The Goat Pen

"The Democrats would rather try to rewrite the Constitution to abolish the electoral college and the senate than stop calling that supposed 18% of the country unforgivably white, cisgendered, racist, sexist, homophobic, blue collar, non-college graduate, banjo-strumming, rebel flag waving, Bible-thumping, pickup truck driving, inbred, toothless, illiterate hillbillies.

And then they wonder why that supposed 18% doesn't vote for them."

Once again, you're a fucking idiot. Nobody suggested that the 26 least populous states elect only republicans. Many of those states elect dem senators. But the fact is, the 26 least populous states have about 18% of the total population of the country and yet they get to elect 52 senators. I know math isn't your strong suit, but that does mean that theoretically 18% of the population could control the senate. It has nothing to do with whether they are dem or repubs, it's just the fact that 18% of the population could theoretically dictate to the other 82% of the population. Does that seem fair? I'm well aware that there are many other factors and arguments that can (and have) been made for why having 2 senators per state is a good idea, and I agree with many of them. But it's still a fact and an item to consider that 18% of the population could theoretically control the senate and therefor dictate to the other 82% of the population, and it's at the very least worth considering and discussing if that's fair...

Are you in favor of convicting a defendant if jurors vote 10-2 guilty?

Glenn Beck has been ranting and raving for years about returning the election of senators to state legislatures...

hedge wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:11 am “Eighteen percent of the population controls 52 Senate seats,” Carville said.

Not a bug. Working as intended.

#TeamBlue still got 22 of those guilty votes anyway, am I supposed to infer that the makeup of the Senate somehow changed anything?

Even on the basis of population, Guilty voting Senators only represent 52% of the population of the country vs 48% to acquit. Nowhere near 2/3

Even if you used the House of Representatives to try the President, only 54% of that body voted to impeach him in the first place. Two-thirds of national politicians of any kind of true representative makeup were never voting to remove this President, and any kind of "we wuz robbed! More people wanted him gone! The rules aint fair!" from #TeamBlue is probably going to look like an even bigger joke by the end of the year because Trump is probably getting reelected.

This was always a circle jerk waste of fucking time

all bullshit aside, the republicans had better learn something from Bernie

and what they need to learn is that Americans cannot afford capitalist health care.

We can't live in a country with health care that allows a big drug company to change the cost of insulin from $20 to $400 or an epi pen from $35 to $1100

Bernies plan for medicare for all , while it may be outrageously expensive, is going to transfer those costs the government and let the government tell big pharma what they are going to pay for an epi pen or insulin.

While the democrats are on stage tearing each other down on why their health care plan isn't feasible, Trump is talking about reduced costs of health care on his watch - and that was the only time I winced during his speech. I mean I know alot of his SOTU was exaggerated numbers and Barnum level reality TV but to say health care costs are going down on his watch just flies in the face of what people feel every day in their life. There is no other facet of the economy - with maybe the exception of fuel costs that people are so readily receptive to, because if you have a major illness, you could lose your home and all the equity you have been building your entire life.

A friend of mine has a kid that takes Resulti and he is telling me is $30 a pill with a coupon. That pill means his kid can function in daily life. Its not an option.

That has to be fixed.

and yea, I credit Bernie Sanders for smacking me upside the head to that reality. and no I'm not saying his approach is the best, just saying this problem can't be ignored or marginally addressed with regulation or some meaningless middle class tax break

remember seeing whatever that polling site it - 538? saying that the 49'ers had a 91% chance of winning in the 4th quarter.

If we've learned anything in the past 3 years its that polling data in the era of the internet ( and apparently add voting apps to that) is not reliable.

Another thing we've learned - the people and platforms reporting that data is also not reliable.

I'm not even talking about the impeachment, I'm talking about the majority of the senate theoretically being determined by 18% of the population, and I'm not sure that's what was "intended". But really, the main thing that bugs me is North and South Dakota. Why the fuck does there get to be a North AND South Dakota? Both of them combined have less population than any of the top 40 metro areas in the US. Metro areas! Yet they get to have 2 states instead of just "Dakota." Who the fuck came up with that?? I mean, I realize the whole concept of what a state is is somewhat arbitrary to begin with, but if "Dakota" can just decide "hey, let's split ourselves into 2 states and then we'll have twice the representation," then why can't, say, California split up into 4 states? If they divided themselves into 4 states of roughly equal population, they would all have populations larger than any of the 40 currently least populated states. Hell, you could divide California up into 52 separate states of equal population and they would ALL have more population than North Dakota. Yet somehow "the Dakotas" have twice the representation in the senate than California...

aTm wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:08 am This was always a circle jerk waste of fucking time

Yeah, like they really had anything better to do...

hedge wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:51 am I'm not even talking about the impeachment, I'm talking about the majority of the senate theoretically being determined by 18% of the population, and I'm not sure that's what was "intended". But really, the main thing that bugs me is North and South Dakota. Why the fuck does there get to be a North AND South Dakota? Both of them combined have less population than any of the top 40 metro areas in the US. Metro areas! Yet they get to have 2 states instead of just "Dakota." Who the fuck came up with that?? I mean, I realize the whole concept of what a state is is somewhat arbitrary to begin with, but if "Dakota" can just decide "hey, let's split ourselves into 2 states and then we'll have twice the representation," then why can't, say, California split up into 4 states? If they divided themselves into 4 states of roughly equal population, they would all have populations larger than any of the 40 currently least populated states. Hell, you could divide California up into 52 separate states of equal population and they would ALL have more population than North Dakota. Yet somehow "the Dakotas" have twice the representation in the senate than California...

its exactly what they meant, given the House balances out the power. They did not want the local interest of one state to dominate the interest for the entire country

For example, what if the population of California voted to divert the water from the Mississippi to their state because of their climate issues?

The percentages don't matter as it relates to the Senate.

"While the democrats are on stage tearing each other down on why their health care plan isn't feasible, Trump is talking about reduced costs of health care on his watch - and that was the only time I winced during his speech."

How about when he said there would be no preexisting condition restrictions for health insurance on his watch?

"They did not want the local interest of one state to dominate the interest for the entire country"

Yeah, but again, the whole concept of what gets to be a state seems pretty arbitrary and therefor too whatever "local" interests they supposedly share amongst themselves. I mean, is the "local" interest in North Dakota really much different from South Dakota? Goddamn, they're all Dakotans! Not "north" Dakotans and "south" Dakotans. My real problem here really isn't two senators per state, it's why does Dakota get to be 2 states. Like Jock Ewing said, I am Takapa!!

That last part really doesn't have anything to do with anything, but I felt I had to say it...

your assumption is North and South Dakota will team up to go against California - and that may very well be true

In the house, California has 53 representatives. The Dakotas have 2...combined

Matter of fact, California has more representatives that 22 states combined

but those popular vote people never seem to mention that

The senate has more power than the house...

Now I'm obsessed with the Dakoti. South Dakota has only 11 cities with population greater than 10K. Sioux Falls 153K, Rapid City 67K and then the next highest population city is 26K. North Dakota only has 9 cities greater than 10K pop., one of them being "West" Fargo so that shouldn't even count as a separate city but oh no, these fucking Dakoti will split shit up to a fare thee well. Anyway, outside of Fargo and "West" Fargo, they only have 3 "cities" with greater than 25K pop. Goddamn, what do these people do, strap on a feed bag and eat for a week? B/c they damn sure ain't going to the grocery store for food, b/c that takes people and they don't have em. Feed bag motherfuckers...

I'm talking about the majority of the senate theoretically being determined by 18% of the population, and I'm not sure that's what was "intended"

The very first Congress where apportionment was determined by the US Census of 1790, a 53.3% majority (16-14) in the Senate represented 22% of the House of Representatives apportionment, so they had a pretty good idea of exactly how this would work right away within their lifetimes. Even the guesswork apportionment done in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution had a Senate majority granted to states that were granted only 30% of the seats in the House. This was the whole basis of the Connecticut Compromise, it wasnt like something that happened by accident that they didnt "intend"

On another note, I was watching Law and Order SVU the other day, I had come in late and evidently they had gotten the guy who had killed somebody and were going over the particulars with him, and Benson said "And so that's when you decided you couldn't trust the company fruit to do it, so you did it yourself." This episode was from 2011, I doubt they'd dare use the term "fruit" these days, but it struck me that I hadn't heard that term for fag used in awhile. I'm going to start using it again, esp. for those fucking fruits in Dakota...

"The very first Congress where apportionment was determined by the US Census of 1790, a 53.3% majority (16-14) in the Senate represented 22% of the House of Representatives apportionment, so they had a pretty good idea of exactly how this would work right away within their lifetimes."

Senators were appointed back then, not elected by popular vote, so clearly what we have now is not what they had in mind on that basis alone...

Would you all just shut up. I'm trying to nap here.

What it's like to be a presidential candidate and be totally ignored.....similar to the way I do Rat