29
Does this plan make sense?
(lemmy.world)
Welcome to Lemmy.World General!
This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don't seem to fit in any other community, or don't have an active community yet.
🪆 About Lemmy World
🧭 Finding Communities
Feel free to ask here or over in: !lemmy411@lemmy.ca!
Also keep an eye on:
For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse!
💬 Additional Discussion Focused Communities:
Rules
Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.
0. See: Rules for Users.
Income tax and senate are important.
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.
The Senate makes sense under two circumstances:
Those circumstances existed when the Senate was initially conceived of by the founding fathers, but no longer do.
How does that make the Senate important?
That is why the House exists.
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.
You're literally arguing that people shouldn't get equal representation because you think land votes.
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.
Checks and balances that give inequality. Lol
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.
So Californians should just live in Wyoming to get represented?
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.
They have the least representation per capita
This is false. They are extremely under represented in the Senate, and the House scales with population.
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.
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.
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.
This is never a good argument.
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.
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
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.
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
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?
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.
Gotcha. Then yes, all of the forefathers were rich enough to own slaves and did so.