Jump to content

The Congressman is back yo


congressman

Recommended Posts

We’ll agree to disagree.

Taken to an extreme, imagine it’s 2050 and only 100 people total lived in the 21 least populated states and 100 million lived in Texas. 100 people shouldn’t be able to stonewall the rest of society. All men are created equal and deserve fairly equal representation in their government. We are at the point now where it’s not even close. There is a limit, and the system as it is now is not a universal truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We’ll agree to disagree.
Taken to an extreme, imagine it’s 2050 and only 100 people total lived in the 21 least populated states and 100 million lived in Texas. 100 people shouldn’t be able to stonewall the rest of society. All men are created equal and deserve fairly equal representation in their government. We are at the point now where it’s not even close. There is a limit, and the system as it is now is not a universal truth.


Nothing really gets stone walled-Texas can enact whatever programs it wants for Texans pretty much on its own if it was important enough to them. And Texas has the resources to do so if it wanted to. States don't have to wait for federal funding or laws, especially the bigger states whose economies rival other nations. For example, if universal healthcare was so important to Californians, they could implement it without federal funding. It would likely raise their state taxes, but there's nothing federally that bans them from implementing it. If it's a good idea, other states will do so, and maybe eventually other states will get on board and vote at the national level. And California has done things like that in the past (like for car emissions standards).

Smaller states will have trouble doing things unilaterally; they likely have a much smaller economy, so it's harder to implement government programs if they want to; they have to lobby for outside help from other states.

Without the Senate, big states can screw over small states, as well as the people within those states. For example, federal funding for programs (from federal taxes levied on individuals and businesses) could be diverted from small states into big states, and the small states would have no recourse due to their small population. Or big states could decide "nuclear power is great, let's do it, but where should we put the waste?" and vote to put it in say South Dakota, because SD wouldn't have enough representatives to block that vote.

You do see this issue within states as well, with the conflict between urban centers and rural areas. So the even dividing down to states isn't perfect. But it helps protect minorities (not just race/ethnicity in this context, but rural vs urban, big vs small businesses, industrialization vs environmentalism, etc) within the population.

Otherwise, democracies (both direct and representative) can devolve into mob rule or a significant consolidation of power once a majority realizes it can vote for things that only benefits then.
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, we can agree to disagree. I would 100% vote to enact a compromise closer to direct democracy with ranked choice voting.

Just saying “we’re a republic” doesn’t actually address a single argument made.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

Without the Senate, big states can screw over small states, as well as the people within those states. For example, federal funding for programs (from federal taxes levied on individuals and businesses) could be diverted from small states into big states, and the small states would have no recourse due to their small population. Or big states could decide "nuclear power is great, let's do it, but where should we put the waste?" and vote to put it in say South Dakota, because SD wouldn't have enough representatives to block that vote.

It’s kind of funny, because I would support making a smart nationalized decision for the United States. And I would 100% desire nuclear waste from New York, Texas, and California to go to places that aren’t populated. Say, South Dakota.

Another example you will likely disagree with: I wouldn’t support “oil or coal states” getting to make up their own rules that counteract national policy just to maintain state jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You’re missing the point. The argument is about how the government should be to achieve our ideals. And if you think modern day American government is the same as when it created, you’re not watching.

There have been more insidious and non drastic changes to our legislature that have popped up in recent history that have shifted the balance towards a differently balanced republic than originally intended.

Two examples: the capping of representatives at 435 and the increased proclivity of things like the filibuster that give more power to minority states than originally intended.

There, now we’ve gone full circle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s kind of funny, because I would support making a smart nationalized decision for the United States. And I would 100% desire nuclear waste from New York, Texas, and California to go to places that aren’t populated. Say, South Dakota.
Another example you will likely disagree with: I wouldn’t support “oil or coal states” getting to make up their own rules that counteract national policy just to maintain state jobs.


What if, in my example, the citizens of south Dakota doesn't want their backyard to be used for nuclear waste storage? Or to have consideration (funding) for maintaining the site? What if they have concerns about safety, or believe the waste site hurts their economy? Since they're taking waste from other states, should they get extra funding as a "thank you" to fund initiatives for their citizens? In a direct democracy, their voice could be effectively silenced by the majority a thousand miles away, and that majority wouldn't even have to debate any of the concerns-just up straight skip to the vote because the votes would be there.

National policy (set by executive branch) is one thing. States are free to do their own thing. Of course, the federal government (executive) can encourage cooperation through slowing funding. But if other states are concerned about individual states doing things that affect them, it needs to be more than just policy. It needs to be law. And since multiple states could be affected, it should be handled at the federal level.

So in your second example, I'd agree with you. Though the issue you point out has implications outside the state. Pollution affects others, and energy resources are critical to national security, not to mention our economy. So it makes sense to have laws and policy at the national level. We also do it for other things we value as a nation-look at our national parks program and federally protected wildlife areas, or our airspace.

Another good example is minimum wage. There's a federal standard, but some states have set a higher minimum wage, and some counties or cities even above that. As long as the state or local governments don't break federal laws, they can make it more restrictive. If someone believes in raising the minimum wage, they should be lobbying at all levels. And the local level would likely be the most responsive, as we see with minimum wage.

I agree with that smart, nationalized decisions can be good. But we are a very (physically) large and diverse nation, so things that work in the New York may not work in Oklahoma or Oregon or. This makes it challenging to take a one size fits all approach, because that leaves a lot of people unhappy. Putting power in states lets power reside much closer to the local area, and be more responsive for the residents.
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see your points, especially about things like minimum wage that are localized. I am just wary about the ability to stonewall the majority. As easily as the majority can overrun the minority, there is a tyranny of the minority that must be kept in check as well. Thanks for the response.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, I think it’s been three years or better since I’ve looked at Baseops. Almost Five years since I retired.  Since everything went crazy, I found myself wondering what the BO crowd was saying.Tonight, I finally looked.  I’ve read through a few threads, and must say...I am still impressed by the level of discussion here.  Y’all are awesome. And also, thanks to Congressman for standing up for what he believes is right. Takes some nuts.  Props to y’all for great discussion as well. Quality people here, man.  Proud to have served with most of ya!  

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought he had a pretty good interview on Bill Maher’s show that aired Friday. Maher tried to get him to bite off on a “religion is bullshit” tangent, but Kinzinger did a good job staying on the topic at hand. He certainly seems to be finding his niche as a more traditional Republican. I sincerely hope he represents the future of the party. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/6/2021 at 11:13 AM, Homestar said:

But that’s fundamentally NOT what/who we are. It’s like saying you want a purple orange to eat. Great. But you’re going to get an orange orange. 

Or the old saying, Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for supper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that’s fundamentally NOT what/who we are. It’s like saying you want a purple orange to eat. Great. But you’re going to get an orange orange. 
Until your orange orange turns into a purple orange... Got curious and Google did not disappoint!
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-26/science-reveals-why-orange-turned-purple-overnight/10230418

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/02/man-who-refused-bow/618156/
 

“Kinzinger’s stance has earned him some critics. One of Trump’s fawning court pastors, Franklin Graham—the son of the prominent evangelical preacher Billy Graham—attacked the 10 Republicans who supported impeachment. “It makes you wonder what the thirty pieces of silver were that Speaker Pelosi promised for this betrayal,” Graham wrote on Facebook.

“He said we took pieces of silver from Nancy Pelosi because—what?” Kinzinger asked me. “Trump is Jesus Christ? Christians have got to open their eyes and be like, ‘What is happening?’”

...

“But while what happened to Kinzinger may be extreme, he is hardly alone; politics is placing stress on countless relationships among friends and family, and shattering more than a few. “Do you have any advice for people struggling to reach people they love at moments like this?” I asked. “What would you say on the interpersonal side of things? How can repair and reconciliation go forward?”

“It’s a tough one,” Kinzinger conceded. “Because I say, on the one hand, try to have compassion for them; they’re brainwashed. It’s true, but I also know truthfully that if I’m talking to somebody that is saying what they’re saying and I know they’re brainwashed, it doesn’t help me look at them any better. I’m just being honest.”

As we spoke, it became clear that Kinzinger was still trying to understand what’s going on beneath the anger and the hate, even as he has become its target. One clinical psychologist told me when the letter was published that Kinzinger was on the receiving end of a textbook cultlike response: remove yourself from the devil, cut the person off from the family, prove devotion to leader and mission.”

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Homestar said:

The GOP contingent in the House is now largely ballless Betas afraid of their own shadows.  For proof look no further than this weekend's Hunter S. Thompson fever-dream that is CPAC.  I have tons of respect for Rep. Kinzinger for sticking to his principles, ignoring the conspiracy theories, and fighting for the soul of conservatism.  The GOP needs as many Adam Kinzingers as they can find.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too many politicians have joined the Trump-as-Jesus-Christ cult that has also swept the nation. Not that all Trump voters act this way, but the emergence and strength of the QAnon cult is evidence that there is a good percentage that believe this. It’s going to be an uphill battle and I wouldn’t be surprised if Kinzinger gets primaried by a Margorie Greene type. 
 

I hope this isn’t the case. I’m a big Crenshaw fan on policy and Kinzinger fan on leadership. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope/believe Rep Kinzenger will make it through these times, and remembered for his courage to take on the party.  The rest are spineless or complicit. 

I remember a class in school where we learned about mass hysteria and some examples in history.  These times sound a lot like a mass hysteria event/s.  Its a psychology problem I guess.  That so many are influenced is quite amazing.  And our foreign adversaries are probably grinning and chuckling, giddy with joy.

Out

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Homestar said:

Too many politicians have joined the Trump-as-Jesus-Christ cult that has also swept the nation. Not that all Trump voters act this way, but the emergence and strength of the QAnon cult is evidence that there is a good percentage that believe this. It’s going to be an uphill battle and I wouldn’t be surprised if Kinzinger gets primaried by a Margorie Greene type. 
 

I hope this isn’t the case. I’m a big Crenshaw fan on policy and Kinzinger fan on leadership. 

He’s getting challenged by Catalina Lauf, she ran in 20 against a Dem and didn’t win. She was one of many female’s running last time. She had more support this time from the Republican Party, which Imo she should have last time as well, and isn’t afraid to put America First and not just ride the coat tails of the tea party movement then do something else. Only time will tell. 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, cragspider said:

isn’t afraid to put America First

By this are you implying that Kinzinger doesn't have American interests in the front of the mind? Or do you mean that he isn't a good Republican because he didn't "kiss the ring?"  Because did you read the article?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...