Post Right Wing looniness here

Horn6721 said:
I agree
He is only doing it to try to thwart Newsome
Click to expand...

It's stupid to pass a constitutional amendment to thwart one guy on a short term move, and frankly, I don't understand the point. Is Newsom appoints a senator to fill an unexpired term, will he really choose worse than the people of California will? I see no evidence of that - not because he would choose well but because they've habitually chosen crap for decades.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Hell no. We should be doing the opposite and repealing the 17th Amendment.
Click to expand...
If it wasn't for corruption to an absurd level in Montana around a century ago, States would still pick their Senators via their State Legislatures.

It was an over-reaction that weakened States. Woodrow Wilson (President at the time of ratification) is the great godfather of all progressives; he's been the #1 reason we have the "progressive" movement. And many of the powers-that-be put him on a pedestal. UT literally put a stone image of him on a stone pedestal.
 
Last edited:
Chop said:
If it wasn't for corruption to an absurd level in Montana around a century ago, States would still pick their Senators via their State Legislatures.

It was an over-reaction that weakened States. Woodrow Wilson (President at the time of ratification) is the great godfather of all progressives; he's been the #1 reason we have the "progressive" movement. And many of the powers-that-be put him on a pedestal. UT literally put a stone image of him on a stone pedestal.
Click to expand...

Many on the Right view LBJ, FDR, or Obama as the worst president. They weren't. Wilson was.
 
Monahorns said:
Corruption is a part of politics. Attempts to remove it will most likely lead to more of it.
Click to expand...

It depends. If the attempt is prosecuting lawbreakers more evenhandedly and consistently, then it's a good thing. If it's making more laws, it almost always makes matters worse. It's why I despise what is often called "campaign finance reform." All such efforts really do is help to conceal the real sources of political money. I'd much rather George Soros just write out 7-figure checks than see him donate to donate to shell organizations that hide or falsely finish his role.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Many on the Right view LBJ, FDR, or Obama as the worst president. They weren't. Wilson was.
Click to expand...
In some ways, he was a big unifier (long) after the Civil War. But the vast majority of "progressive" things in government today have their roots in Woodrow Wilson.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Many on the Right view LBJ, FDR, or Obama as the worst president. They weren't. Wilson was.
Click to expand...
He was, almost without question, the most transformative President with regard to the federal government--from the Founding Fathers' vision to what it is today.
 
I had a friend who was working to convert bathrooms on the UT campus to all gender. They designed them so the stalls were open on top and didn't go all the way to the floor. I'm guessing it was about 0 seconds after opening they were changing them back.....

 
Put the urinals on the floor

1) men will be able to hit them

2) it will be fun watching women try to use them

Direct election of Senators has been a disaster. The state legislators did a better job
 
I could get on board with a repeal of the 17th amendment if there was a federal law about redistricting.
 
Mr. Deez said:
What kind of federal law on redistricting?
Click to expand...

OK, so maybe more of a constitutional amendment on redistricting :smokin:

I think that HoR seats and state legislature seats should be subject to the same redistricting rules throughout the entire country. I get that this violates state law. Which is why a federal law wouldn't go far enough.
 
Horns11 said:
OK, so maybe more of a constitutional amendment on redistricting :smokin:

I think that HoR seats and state legislature seats should be subject to the same redistricting rules throughout the entire country. I get that this violates state law. Which is why a federal law wouldn't go far enough.
Click to expand...

I assume by "redistricting," you mean gerrymandering. I despise gerrymandering no matter who's doing it. However, when I hear people talk about bans on gerrymandering, the first question in my mind is how you're going to define gerrymandering so that any such ban or restriction can be applied consistently and objectively rather than arbitrarily and subjectively. In the '70s commentators complained that obscenity was too hard to define. This is much harder.

I read the so-called "Freedom to Vote Act," which contains an anti-gerrymandering provision. It is so full of wiggle room and vague, arbitrary language that you'd effectively be transferring the power of redistricting from the states to the Supreme Court. Every map would be litigated, and raw, partisan judicial power would determine congressional districts according to their standards of "fairness."

I'm not saying gerrymandering isn't bad. It is, but it's a little like campaign finance reform. The alleged "cure" is often worse than the disease.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I assume by "redistricting," you mean gerrymandering. I despise gerrymandering no matter who's doing it. However, when I hear people talk about bans on gerrymandering, the first question in my mind is how you're going to define gerrymandering so that any such ban or restriction can be applied consistently and objectively rather than arbitrarily and subjectively. In the '70s commentators complained that obscenity was too hard to define. This is much harder.

I read the so-called "Freedom to Vote Act," which contains an anti-gerrymandering provision. It is so full of wiggle room and vague, arbitrary language that you'd effectively be transferring the power of redistricting from the states to the Supreme Court. Every map would be litigated, and raw, partisan judicial power would determine congressional districts according to their standards of "fairness."

I'm not saying gerrymandering isn't bad. It is, but it's a little like campaign finance reform. The alleged "cure" is often worse than the disease.
Click to expand...

I'd go to what Canada and a couple of European countries do. Each state gets a judge, 1 person nominated by the majority party, and 1 person nominated by the minority party. Judge doesn't get any strikes but each party nominee does. Not sure how many strikes would be needed at the moment. Agreed-upon number of citizens per district. Can't deviate from it by x%.

If the judge is a Democrat shill and the GOP nominee is out of strikes, then tough ****, but it's still preferable to the one-sided mess we have right now. Some of the framework of this is already on the books in several states.
 
Horns11 said:
I'd go to what Canada and a couple of European countries do. Each state gets a judge, 1 person nominated by the majority party, and 1 person nominated by the minority party. Judge doesn't get any strikes but each party nominee does. Not sure how many strikes would be needed at the moment. Agreed-upon number of citizens per district. Can't deviate from it by x%.

If the judge is a Democrat shill and the GOP nominee is out of strikes, then tough ****, but it's still preferable to the one-sided mess we have right now. Some of the framework of this is already on the books in several states.
Click to expand...

That still leaves a lot of room for game-playing. Who selects the judge? California has a supposedly nonpartisan system, and it largely protects Democratic incumbents like a partisan system does.
 
Mr. Deez said:
That still leaves a lot of room for game-playing. Who selects the judge? California has a supposedly nonpartisan system, and it largely protects Democratic incumbents like a partisan system does.
Click to expand...

I think Washington (state) has something on the books about not protecting incumbents. So do a couple conservative states. Can't think of which states right now, but a handful make it veto-proof from the governor as well.

I think the judges are in a pool and can't panel the district they're from. I know there's still a lot of gamesmanship and gray area at play, but I still think it's better than letting a majority party just do whatever, forever.

Regarding the 17th, I think it makes sense for a state legislature to do the appointing IF the state legislature isn't choosing its own constituents. So I think it's important the panel not have any elected officials. That's how Canada does it, although the vast majority of those people have some public service experience.

If we want to go all nutso on the system, I think using RCV and having multi-member districts would all but eliminate gerrymandering at the HoR level. So a state like Florida could take their 28 districts, turn it into 7 districts with 4 elected members each, and then just RCV it to kingdom come.
 
342995467_1230856510906969_61478965914837864_n.jpg
 
Horns11 said:
I think Washington (state) has something on the books about not protecting incumbents. So do a couple conservative states. Can't think of which states right now, but a handful make it veto-proof from the governor as well.
Click to expand...

Washington does have some nice-sounding rules, but again, there's so much room for subjectivity and interpretation that they're pretty meaningless. The big thing that makes their system work better than most is the process. The Redistricting Commission has to have 2 Republicans, 2 Democrats, and a non-voting member chosen by the voting members. It forces consensus, at least to a point. However, even their system only yielded one truly competitive district and another GOP seat that can go Democratic if the GOP nominates an assclown (which of course, it did in 2022). Most of their incumbents are safe.

Horns11 said:
I think the judges are in a pool and can't panel the district they're from. I know there's still a lot of gamesmanship and gray area at play, but I still think it's better than letting a majority party just do whatever, forever.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where this fits into Washington's system, but state court judges are almost always partisans or beholden to partisans. I would not assume they'll be fairer than legislators.

Horns11 said:
Regarding the 17th, I think it makes sense for a state legislature to do the appointing IF the state legislature isn't choosing its own constituents. So I think it's important the panel not have any elected officials. That's how Canada does it, although the vast majority of those people have some public service experience.
Click to expand...

Its own constituents or its own members? If they can't choose a constituent, then they can't pick anyone from their own state. Surely that's not what you meant. If you just want to exclude legislators from picking their own, that's fine. I wouldn't have a problem with something like that.

Horns11 said:
If we want to go all nutso on the system, I think using RCV and having multi-member districts would all but eliminate gerrymandering at the HoR level. So a state like Florida could take their 28 districts, turn it into 7 districts with 4 elected members each, and then just RCV it to kingdom come.
Click to expand...

Not too bad. I'm not sure that it would get rid of gerrymandering. I think mapmakers would still try to make the districts favorable to them. However, it would certainly make it easier for others outside the party to score victories and have a seat at the table. You'd have to repeal the Uniform Congressional District Act. You could also require some at-large districts and just take the redistricting game at least in part off the table.
 
I wonder if stories like this and the story about Muslims that objected to sexually explicit material being in schools being called bigots will give Muslims pause on their future vote?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

Predict TEXAS-ARIZONA STATE

CFP Round 2 • Peach Bowl
Wed, Jan 1 • 12:00 PM on ESPN
AZ State game and preview thread


Chik-fil-A Peach Bowl website

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top