Jump to content

US Politics: A Feast for Crows


DMC

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

I Served in Congress Longer Than Anyone. Here’s How to Fix It.
Abolish the Senate and publicly fund elections.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/john-dingell-how-restore-faith-government/577222/

 

How do you propose to abolish the Senate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bonnot OG said:

Funny how Scot and his white moderate counter parts in here are more forgiving of rich racist white killers than they are of women of color that actually care about people, isn't it?


 

Could you point out where I suggested AOC did something for which she needs to be forgiven?  Mistakes born of inexperience are hardly something to damn someone over.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Triskele said:

The admittedly biased folks on MSNBC are saying that the fact that Mueller is recommending zero jail time for Flynn strongly suggests that Flynn really gave up the goods to Mueller.

I don't think Flynn knows anything particularly compelling that he hasn't already told the prosecutors.

3 minutes ago, Triskele said:

1) will Republicans continue to back Trump after Mueller's report?

2)  If #1 is affirmative, will voters re-elect Trump?

If by chance #1 is wrong I still have a hard time seeing the Senate removing him from office because there's no way Trump's masses turn on him en masse now matter what.   

1 is almost a certainty.  2 is what no one knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What style?  Seriously, the most difficult thing to change in the US Constitution is the existence and structure of the Senate.  

Ya know, if I was 10 years younger I'd just do a facepalm emoji or something.  My response was a joke.  If you want to seriously read about the Senate I suggest Frances Lee's work

4 minutes ago, Triskele said:

I'm only saying that this rec that he gets no jail time is kinda, sorta an addendum on what he's told them in the 19 (19!) times he's met with them.  

Well, yeah, that's the basis of my assumption.  But maybe you're right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How do you propose to abolish the Senate?

I didn't propose to abolish it, I posted an article, which I guess can look like an endorsement. I posted it because I'm interested in bold solutions. to these trying times and our diseased politics. Any changes to the Constitution are clearly off the table in the short term. I'm more in favor of something like packing the SC, as that at least is within the realm of the possible, although politically fraught. 

Of course there ways the Senate could end or be modified. For example, if New York and California demanded it in order for them to remain in the Union. It could happen after future, unseen, and perhaps horrible events. It could happen in a 100 years or 50 years or 20.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

I didn't propose to abolish it, I posted an article, which I guess can look like an endorsement. I posted it because I'm interested in bold solutions. to these trying times and our diseased politics. Any changes to the Constitution are clearly off the table in the short term. I'm more in favor of something like packing the SC, as that at least is within the realm of the possible, although politically fraught. 

Of course there ways the Senate could end or be modified. For example, if New York and California demanded it in order for them to remain in the Union. It could happen after future, unseen, and perhaps horrible events. It could happen in a 100 years or 50 years or 20.

Perhaps.  I just think the break up of the US is more likely than the elimination of equal sufferage from the Senate because of the way Art. V was written to protect the structure of the Senate.

; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.  US Const. Art V.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Scot,

I know what you're saying.  I'm just being a smartass.  I don't think anyone actually wants to abolish the Senate.

No, there are folks who really do want to either abolish the Senate or change it such that it does take population into account.  They make compelling arguments.  Which is part of the reason why I think a real Constitutional Convention should be held and that nothing should be off the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Triskele said:

Yeah, that's the thing.  There really is an "abolish the Senate" movement.  I don't claim to know how to gauge how potent it is beyond just saying that it's fairly impotent given that the Senate itself would have to approve.  But other than that, it does exist. 

No, it wouldn’t.  If they could convince properly convined a properly Constitutional Convention to propose such an amendment and all 50 States ratified that amendment the Senate could be eliminated without its consent.

See US Const. Art V:

 on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No, there are folks who really do want to either abolish the Senate or change it such that it does take population into account.  They make compelling arguments.  Which is part of the reason why I think a real Constitutional Convention should be held and that nothing should be off the table.

There are folks that say a lot of things.  I know the protections from that ever happening - don't you?  A 'real' constitutional convention is still just another unrealistic alternative that may get pointless passage.  Ratification will be the same - 3/4 of state conventions - which is what held up the ERA and would almost certainly hold up any amendment that isn't entirely non-political.  In short, this idea has no merit.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

A very faint hope.  There has never been a successful call for a Constitutional Convention since the orginal drafted the Constitution.

I suppose after the Articles of Confederation, things looked pretty desperate and grim for the future of the nation. I wonder how bad it would/will have to get before politicians are able to make another convention happen (and have a successful outcome)?

Now that I think about it, the next time I hear some Repub tell me 'states' rights' are the pure intention of the founders, or are the way to go, I'll just refer them to the Articles of Confederation and the debacle of a decentralized federal government that almost destroyed the infant nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, SweetPea said:

 

20 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Yup. And yet somehow she still sounds so much smarter than Trump...
Like, at least she got the numbers right... :P

Perhaps AOC should give Paul "Numbers Guy" Ryan a call on how to convince lots of people that she is a serious policy wonk.
After all, Ryan spewed nonsense for years, but convinced lots of people that he was a "very serious person".
Anyway, I like AOC and have high hopes for her. I think she is the type of person that can perhaps end some of the bitter infighting between the Clinton and Sanders factions of the Democratic Party. Hopefully, she'll will learn to be a bit more cautious about what she says on Twitter because, as we all know, Twitter is an extremely effective way to stick one's foot in one's mouth. That said, I just have the feeling that she will receive a little extra special scrutiny for her gaffes as opposed to other sorts of people, like say Paul "Numbers Guy" (and Young Gun too!) Ryan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

There's an old saying, "Junior Senators should be seen and not heard." 

Free reminder that Bernie Sanders is still the Junior Senator from Vermont. I guess that due to the accident of serving with someone who has been in the position for 44 years while Sanders has only been in Congress for 27, (and only in the Senate for 11, the fucking newcomer) he still hasn't earned the right to speak yet.

Sorry Bernie, maybe one of these days  Tywin will think you have the right to speak. Suck it up until then, and get off my lawn, you damn kid.

It's almost like making assumptions about people based on a job title or some other description is stupid and ignores a huge amount of context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...