does have States rights though, so they can do as they please with their group. Unless it is something that has successfully made it through checks and balances to be enforced on the nation as a whole. EVERYONE should be represented at the Federal level, not just the majority group. With your throwing around of the topic of slavery earlier in the conversation, I'd think you would be for that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Chriswild@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) So Californians should just live in Wyoming to get represented? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social -1 points 2 years ago (2 children) Californians are the only people in America that have more representation than someone in any other state. They just cant steam roll the other 49 states in the Federal legislative branch because the Senate protects those 49 states from California, the state with the most legislative representation in America. Seriously dude, shut your mouth and read a book. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] Chriswild@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago They have the least representation per capita permalink fedilink source parent [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Californians are the only people in America that have more representation than someone in any other state. This is false. They are extremely under represented in the Senate, and the House scales with population. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) This is true, they have more representatives in congress than any other state. Thank you for explaining how Congress works, and contradicting yourself in the process. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You clearly misunderstand proportionality. You keep referring to the raw number of representatives they have without factoring in their population. I'd be surprised if you've ever passed a mathematics class in your entire life. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (3 children) You're just being willfully moronic now. You are 1 person with 54 representatives in congress, 52 in House, 2 in Senate. I am 1 person with 8 representatives in congress, 6 in House, 2 in Senate. A) You have more federal representation than me. B) That is exactly how the system was designed. To have 2 bodies in congress, one population based, and one not. It was designed that way for a reason. What a knuckle dragging fucking idiot you are. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Each 1 Wyoming voter is worth about 67 Californians in the senate due to the fact that California has about 67 times the population but still only 2 senators. 38,940,231 Californians / 576,851 Wyomingites = ~67.5 ratio permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) And that is what the house is for, dipshit. The Senate is to check an overpopulated state from having complete control over the other 49 states and whatever amount of territories or whatever we are calling them. Seriously dude. Try rubbing 2 brain cells together. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago Nothing you've written amounts to an argument. Your appeals to tradition are a logical fallacy. I suggest you read about the Connecticut Compromise and stop writing unnecessary insults which do nothing productive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise permalink fedilink source parent [+] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It was designed that way for a reason. This is never a good argument. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago Just because you don't understand federal civics and checks and balances doesn't mean you deserve EVEN MORE control over the rest of the nation. permalink fedilink source parent [β] Anticorp@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You are aware that when Congress as a whole was established, everyone owned slaves. Everyone. Not even remotely true. Slaves were very expensive and only rich people could afford to buy and own slaves. Or did you mean everyone who established Congress? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I meant everyone who established Congress. Congress didn't get established as it is by a slave owning south to the chagrin of the not-slave-owning-north. Slavery was only ever (very rightfully) addressed far after. That was the point I was making. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Anticorp@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Gotcha. Then yes, all of the forefathers were rich enough to own slaves and did so. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] grue@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) The Senate makes sense under two circumstances: The US is a confederation, with the majority of the sovereignty resting with individual states rather than the Federal government, and Senators are appointed by state legislatures and not directly elected, giving them a meaningfully different constituency and perspective than House reps. Those circumstances existed when the Senate was initially conceived of by the founding fathers, but no longer do. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Chriswild@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago How does that make the Senate important? permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Chriswild@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago How does that make the Senate important? permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Melkath@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) That is why the House exists. some old slave owners pitched a fit about not having power over more populated states. You are aware that when Congress as a whole was established, everyone owned slaves. Everyone. The House prevents all of the red states from getting together and patently overruling California. The Senate prevents the entire country being ruled by California. Only through striking balance through both checks can a law that impacts everyone be advanced. The system is build the way it is built for a reason. California can pass all the state legislation it wants. It needs to get a bill through both house and senate to impose their will on the other 49 states. If anything, the idea of the House of Representatives at a FEDERAL level is the stupid one. If we got rid of the Senate, we should just change the name of the country to The United State of California. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] Chriswild@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) You're literally arguing that people shouldn't get equal representation because you think land votes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm literally not. I'm saying checks and balances should exist because we are a country of states with different environments, different hardships, and different cultures, not a country of Californians. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Chriswild@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Checks and balances that give inequality. Lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Okay, one more go at trying to teach Civics 101 to the one who cant walk and chew bubblegum at the same time. So 1 state having all the power is equality? In your mind, equal = Californian? 1 large homogenized (probably too big a world for you, but you can google) population has the right to rule over every other population? 49 groups of people get overruled because 1 of the groups has more people? That is why checks and balances are in place. To ensure EVERYONE gets representation, not just one powerful group. Each state does have States rights though, so they can do as they please with their group. Unless it is something that has successfully made it through checks and balances to be enforced on the nation as a whole. EVERYONE should be represented at the Federal level, not just the majority group. With your throwing around of the topic of slavery earlier in the conversation, I'd think you would be for that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Chriswild@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) So Californians should just live in Wyoming to get represented? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social -1 points 2 years ago (2 children) Californians are the only people in America that have more representation than someone in any other state. They just cant steam roll the other 49 states in the Federal legislative branch because the Senate protects those 49 states from California, the state with the most legislative representation in America. Seriously dude, shut your mouth and read a book. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] Chriswild@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago They have the least representation per capita permalink fedilink source parent [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Californians are the only people in America that have more representation than someone in any other state. This is false. They are extremely under represented in the Senate, and the House scales with population. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) This is true, they have more representatives in congress than any other state. Thank you for explaining how Congress works, and contradicting yourself in the process. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You clearly misunderstand proportionality. You keep referring to the raw number of representatives they have without factoring in their population. I'd be surprised if you've ever passed a mathematics class in your entire life. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (3 children) You're just being willfully moronic now. You are 1 person with 54 representatives in congress, 52 in House, 2 in Senate. I am 1 person with 8 representatives in congress, 6 in House, 2 in Senate. A) You have more federal representation than me. B) That is exactly how the system was designed. To have 2 bodies in congress, one population based, and one not. It was designed that way for a reason. What a knuckle dragging fucking idiot you are. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Each 1 Wyoming voter is worth about 67 Californians in the senate due to the fact that California has about 67 times the population but still only 2 senators. 38,940,231 Californians / 576,851 Wyomingites = ~67.5 ratio permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) And that is what the house is for, dipshit. The Senate is to check an overpopulated state from having complete control over the other 49 states and whatever amount of territories or whatever we are calling them. Seriously dude. Try rubbing 2 brain cells together. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago Nothing you've written amounts to an argument. Your appeals to tradition are a logical fallacy. I suggest you read about the Connecticut Compromise and stop writing unnecessary insults which do nothing productive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise permalink fedilink source parent [+] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It was designed that way for a reason. This is never a good argument. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago Just because you don't understand federal civics and checks and balances doesn't mean you deserve EVEN MORE control over the rest of the nation. permalink fedilink source parent [β] Anticorp@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You are aware that when Congress as a whole was established, everyone owned slaves. Everyone. Not even remotely true. Slaves were very expensive and only rich people could afford to buy and own slaves. Or did you mean everyone who established Congress? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I meant everyone who established Congress. Congress didn't get established as it is by a slave owning south to the chagrin of the not-slave-owning-north. Slavery was only ever (very rightfully) addressed far after. That was the point I was making. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Anticorp@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Gotcha. Then yes, all of the forefathers were rich enough to own slaves and did so. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Chriswild@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) You're literally arguing that people shouldn't get equal representation because you think land votes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm literally not. I'm saying checks and balances should exist because we are a country of states with different environments, different hardships, and different cultures, not a country of Californians. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Chriswild@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Checks and balances that give inequality. Lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Okay, one more go at trying to teach Civics 101 to the one who cant walk and chew bubblegum at the same time. So 1 state having all the power is equality? In your mind, equal = Californian? 1 large homogenized (probably too big a world for you, but you can google) population has the right to rule over every other population? 49 groups of people get overruled because 1 of the groups has more people? That is why checks and balances are in place. To ensure EVERYONE gets representation, not just one powerful group. Each state does have States rights though, so they can do as they please with their group. Unless it is something that has successfully made it through checks and balances to be enforced on the nation as a whole. EVERYONE should be represented at the Federal level, not just the majority group. With your throwing around of the topic of slavery earlier in the conversation, I'd think you would be for that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Chriswild@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) So Californians should just live in Wyoming to get represented? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social -1 points 2 years ago (2 children) Californians are the only people in America that have more representation than someone in any other state. They just cant steam roll the other 49 states in the Federal legislative branch because the Senate protects those 49 states from California, the state with the most legislative representation in America. Seriously dude, shut your mouth and read a book. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] Chriswild@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago They have the least representation per capita permalink fedilink source parent [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Californians are the only people in America that have more representation than someone in any other state. This is false. They are extremely under represented in the Senate, and the House scales with population. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) This is true, they have more representatives in congress than any other state. Thank you for explaining how Congress works, and contradicting yourself in the process. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You clearly misunderstand proportionality. You keep referring to the raw number of representatives they have without factoring in their population. I'd be surprised if you've ever passed a mathematics class in your entire life. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (3 children) You're just being willfully moronic now. You are 1 person with 54 representatives in congress, 52 in House, 2 in Senate. I am 1 person with 8 representatives in congress, 6 in House, 2 in Senate. A) You have more federal representation than me. B) That is exactly how the system was designed. To have 2 bodies in congress, one population based, and one not. It was designed that way for a reason. What a knuckle dragging fucking idiot you are. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Each 1 Wyoming voter is worth about 67 Californians in the senate due to the fact that California has about 67 times the population but still only 2 senators. 38,940,231 Californians / 576,851 Wyomingites = ~67.5 ratio permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) And that is what the house is for, dipshit. The Senate is to check an overpopulated state from having complete control over the other 49 states and whatever amount of territories or whatever we are calling them. Seriously dude. Try rubbing 2 brain cells together. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago Nothing you've written amounts to an argument. Your appeals to tradition are a logical fallacy. I suggest you read about the Connecticut Compromise and stop writing unnecessary insults which do nothing productive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise permalink fedilink source parent [+] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It was designed that way for a reason. This is never a good argument. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago Just because you don't understand federal civics and checks and balances doesn't mean you deserve EVEN MORE control over the rest of the nation. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Melkath@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'm literally not. I'm saying checks and balances should exist because we are a country of states with different environments, different hardships, and different cultures, not a country of Californians. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Chriswild@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Checks and balances that give inequality. Lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Okay, one more go at trying to teach Civics 101 to the one who cant walk and chew bubblegum at the same time. So 1 state having all the power is equality? In your mind, equal = Californian? 1 large homogenized (probably too big a world for you, but you can google) population has the right to rule over every other population? 49 groups of people get overruled because 1 of the groups has more people? That is why checks and balances are in place. To ensure EVERYONE gets representation, not just one powerful group. Each state does have States rights though, so they can do as they please with their group. Unless it is something that has successfully made it through checks and balances to be enforced on the nation as a whole. EVERYONE should be represented at the Federal level, not just the majority group. With your throwing around of the topic of slavery earlier in the conversation, I'd think you would be for that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Chriswild@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) So Californians should just live in Wyoming to get represented? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social -1 points 2 years ago (2 children) Californians are the only people in America that have more representation than someone in any other state. They just cant steam roll the other 49 states in the Federal legislative branch because the Senate protects those 49 states from California, the state with the most legislative representation in America. Seriously dude, shut your mouth and read a book. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] Chriswild@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago They have the least representation per capita permalink fedilink source parent [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Californians are the only people in America that have more representation than someone in any other state. This is false. They are extremely under represented in the Senate, and the House scales with population. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) This is true, they have more representatives in congress than any other state. Thank you for explaining how Congress works, and contradicting yourself in the process. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You clearly misunderstand proportionality. You keep referring to the raw number of representatives they have without factoring in their population. I'd be surprised if you've ever passed a mathematics class in your entire life. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (3 children) You're just being willfully moronic now. You are 1 person with 54 representatives in congress, 52 in House, 2 in Senate. I am 1 person with 8 representatives in congress, 6 in House, 2 in Senate. A) You have more federal representation than me. B) That is exactly how the system was designed. To have 2 bodies in congress, one population based, and one not. It was designed that way for a reason. What a knuckle dragging fucking idiot you are. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Each 1 Wyoming voter is worth about 67 Californians in the senate due to the fact that California has about 67 times the population but still only 2 senators. 38,940,231 Californians / 576,851 Wyomingites = ~67.5 ratio permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) And that is what the house is for, dipshit. The Senate is to check an overpopulated state from having complete control over the other 49 states and whatever amount of territories or whatever we are calling them. Seriously dude. Try rubbing 2 brain cells together. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago Nothing you've written amounts to an argument. Your appeals to tradition are a logical fallacy. I suggest you read about the Connecticut Compromise and stop writing unnecessary insults which do nothing productive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise permalink fedilink source parent [+] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It was designed that way for a reason. This is never a good argument. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago Just because you don't understand federal civics and checks and balances doesn't mean you deserve EVEN MORE control over the rest of the nation. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Chriswild@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Checks and balances that give inequality. Lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Okay, one more go at trying to teach Civics 101 to the one who cant walk and chew bubblegum at the same time. So 1 state having all the power is equality? In your mind, equal = Californian? 1 large homogenized (probably too big a world for you, but you can google) population has the right to rule over every other population? 49 groups of people get overruled because 1 of the groups has more people? That is why checks and balances are in place. To ensure EVERYONE gets representation, not just one powerful group. Each state does have States rights though, so they can do as they please with their group. Unless it is something that has successfully made it through checks and balances to be enforced on the nation as a whole. EVERYONE should be represented at the Federal level, not just the majority group. With your throwing around of the topic of slavery earlier in the conversation, I'd think you would be for that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Chriswild@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) So Californians should just live in Wyoming to get represented? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social -1 points 2 years ago (2 children) Californians are the only people in America that have more representation than someone in any other state. They just cant steam roll the other 49 states in the Federal legislative branch because the Senate protects those 49 states from California, the state with the most legislative representation in America. Seriously dude, shut your mouth and read a book. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] Chriswild@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago They have the least representation per capita permalink fedilink source parent [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Californians are the only people in America that have more representation than someone in any other state. This is false. They are extremely under represented in the Senate, and the House scales with population. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) This is true, they have more representatives in congress than any other state. Thank you for explaining how Congress works, and contradicting yourself in the process. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You clearly misunderstand proportionality. You keep referring to the raw number of representatives they have without factoring in their population. I'd be surprised if you've ever passed a mathematics class in your entire life. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (3 children) You're just being willfully moronic now. You are 1 person with 54 representatives in congress, 52 in House, 2 in Senate. I am 1 person with 8 representatives in congress, 6 in House, 2 in Senate. A) You have more federal representation than me. B) That is exactly how the system was designed. To have 2 bodies in congress, one population based, and one not. It was designed that way for a reason. What a knuckle dragging fucking idiot you are. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Each 1 Wyoming voter is worth about 67 Californians in the senate due to the fact that California has about 67 times the population but still only 2 senators. 38,940,231 Californians / 576,851 Wyomingites = ~67.5 ratio permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) And that is what the house is for, dipshit. The Senate is to check an overpopulated state from having complete control over the other 49 states and whatever amount of territories or whatever we are calling them. Seriously dude. Try rubbing 2 brain cells together. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago Nothing you've written amounts to an argument. Your appeals to tradition are a logical fallacy. I suggest you read about the Connecticut Compromise and stop writing unnecessary insults which do nothing productive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise permalink fedilink source parent [+] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It was designed that way for a reason. This is never a good argument. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago Just because you don't understand federal civics and checks and balances doesn't mean you deserve EVEN MORE control over the rest of the nation. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Melkath@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Okay, one more go at trying to teach Civics 101 to the one who cant walk and chew bubblegum at the same time. So 1 state having all the power is equality? In your mind, equal = Californian? 1 large homogenized (probably too big a world for you, but you can google) population has the right to rule over every other population? 49 groups of people get overruled because 1 of the groups has more people? That is why checks and balances are in place. To ensure EVERYONE gets representation, not just one powerful group. Each state does have States rights though, so they can do as they please with their group. Unless it is something that has successfully made it through checks and balances to be enforced on the nation as a whole. EVERYONE should be represented at the Federal level, not just the majority group. With your throwing around of the topic of slavery earlier in the conversation, I'd think you would be for that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Chriswild@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) So Californians should just live in Wyoming to get represented? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social -1 points 2 years ago (2 children) Californians are the only people in America that have more representation than someone in any other state. They just cant steam roll the other 49 states in the Federal legislative branch because the Senate protects those 49 states from California, the state with the most legislative representation in America. Seriously dude, shut your mouth and read a book. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] Chriswild@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago They have the least representation per capita permalink fedilink source parent [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Californians are the only people in America that have more representation than someone in any other state. This is false. They are extremely under represented in the Senate, and the House scales with population. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) This is true, they have more representatives in congress than any other state. Thank you for explaining how Congress works, and contradicting yourself in the process. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You clearly misunderstand proportionality. You keep referring to the raw number of representatives they have without factoring in their population. I'd be surprised if you've ever passed a mathematics class in your entire life. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (3 children) You're just being willfully moronic now. You are 1 person with 54 representatives in congress, 52 in House, 2 in Senate. I am 1 person with 8 representatives in congress, 6 in House, 2 in Senate. A) You have more federal representation than me. B) That is exactly how the system was designed. To have 2 bodies in congress, one population based, and one not. It was designed that way for a reason. What a knuckle dragging fucking idiot you are. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Each 1 Wyoming voter is worth about 67 Californians in the senate due to the fact that California has about 67 times the population but still only 2 senators. 38,940,231 Californians / 576,851 Wyomingites = ~67.5 ratio permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) And that is what the house is for, dipshit. The Senate is to check an overpopulated state from having complete control over the other 49 states and whatever amount of territories or whatever we are calling them. Seriously dude. Try rubbing 2 brain cells together. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago Nothing you've written amounts to an argument. Your appeals to tradition are a logical fallacy. I suggest you read about the Connecticut Compromise and stop writing unnecessary insults which do nothing productive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise permalink fedilink source parent [+] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It was designed that way for a reason. This is never a good argument. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago Just because you don't understand federal civics and checks and balances doesn't mean you deserve EVEN MORE control over the rest of the nation. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Chriswild@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) So Californians should just live in Wyoming to get represented? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social -1 points 2 years ago (2 children) Californians are the only people in America that have more representation than someone in any other state. They just cant steam roll the other 49 states in the Federal legislative branch because the Senate protects those 49 states from California, the state with the most legislative representation in America. Seriously dude, shut your mouth and read a book. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] Chriswild@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago They have the least representation per capita permalink fedilink source parent [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Californians are the only people in America that have more representation than someone in any other state. This is false. They are extremely under represented in the Senate, and the House scales with population. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) This is true, they have more representatives in congress than any other state. Thank you for explaining how Congress works, and contradicting yourself in the process. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You clearly misunderstand proportionality. You keep referring to the raw number of representatives they have without factoring in their population. I'd be surprised if you've ever passed a mathematics class in your entire life. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (3 children) You're just being willfully moronic now. You are 1 person with 54 representatives in congress, 52 in House, 2 in Senate. I am 1 person with 8 representatives in congress, 6 in House, 2 in Senate. A) You have more federal representation than me. B) That is exactly how the system was designed. To have 2 bodies in congress, one population based, and one not. It was designed that way for a reason. What a knuckle dragging fucking idiot you are. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Each 1 Wyoming voter is worth about 67 Californians in the senate due to the fact that California has about 67 times the population but still only 2 senators. 38,940,231 Californians / 576,851 Wyomingites = ~67.5 ratio permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) And that is what the house is for, dipshit. The Senate is to check an overpopulated state from having complete control over the other 49 states and whatever amount of territories or whatever we are calling them. Seriously dude. Try rubbing 2 brain cells together. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago Nothing you've written amounts to an argument. Your appeals to tradition are a logical fallacy. I suggest you read about the Connecticut Compromise and stop writing unnecessary insults which do nothing productive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise permalink fedilink source parent [+] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It was designed that way for a reason. This is never a good argument. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago Just because you don't understand federal civics and checks and balances doesn't mean you deserve EVEN MORE control over the rest of the nation. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Melkath@kbin.social -1 points 2 years ago (2 children) Californians are the only people in America that have more representation than someone in any other state. They just cant steam roll the other 49 states in the Federal legislative branch because the Senate protects those 49 states from California, the state with the most legislative representation in America. Seriously dude, shut your mouth and read a book. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] Chriswild@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago They have the least representation per capita permalink fedilink source parent [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Californians are the only people in America that have more representation than someone in any other state. This is false. They are extremely under represented in the Senate, and the House scales with population. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) This is true, they have more representatives in congress than any other state. Thank you for explaining how Congress works, and contradicting yourself in the process. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You clearly misunderstand proportionality. You keep referring to the raw number of representatives they have without factoring in their population. I'd be surprised if you've ever passed a mathematics class in your entire life. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (3 children) You're just being willfully moronic now. You are 1 person with 54 representatives in congress, 52 in House, 2 in Senate. I am 1 person with 8 representatives in congress, 6 in House, 2 in Senate. A) You have more federal representation than me. B) That is exactly how the system was designed. To have 2 bodies in congress, one population based, and one not. It was designed that way for a reason. What a knuckle dragging fucking idiot you are. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Each 1 Wyoming voter is worth about 67 Californians in the senate due to the fact that California has about 67 times the population but still only 2 senators. 38,940,231 Californians / 576,851 Wyomingites = ~67.5 ratio permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) And that is what the house is for, dipshit. The Senate is to check an overpopulated state from having complete control over the other 49 states and whatever amount of territories or whatever we are calling them. Seriously dude. Try rubbing 2 brain cells together. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago Nothing you've written amounts to an argument. Your appeals to tradition are a logical fallacy. I suggest you read about the Connecticut Compromise and stop writing unnecessary insults which do nothing productive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise permalink fedilink source parent [+] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It was designed that way for a reason. This is never a good argument. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago Just because you don't understand federal civics and checks and balances doesn't mean you deserve EVEN MORE control over the rest of the nation. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Chriswild@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago They have the least representation per capita permalink fedilink source parent
[β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Californians are the only people in America that have more representation than someone in any other state. This is false. They are extremely under represented in the Senate, and the House scales with population. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) This is true, they have more representatives in congress than any other state. Thank you for explaining how Congress works, and contradicting yourself in the process. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You clearly misunderstand proportionality. You keep referring to the raw number of representatives they have without factoring in their population. I'd be surprised if you've ever passed a mathematics class in your entire life. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (3 children) You're just being willfully moronic now. You are 1 person with 54 representatives in congress, 52 in House, 2 in Senate. I am 1 person with 8 representatives in congress, 6 in House, 2 in Senate. A) You have more federal representation than me. B) That is exactly how the system was designed. To have 2 bodies in congress, one population based, and one not. It was designed that way for a reason. What a knuckle dragging fucking idiot you are. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Each 1 Wyoming voter is worth about 67 Californians in the senate due to the fact that California has about 67 times the population but still only 2 senators. 38,940,231 Californians / 576,851 Wyomingites = ~67.5 ratio permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) And that is what the house is for, dipshit. The Senate is to check an overpopulated state from having complete control over the other 49 states and whatever amount of territories or whatever we are calling them. Seriously dude. Try rubbing 2 brain cells together. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago Nothing you've written amounts to an argument. Your appeals to tradition are a logical fallacy. I suggest you read about the Connecticut Compromise and stop writing unnecessary insults which do nothing productive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise permalink fedilink source parent [+] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It was designed that way for a reason. This is never a good argument. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago Just because you don't understand federal civics and checks and balances doesn't mean you deserve EVEN MORE control over the rest of the nation. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) This is true, they have more representatives in congress than any other state. Thank you for explaining how Congress works, and contradicting yourself in the process. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You clearly misunderstand proportionality. You keep referring to the raw number of representatives they have without factoring in their population. I'd be surprised if you've ever passed a mathematics class in your entire life. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (3 children) You're just being willfully moronic now. You are 1 person with 54 representatives in congress, 52 in House, 2 in Senate. I am 1 person with 8 representatives in congress, 6 in House, 2 in Senate. A) You have more federal representation than me. B) That is exactly how the system was designed. To have 2 bodies in congress, one population based, and one not. It was designed that way for a reason. What a knuckle dragging fucking idiot you are. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Each 1 Wyoming voter is worth about 67 Californians in the senate due to the fact that California has about 67 times the population but still only 2 senators. 38,940,231 Californians / 576,851 Wyomingites = ~67.5 ratio permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) And that is what the house is for, dipshit. The Senate is to check an overpopulated state from having complete control over the other 49 states and whatever amount of territories or whatever we are calling them. Seriously dude. Try rubbing 2 brain cells together. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago Nothing you've written amounts to an argument. Your appeals to tradition are a logical fallacy. I suggest you read about the Connecticut Compromise and stop writing unnecessary insults which do nothing productive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise permalink fedilink source parent [+] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It was designed that way for a reason. This is never a good argument. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago Just because you don't understand federal civics and checks and balances doesn't mean you deserve EVEN MORE control over the rest of the nation. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You clearly misunderstand proportionality. You keep referring to the raw number of representatives they have without factoring in their population. I'd be surprised if you've ever passed a mathematics class in your entire life. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (3 children) You're just being willfully moronic now. You are 1 person with 54 representatives in congress, 52 in House, 2 in Senate. I am 1 person with 8 representatives in congress, 6 in House, 2 in Senate. A) You have more federal representation than me. B) That is exactly how the system was designed. To have 2 bodies in congress, one population based, and one not. It was designed that way for a reason. What a knuckle dragging fucking idiot you are. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Each 1 Wyoming voter is worth about 67 Californians in the senate due to the fact that California has about 67 times the population but still only 2 senators. 38,940,231 Californians / 576,851 Wyomingites = ~67.5 ratio permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) And that is what the house is for, dipshit. The Senate is to check an overpopulated state from having complete control over the other 49 states and whatever amount of territories or whatever we are calling them. Seriously dude. Try rubbing 2 brain cells together. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago Nothing you've written amounts to an argument. Your appeals to tradition are a logical fallacy. I suggest you read about the Connecticut Compromise and stop writing unnecessary insults which do nothing productive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise permalink fedilink source parent [+] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It was designed that way for a reason. This is never a good argument. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago Just because you don't understand federal civics and checks and balances doesn't mean you deserve EVEN MORE control over the rest of the nation. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (3 children) You're just being willfully moronic now. You are 1 person with 54 representatives in congress, 52 in House, 2 in Senate. I am 1 person with 8 representatives in congress, 6 in House, 2 in Senate. A) You have more federal representation than me. B) That is exactly how the system was designed. To have 2 bodies in congress, one population based, and one not. It was designed that way for a reason. What a knuckle dragging fucking idiot you are. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Each 1 Wyoming voter is worth about 67 Californians in the senate due to the fact that California has about 67 times the population but still only 2 senators. 38,940,231 Californians / 576,851 Wyomingites = ~67.5 ratio permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) And that is what the house is for, dipshit. The Senate is to check an overpopulated state from having complete control over the other 49 states and whatever amount of territories or whatever we are calling them. Seriously dude. Try rubbing 2 brain cells together. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago Nothing you've written amounts to an argument. Your appeals to tradition are a logical fallacy. I suggest you read about the Connecticut Compromise and stop writing unnecessary insults which do nothing productive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise permalink fedilink source parent [+] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It was designed that way for a reason. This is never a good argument. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago Just because you don't understand federal civics and checks and balances doesn't mean you deserve EVEN MORE control over the rest of the nation. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Each 1 Wyoming voter is worth about 67 Californians in the senate due to the fact that California has about 67 times the population but still only 2 senators. 38,940,231 Californians / 576,851 Wyomingites = ~67.5 ratio permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) And that is what the house is for, dipshit. The Senate is to check an overpopulated state from having complete control over the other 49 states and whatever amount of territories or whatever we are calling them. Seriously dude. Try rubbing 2 brain cells together. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago Nothing you've written amounts to an argument. Your appeals to tradition are a logical fallacy. I suggest you read about the Connecticut Compromise and stop writing unnecessary insults which do nothing productive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) And that is what the house is for, dipshit. The Senate is to check an overpopulated state from having complete control over the other 49 states and whatever amount of territories or whatever we are calling them. Seriously dude. Try rubbing 2 brain cells together. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago Nothing you've written amounts to an argument. Your appeals to tradition are a logical fallacy. I suggest you read about the Connecticut Compromise and stop writing unnecessary insults which do nothing productive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise permalink fedilink source parent
[β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago Nothing you've written amounts to an argument. Your appeals to tradition are a logical fallacy. I suggest you read about the Connecticut Compromise and stop writing unnecessary insults which do nothing productive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise permalink fedilink source parent
[β] 3volver@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It was designed that way for a reason. This is never a good argument. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago Just because you don't understand federal civics and checks and balances doesn't mean you deserve EVEN MORE control over the rest of the nation. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Melkath@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago Just because you don't understand federal civics and checks and balances doesn't mean you deserve EVEN MORE control over the rest of the nation. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Anticorp@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You are aware that when Congress as a whole was established, everyone owned slaves. Everyone. Not even remotely true. Slaves were very expensive and only rich people could afford to buy and own slaves. Or did you mean everyone who established Congress? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Melkath@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I meant everyone who established Congress. Congress didn't get established as it is by a slave owning south to the chagrin of the not-slave-owning-north. Slavery was only ever (very rightfully) addressed far after. That was the point I was making. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Anticorp@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Gotcha. Then yes, all of the forefathers were rich enough to own slaves and did so. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Melkath@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I meant everyone who established Congress. Congress didn't get established as it is by a slave owning south to the chagrin of the not-slave-owning-north. Slavery was only ever (very rightfully) addressed far after. That was the point I was making. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Anticorp@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Gotcha. Then yes, all of the forefathers were rich enough to own slaves and did so. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Anticorp@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Gotcha. Then yes, all of the forefathers were rich enough to own slaves and did so. permalink fedilink source parent
