The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[Leadeye]

Always loved that line, but never knew it's origin. this guy explains it a little:

[video=youtube;nHdeCqEhdvQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHdeCqEhdvQ[/video]

The Huckleberry is an excellent gun rig.

 

[actaeon277]

I previously mentioned, the Democrats better be careful, those same tactics can be used against them.
Although it looks like the press isn't giving this the same "all accusers must be believed" treatment.


https://www.dailywire.com/news/3734...1HC6PkhIyUlGwx0x6er9bo4Zt_0OYRr0VPXMM3W7MyiDE
Democratic Senator Brown Accused Of Sexual Misconduct In '80s, Calls It 'Character Assassination'

 

[actaeon277]

Once again, Babylon Bee, but it's hard to tell it's not actually truth


https://babylonbee.com/news/we-are-...aWi0MYXOtxzyT1tnIvDkYigOR2p9iFvS_aqK1xSoyTdAI
'We Are Living In A Totalitarian Nightmare,' Says Protester Freely Without Any Fear Of Government Retribution

WASHINGTON, D.C.—During a recent string of protests in Washington, one protester told reporters that "we are living in a totalitarian nightmare just like in The Handmaid's Tale," making the statement with absolutely no possibility of the government kidnapping and torturing her for her outspokenness.

The woman drew on her guaranteed free speech rights to state that "this government is like something out of a totalitarian dystopia," as police stood by guarding to ensure her and her fellow protesters' right to protest was protected.
"Women literally have no rights," she said. "And we're losing more each and every day." She also said that her uterus has fewer rights than guns, though she admitted her uterus doesn't need a license, government registration, or a background check.

 

[Route 45]

"Women literally have no rights," she said. "And we're losing more each and every day."

 

[T.Lex]

If you are serious, give him a line item veto

Huh?

Like, serious about veto/override? I'm pretty sure that's something we can agree exists.

In terms of line-item veto, that's usually one of those things that people favor when "their guy" has it, but are against it when "the other side's guy" has it.

I can see the value of it, but IMHO that just injects another layer of politicking that undermines the power of the legislative to reach beneficial compromises. IMHO, the current system of checks and balances could be better improved by rescinding direct election of senators.

 

[mmpsteve]

Huh?
IMHO, the current system of checks and balances could be better improved by rescinding direct election of senators.

So I've not thought about this one a lot, but how does taking the power away from constituents, and giving more power to politicians (to choose senators), help the process? Not being snarky, just seems counter-intuitive to the power of the people being governed. Are people too stupid to choose wisely? Big city domination? Just curious to your point.

 

[T.Lex]

So I've not thought about this one a lot, but how does taking the power away from constituents, and giving more power to politicians (to chose senators), help the process? Not being snarky, just seems counter-intuitive to the power of the people being governed.

Yes, yes it does seem counterintuitive.

So, Senators are elected every 6 years, right? And, we know from experience *coff* Lugar *coff* that incumbent senators get re-elected more often than not. (Looks like Donnelly will probably appreciate this, too.)

But, governors are generally elected every 4 years. Back when senators were appointed, there WAS alot more smoke-filled room type negotiation for who would be senator, and fairly routinely, governors would appoint themselves senator. But, it meant that the office was more reflective of the voting blocks of the states. There was more riding on the vote for governor (and lt. governor) because that person would also decide the senator.

It also meant that the senators were more beholden to the politicians back home. If a senator strayed too far from the will of the governor, there was a chance they wouldn't be re-nominated. Because the senate is not population based, each senator wields more power; each governor then also wields more influence on behalf of the state within the federal government.

I will readily admit that it isn't a panacea for "drain the swamp." But, in terms of checks and balances, IMHO direct election of senators diluted the balance of power rather than improving it. And I think that's something that the original architects intuited, and that the politicians who implemented it knew that it would protect those in power.

 

[Fargo]

So I've not thought about this one a lot, but how does taking the power away from constituents, and giving more power to politicians (to choose senators), help the process? Not being snarky, just seems counter-intuitive to the power of the people being governed.

Our government was to be one of divided sovereignty with the state governments and federal government each being sovereign in different areas. The fed said got the enumerated powers laid out in the constitution, everything else remained with the states.

Unsurprisingly, the Feds (under the auspices of federal judges) have never failed to grab more power whenever possible, hence the current state of affairs where growing a garden for your own consumption can be federally regulated as commerce "among the several states".

One of the big checks on the destruction of state sovereignty was that the state governments had a federal voice through election of senators to represent those governments. When that was taken away, it removed the last meaningful check on federal usurpation of state sovereignty.

An additional problem is that the framers designed the Senate and House to be elected by different people because they didn't want them to agree upon much. It was meant to be a limitation on the ability of the federal government to get out of control by making bodies with different interests have to agree before federal law could be passed. That has also been taken away.

 

[mmpsteve]

And if the governor appointed himself Senator, would the Lt. Governor then become Governor automatically?, and then appoint his own Lt. Governor? Just seems like a lot of opportunities for backroom, smoke-filled deals being made, and I'm not so sure I agree with that any more.

Yes, yes it does seem counterintuitive.

So, Senators are elected every 6 years, right? And, we know from experience *coff* Lugar *coff* that incumbent senators get re-elected more often than not. (Looks like Donnelly will probably appreciate this, too.)

But, governors are generally elected every 4 years. Back when senators were appointed, there WAS alot more smoke-filled room type negotiation for who would be senator, and fairly routinely, governors would appoint themselves senator. But, it meant that the office was more reflective of the voting blocks of the states. There was more riding on the vote for governor (and lt. governor) because that person would also decide the senator.

It also meant that the senators were more beholden to the politicians back home. If a senator strayed too far from the will of the governor, there was a chance they wouldn't be re-nominated. Because the senate is not population based, each senator wields more power; each governor then also wields more influence on behalf of the state within the federal government.

I will readily admit that it isn't a panacea for "drain the swamp." But, in terms of checks and balances, IMHO direct election of senators diluted the balance of power rather than improving it. And I think that's something that the original architects intuited, and that the politicians who implemented it knew that it would protect those in power.

 

[Hawkeye]

And if the governor appointed himself Senator, would the Lt. Governor then become Governor automatically?, and then appoint his own Lt. Governor? Just seems like a lot of opportunities for backroom, smoke-filled deals being made, and I'm not so sure I agree with that any more.

Depends on the State and it’s constitutional provisions for filling vacancies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mmpsteve]

I need to think about your post, but unfortunately, Gotta get to work, to pay the man.

Our government was to be one of divided sovereignty with the state governments and federal government each being sovereign in different areas. The fed said got the enumerated powers laid out in the constitution, everything else remained with the states.

Unsurprisingly, the Feds (under the auspices of federal judges) have never failed to grab more power whenever possible, hence the current state of affairs where growing a garden for your own consumption can be federally regulated as commerce "among the several states".

One of the big checks on the destruction of state sovereignty was that the state governments had a federal voice through election of senators to represent those governments. When that was taken away, it removed the last meaningful check on federal usurpation of state sovereignty.

An additional problem is that the framers designed the Senate and House to be elected by different people because they didn't want them to agree upon much. It was meant to be a limitation on the ability of the federal government to get out of control by making bodies with different interests have to agree before federal law could be passed. That has also been taken away.

 

[T.Lex]

And if the governor appointed himself Senator, would the Lt. Governor then become Governor automatically?, and then appoint his own Lt. Governor? Just seems like a lot of opportunities for backroom, smoke-filled deals being made, and I'm not so sure I agree with that any more.

Please don't get me wrong on this: there is room for reasonable people to disagree on this.

I remain convinced, though, that the original scheme was "better" and would like to see an incremental approach to going back to that.

 

[nonobaddog]

I think that appointment stuff was more appropriate back when people had some honesty and integrity. These days it would just open the door for corruption and selling appointments like they do in Illinois.

 

[jbombelli]

Please don't get me wrong on this: there is room for reasonable people to disagree on this.

I remain convinced, though, that the original scheme was "better" and would like to see an incremental approach to going back to that.

I agree with this. As an aside, I was under the impression senators were appointed by the state legislatures? Perhaps I was mistaken... wouldn't be the first time, and likely not the last.

The old style did a lot to keep special interest money out of the senate. If you wanted to buy off senators you had to go to each state and buy THEM off. You couldn't just go to one place and buy several senators.

 

[T.Lex]

I think that appointment stuff was more appropriate back when people had some honesty and integrity. These days it would just open the door for corruption and selling appointments like they do in Illinois.

Uh... there was never honesty and integrity in politics. Well, never as much as we'd like.

I agree with this. As an aside, I was under the impression senators were appointed by the state legislatures? Perhaps I was mistaken... wouldn't be the first time, and likely not the last.

The old style did a lot to keep special interest money out of the senate. If you wanted to buy off senators you had to go to each state and buy THEM off. You couldn't just go to one place and buy several senators.

Indeed, my memory was a bit off. The constitution called for the state legislatures to choose:
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Direct_Election_Senators.htm

But, IIRC, in practice, states were allowed to come up with their own processes for nominations, with governors usually making the nomination.

Its good to be reminded once in awhile that, as bad as things are now, the good old days weren't all so good.

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

 

[mmpsteve]

Fargo, sir, I don't mean to belabor the point, and I'm as big a states rights person as anyone, and think the Commerce clause was one of the big blunders in the Constitution, but can you explain what you meant here:

One of the big checks on the destruction of state sovereignty was that the state governments had a federal voice through election of senators to represent those governments. When that was taken away, it removed the last meaningful check on federal usurpation of state sovereignty.

I don't understand what you mean by our ability to elect senators to represent our state was taken away.


.

 

[Leadeye]

I don't think there's much direct buying of politicians in dc unless you are mega rich. Beltway law/lobby firms do the legwork for a fee and provide a useful cutout.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Fargo, sir, I don't mean to belabor the point, and I'm as big a states rights person as anyone, and think the Commerce clause was one of the big blunders in the Constitution, but can you explain what you meant here:




I don't understand what you mean by our ability to elect senators to represent our state was taken away.


.

I think he meant when the state legislatures lost the ability to "elect" senators to represent the state governments, not "our" ability to elect senators (to represent "us").

 

[Birds Away]

I think he meant when the state legislatures lost the ability to "elect" senators to represent the state governments, not "our" ability to elect senators (to represent "us").

When did elected officials represent us? I must have missed that.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

When did elected officials represent us? I must have missed that.

It's a theory.