Joe Biden 2022: Enter Dark Brandon

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,587]

9 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Huh. I was told the MAGATS were “CONSTITUTIONAL PATRIOTS!!!”

Do you think…maybe…they didn’t actually mean it, and…they were lying?

Could it be?

MAGA:

MAGA KING: FUCK THE CONSTITUTION!

MAGA: ...

.....

.....

.....ok, MAGA Meeting! Huddle up, guys!...

[Js1 85,527]

[troph 24,905]

Can’t gerrymander state lines can ya?

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,887]

2 hours ago, troph said:

Can’t gerrymander state lines can ya?

*yet

Stop giving them ideas 🤣

[Jhawkmvp 1,489]

[henrygandorf 29,194]

1 hour ago, Jhawkmvp said:

what kind of sociopath starts a puzzle from the middle?

[Captainant 27,727]

Gonna put this down as an L for Brandon... He's fucking over workers pretty badly with the labor bill, and the shareholders are already celebrating

 

[CooterBrown 18,022]

what kind of sociopath starts a puzzle from the middle?

The kind of sociopath that loves Trump.

['stache 21,838]

10 hours ago, troph said:

Can’t gerrymander state lines can ya?

Uh, they’re gerrymandered more than any evil genius could ever come up with from scratch, and it’s in the constitution, so can’t ever be fixed.

 

Edited December 7, 2022 by 'stache

[troph 24,905]

I have no issue with the senate structure. And it’s actually how the dems will be able to block republicans if they do their job right.

[Js1 85,527]

10 hours ago, troph said:

Can’t gerrymander state lines can ya?

Only in the sense that there's 2 Dakotas, explicitly designed to give the GOP 4 Senators instead of 2. 

Of course, the reverse "gerrymander" would be DC statehood. 

[wildcat09 29,376]

20 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Only in the sense that there's 2 Dakotas, explicitly designed to give the GOP 4 Senators instead of 2. 

Of course, the reverse "gerrymander" would be DC statehood. 

And Puerto Rico.

[Js1 85,527]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

And Puerto Rico.

Not guaranteed Dem seats, but yeah.  I think there's more of an appetite for DC than PR since they already get electoral votes.  PR opens up arguments for territories like Guam, American Samoa, USVI, etc. also getting a voting delegate and 2 Senators. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,587]

...and Canada!

['stache 21,838]

2 hours ago, troph said:

I have no issue with the senate structure. And it’s actually how the dems will be able to block republicans if they do their job right.

Ooh. Yeah. Um, I'm going to have to go ahead and sort of disagree with you there.

In what world is it democratic for a bumpkin in one of the Dakotas to have a say that outweights that of a Californian or New Yorker by several hundred percent? Especially since the small red states are far less diverse in their populations than California and New York? You have it completely backwards. The small state bias (mostly red states) in the Senate makes it all but impossible for the House to accomplish anything when the dems find a majority. If "one person one vote" applies to the senate and in presidential elections, republicans would rarely have the power to fuck around they way they have the last 50 years or so.

Edited December 7, 2022 by 'stache

[CooterBrown 18,022]

Not guaranteed Dem seats, but yeah.  I think there's more of an appetite for DC than PR since they already get electoral votes.  PR opens up arguments for territories like Guam, American Samoa, USVI, etc. also getting a voting delegate and 2 Senators. 

PR and USVI should be a single state and the pacific islands a state. Give DC to Maryland or Virginia.

['stache 21,838]

1 minute ago, CooterBrown said:

PR and USVI should be a single state and the pacific islands a state. Give DC to Maryland or Virginia.

I should have added that the senate problem also now makes it impossible to act fairly with DC and PR statehood.

[troph 24,905]

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

Ooh. Yeah. Um, I'm going to have to go ahead and sort of disagree with you there.

In what world is it democratic for a bumpkin in one of the Dakotas to have a say that outweights that of a Californian or New Yorker by several hundred percent? Especially since the small red states are far less diverse in their populations than California and New York? You have it completely backwards. The small state bias (mostly red states) in the Senate makes it all but impossible for the House to accomplish anything when the dems find a majority. If "one person one vote" applies to the senate and in presidential elections, republicans would rarely have the power to fuck around they way they have the last 50 years or so.

you disagree that I have no issue with it?   ok.

it's OG constitution, the purpose is legit imo. sometimes works for one party sometimes for the other, but every state has equal rep based on state existence and I think that's fine.  Hawaii would be fucked without Senate rep, same with several New England states, it serves its purpose to be a collective of United States.  the fact that one party fucks up representative democracy isn't due to the existence of a senate.

you think it sucks. ok.

['stache 21,838]

56 minutes ago, troph said:

you disagree that I have no issue with it?   ok.

it's OG constitution, the purpose is legit imo. sometimes works for one party sometimes for the other, but every state has equal rep based on state existence and I think that's fine.  Hawaii would be fucked without Senate rep, same with several New England states, it serves its purpose to be a collective of United States.  the fact that one party fucks up representative democracy isn't due to the existence of a senate.

you think it sucks. ok.

I think it made more sense with 13 states and people who weren't complete partisan shitheels at every corner. I don't think it works with westward expansion which did not need dozens of states with vast area and low population. I think the concerns could about minority rights is legitimate, but it's become skewed into domination by a vastly small minority who can stop progress supported by a much larger majority. And the way its played out, ethnic and racial minorities have much larger populations in large states, so their voices are being hugely suppressed, and those minority voices are more important in my view than a bunch of pasty Dakotians. Does it really not bother you at all that 500,000 people in Wyoming have the same say in federal law that affects everyone as 44 million Californians? The gap is just too big to justify. I'd prefer if the Senate had far less power, maybe more of a veto roll that can be overcome in the House with a larger majority. If nothing else, elect the presidency by popular vote. If the Senate is being skewed so drastically, at least have the executive represented directly by every person whose votes are equal. There's no need to allow the Senate disparity to infect the executive.  

[troph 24,905]

Just now, 'stache said:

I think it made more sense with 13 states and people who weren't complete partisan shitheels at every corner. I don't think it works with westward expansion which did not need dozens of states with vast area and low population. I think the concerns could about minority rights is legitimate, but it's become skewed into domination by a vastly small minority who can stop progress supported by a much larger majority. And the way its played out, ethnic and racial minorities have much larger populations in large states, so their voices are being hugely suppressed, and those minority voices are more important in my view than a bunch of pasty Dakotians. Does it really not bother you at all that 500,000 people in Wyoming have the same say in federal law that affects everyone as 44 million Californians? The gap is just too big to justify. I'd prefer if the Senate had far less power, maybe more of a veto roll that can be overcome in the House with a larger majority. If nothing else, elect the presidency by popular vote. If the Senate is being skewed so drastically, at least have the executive represented directly by every person whose votes are equal. There's no need to allow the Senate disparity to infect the executive.  

no it doesn't bother me. I'm completely ok with the senate structure. 

['stache 21,838]

Just now, troph said:

no it doesn't bother me. I'm completely ok with the senate structure. 

And as I said, I very much disagree that the senate structure is ok. 

[troph 24,905]

Just now, 'stache said:

And as I said, I very much disagree that the senate structure is ok. 

ok

[wildcat09 29,376]

The senate structure sucks enormous shit and we're fewer than 20 years away from 70% of Americans being represented by only 30 senators.  That's well beyond anything ever conceived of by the founders, who were just a group of guys who got a lot of shit wrong anyway and we shouldn't care too much about what they intended.

[Js1 85,527]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

The senate structure sucks enormous shit and we're fewer than 20 years away from 70% of Americans being represented by only 30 senators.  That's well beyond anything ever conceived of by the founders, who were just a group of guys who got a lot of shit wrong anyway and we shouldn't care too much about what they intended.

Yeah the founders surely didn't envision we'd acquire large swaths of the interior of the continent and make them individual small population states dominated by one party. And we have territories with higher populations than some of the 50 states states who get no representation. 

DC beats out Wyoming and Vermont.  0 Senators
Puerto Rico is bigger than 20 states. 0 Senators. 

Guam, USVI, NMI and American Samoa are all at the bottom regardless. 

['stache 21,838]

35 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Yeah the founders surely didn't envision we'd acquire large swaths of the interior of the continent and make them individual small population states dominated by one party. And we have territories with higher populations than some of the 50 states states who get no representation. 

DC beats out Wyoming and Vermont.  0 Senators
Puerto Rico is bigger than 20 states. 0 Senators. 

Guam, USVI, NMI and American Samoa are all at the bottom regardless. 

Yeah, they really didn't envision it, but Jefferson did it anyways.

 

[Incredulity 11,682]

The Senate was very intentionally set up to represent each state of the Union in equally.  It was a hot button issue of the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise

 

There are many issues in small population states that would be completely ignored if the US was governed purely by popular vote.  Its one of the most ingenious features of our government set up by the founding fathers.

Edited December 7, 2022 by Incredulity

[hobbes2702 13,055]

6 hours ago, troph said:

I have no issue with the senate structure. And it’s actually how the dems will be able to block republicans if they do their job right.

The Senate shouldn’t exist. The house should be massively expanded and all but a few party leaders should do remote work and stay in their districts to be accountable to their constituents 

Edited December 7, 2022 by hobbes2702

[hobbes2702 13,055]

 

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

The senate structure sucks enormous shit and we're fewer than 20 years away from 70% of Americans being represented by only 30 senators.  That's well beyond anything ever conceived of by the founders, who were just a group of guys who got a lot of shit wrong anyway and we shouldn't care too much about what they intended.

Bunch of rich dudes that owned people predicted the future perfectly 250 years ago. Why should we ever change that?

[hobbes2702 13,055]

12 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

The Senate was very intentionally set up to represent each state of the Union in equally.  It was a hot button issue of the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise

 

There are many issues in small population states that would be completely ignored if the US was governed purely by popular vote.  Its one of the most ingenious features of our government set up by the founding fathers.

What are the many issues that would be ignored that their state and local government couldn’t deal with?

[Incredulity 11,682]

8 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

What are the many issues that would be ignored that their state and local government couldn’t deal with?

Any one of a million issues related to environment and land resources.

[TexEx15 17,568]

1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

Any one of a million issues related to environment and land resources.

Yea cause that’s not something Democrats have been pointing out forever.

[hobbes2702 13,055]

3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Any one of a million issues related to environment and land resources.

Give me a few. I’m legitimately curious what the issues are.
States already have the ability to add regulations on top of the EPA and have authority to manage federal lands.

[Incredulity 11,682]

10 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Give me a few. I’m legitimately curious what the issues are.
States already have the ability to add regulations on top of the EPA and have authority to manage federal lands.

Hypotheticals:

 

Banning all timber harvest in PNW.

Banning pit mining in Nevada.

California Prop 12 nationwide.

[elfenix 34,331]

14 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

what kind of sociopath starts a puzzle from the middle?

you'd think a conservative would have started with the border

[elfenix 34,331]

18 hours ago, troph said:

Can’t gerrymander state lines can ya?

are you completely unfamiliar with how the process of admitting states to the union actually went?

[Biff Tannen 45,712]

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

 

California Prop 12 nationwide.

Had to look this one up.  

Quote

California Proposition 12, the Farm Animal Confinement Initiative, was on the ballot in California as an initiated state statute on November 6, 2018.^[1] The measure was approved.

A yes vote supported this initiative to: establish minimum space requirements based on square feet for calves raised for veal, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens and ban the sale of (a) veal from calves, (b) pork from breeding pigs, and (c) eggs from hens when the animals are confined to areas below minimum square-feet requirements.

A no vote opposed this initiative, thus: keeping in place minimum space requirements based on animal movement—not square feet—for calves raised for veal, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens and continuing to ban the sale of shelled eggs from hens—but not liquid eggs from hens, veal from calves, or pork from breeding pigs—that are confined to areas not meeting space requirements based on animal movement standards.

[elfenix 34,331]

8 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Had to look this one up.  

ginormous chinese pork producers wouldn't make as much money

[troph 24,905]

3 hours ago, Incredulity said:

The Senate was very intentionally set up to represent each state of the Union in equally.  It was a hot button issue of the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise

 

There are many issues in small population states that would be completely ignored if the US was governed purely by popular vote.  Its one of the most ingenious features of our government set up by the founding fathers.

100% this. I was too lazy to say it. It’s how we have a United States. Each has equal representation at least in the senate - it’s not intended to be based on population by design.  

[troph 24,905]

3 hours ago, elfenix said:

are you completely unfamiliar with how the process of admitting states to the union actually went?

You all are being obtuse. District lines are changed every ten years, state lines not so much. It was a simple statement about how Republican state legislatures can fuck with the lines inside their state but can’t change state wise elections the same way. Jesus Christ.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,211]

When the only poster supporting your opinion is incredulity, you need to rethink some stuff.

[Incredulity 11,682]

52 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

When the only poster supporting your opinion is incredulity, you need to rethink some stuff.

Pure bitchassedness

[Neonmoon 38,130]

1 hour ago, troph said:

100% this. I was too lazy to say it. It’s how we have a United States. Each has equal representation at least in the senate - it’s not intended to be based on population by design.  

Which is why requiring 3/5ths of the senate to end a filibuster to pass actual legislation is fucking stupid. The house is based on population and the senate has equal representation to protect the less populated states. The Filibuster gives extra power to the minority, fucking over the majority. 

 

[troph 24,905]

1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

When the only poster supporting your opinion is incredulity, you need to rethink some stuff.

Not really.  There’s nothing wrong with each state getting two votes and it’s not changing. And right now it’s what protects people like me from the right wing hacks.

Edited December 8, 2022 by troph

[troph 24,905]

5 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Which is why requiring 3/5ths of the senate to end a filibuster to pass actual legislation is fucking stupid. The house is based on population and the senate has equal representation to protect the less populated states. The Filibuster gives extra power to the minority, fucking over the majority. 

 

That’s senate rules not the constitution. Not a fan of it and McConnell will toss it when it’s convenient. Blame the dems not the constitution.  But if sacrosanct it’s how legislation like marriage equality couldn’t be overturned in the future so it cuts both ways. Which minority is getting protection from it? Depends on the era I guess.

Edited December 8, 2022 by troph

[elfenix 34,331]

10 minutes ago, troph said:

Not really.  There’s nothing wrong with each state getting two votes and it’s not changing. And right now it’s what protects people like me from the right wing hacks.

 

it prevents the democrats from passing popular legislation, thereby extending the popularity of democrats and winning them more elections.  that gets worse going into the future where depopulated wastelands like oklahoma will keep getting 2 senators.   particularly after cocaine mitch ditches the filibuster if republicans win in 2024. 

Edited December 8, 2022 by elfenix

[troph 24,905]

4 minutes ago, elfenix said:

 

it prevents the democrats from passing popular legislation, thereby extending the popularity of democrats and winning them more elections.  that gets worse going into the future where depopulated wastelands like oklahoma will keep getting 2 senators.   particularly after cocaine mitch ditches the filibuster if republicans win in 2024. 

House just flipped. Senate majority increased and is now protective of gains made.  Failure to pass legislation was due to the filibuster. And winds change, the situation you despise can turn on you too. One chamber is population one isn’t, in the end it might not be perfect but it isn’t changing. But y’all have fun debating, I left 8th grade civics behind a long time ago. Senate is what it is it won’t ever change.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,211]

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

Pure bitchassedness

Cry more.

[Born to Run 6,569]

you'd think a conservative would have started with the border

Well they don't give a shit about anything in the center.

[Born to Run 6,569]

That’s senate rules not the constitution. Not a fan of it and McConnell will toss it when it’s convenient. Blame the dems not the constitution.  But if sacrosanct it’s how legislation like marriage equality couldn’t be overturned in the future so it cuts both ways. Which minority is getting protection from it? Depends on the era I guess.

Ah you believe an unfair system will protect your pet rights issue. Got it.

For you, and so many others, I hope you're correct.

Mitch says sure thing.

[troph 24,905]

7 hours ago, Born to Run said:

Ah you believe an unfair system will protect your pet rights issue. Got it.

For you, and so many others, I hope you're correct.

Mitch says sure thing.

Fuck you. First you don’t read worth a shit. Second, fuck you.

Edited December 8, 2022 by troph