Jump to content
Hugo Stiglitz

Bill Barr is a large dildo

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

If I could be dictator for a day and change the constitution I would put one rep per  100 k population for states territories and DC for the HOR. For senate each state, territory and DC gets 1. Population of 5M gets you a second and 20M gets you a 3rd. HOR elects a prime minister who heads up executive branch. President and VP elected by popular vote but are ceremonial posts

I don't know if I'm for or against this 100K argument, but it dramatically diminishes the power of small states in general elections.  To the degree I think that popular vote is probably reasonable in this day and age, I don't necessarily mind, but I would want to see some reasoned study of all the effects of an explosion of congressmen with no change in the number of senators.  There are good reasons while every state was apportioned 2 senators, and any attempt to tie that proportionally to population seems wrong.  I'm just not entirely sure I know why . . . yet.

Edited by jimmyjazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

Slow gridlocky government is best government.

slow gridlocky government has been leading us to where we are for 25 years now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Democrats had some highlights but overall, considering the material they have to work with, I still think this god damned traitor got off easy. 

Nadler is nadless. Nevertheless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why again, to one of you lawyers types (I only attended law school, I don't have a bar card)...would a U.S. Attorney for Western District of Texas be on top of this case again?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

coolcoolcoolcoolcool

I hope we see more of this kind of slapdown in Feb, March, April . . . etc of 2021.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

In the long run civilization always moves left/progressive.  That's how it's been for centuries and it will remain as such.  So all this shit they're turning upside down will only fuck them in the long run.  This is but a blip.  It will be more painful for conservatives in the end.  Luckily for Barr and Trump, they'll be dead and gone when the real fruits of their bullshit come to bear...

 

Fuck that, I want to see them get what they deserve now. 

7 hours ago, babysdaddy said:

I guess it depends on the assumption of what is in the report.  

Fuck off bro, "Bull Durham" has been looking for shit that isn't there for ages now. He's still looking until he finds something, real or otherwise. Donald is eagerly awaiting Bull Durham's report as he used to lead with at his rallies. 

7 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Nadler is just a terrible chairman. 

 Nadler appears to want to be Tip O'Neill after 6 pm all day, forgetting that Tip was a bulldog before 6. Can't wait for the Dem establishment to fuck off and let the younger generation take power. Can you imagine if all Dems were like Swalwell, Jayapal, AOC, Beto etc? Whether you agree with their ideas or not, they at least fight fire with fire 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Slow gridlocky government is best government.

This is one of the most damaging myths perpetuated by the right over the last 20 years.

It’s part of the same nonsense that Republicans spew about the federal government.

GOP - “The federal government is terrible, horrible, bad and no good!”

GOP takes control of the federal government and runs it into the ground by decimating necessary agencies, cuts funding while simultaneously demanding more responsibilities, run off career non-political civil servants and then refuse to fill empty positions, etc.

GOP - “SEE!!! We told you the federal government sucks!”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Buzzrock said:

Slow gridlocky government is best government.

This is bullshit and you should feel bad for posting it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

honestly, i think testimony should not be limited to two minute snippets. i understand they need a procedure, but they should be able to string together a coherent narrative over the course of, say, 10 minutes each or whatever. it's important enough. i hate the procedure, and have for years.

Yeah it leads them to have the whole "reclaiming my time" bs. It is impossible to have a legitimate dialog.

The opposite of progress is.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Pimphand said:

Yeah it leads them to have the whole "reclaiming my time" bs. It is impossible to have a legitimate dialog.

The opposite of progress is.....

many of them don’t actually want a dialog. They want to pound the table and monologue. Don’t count the individual giving testimony towards the members clock. Give the individual providing testimony a minimum of one minute for each two minutes the member has to ask questions. That effectively gives the member more time to operate and also provides the person being asked a “question” time to respond. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

many of them don’t actually want a dialog. They want to pound the table and monologue. Don’t count the individual giving testimony towards the members clock. Give the individual providing testimony a minimum of one minute for each two minutes the member has to ask questions. That effectively gives the member more time to operate and also provides the person being asked a “question” time to respond. 

Tbh, I'm disappointed in nadlers behavior yesterday. Witnesses have always been allowed to answer questions or respond to comments in the monologue, and it was not right to deprive Barr of that courtesy. It was hilarious to see that authoritarian piece of shit get badgered by the Dems, but it was not good government

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Buzzrock said:

Slow gridlocky government is best government.

I used to think that when I was dumb college student who thought I was a libertarian. See the less the do, the better! 
 

Fuck that. I want a government that actually works. Gridlock is fantasy bullshit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the bright side, gohmert just tested positive for COVID and was talking in close proximity with Barr without wearing a face mask. Hopefully there will be a learning moment for everyone involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

On the bright side, gohmert just tested positive for COVID and was talking in close proximity with Barr without wearing a face mask. Hopefully there will be a learning moment for everyone involved.

numerous republicans were admonished by nadler for not wearing masks. it's kind of amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't know if I'm for or against this 100K argument, but it dramatically diminishes the power of small states in general elections.  To the degree I think that popular vote is probably reasonable in this day and age, I don't necessarily mind, but I would want to see some reasoned study of all the effects of an explosion of congressmen with no change in the number of senators.  There are good reasons while every state was apportioned 2 senators, and any attempt to tie that proportionally to population seems wrong.  I'm just not entirely sure I know why . . . yet.

While I disagree on the popular vote, the benefits of drastically increasing the number of representatives need not have anything to do with that. It should be done even if the number of Electors doesn't change. 

1. Representatives will be more responsive to their constituency. By representing a smaller number of people they will have a closer relationship to them. 

2. Big budget special interest groups will have a much harder time buying enough votes to affect bill success. This may be the key reason that the number of reps should grow along with the population. When the number of people to buy off stays the same while the population explodes, it becomes much easier to do. Higher population means more available money.

Edited by Huckleberry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

While I disagree on the popular vote, the benefits of drastically increasing the number of representatives need not have anything to do with that. It should be done even if the number of Electors doesn't change. 

While not an insurmountable hurdle, this would seemingly require an amendment to the Constitution.  Article II, Section 1:

Quote

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress

Since Congress sets the number of Representatives, it would seem unlikely that they will move against their own self-interest in this day and age.  I'll posit that growing the House would require a grass-roots movement with the size defined in a Constitutional amendment (as was originally intended, but never ratified).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Buzzrock said:

Slow gridlocky government is best government.

Slow, careful government is best.  We don't want one side running roughshod over the other, at least when both sides are principled.  We want  what comes from hashing things out and probably bitter compromise.

That could be called "gridlocky."

Total fucking gridlock, like we have, is equivalent to one side running roughshod over the other.  No es bueno.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

While not an insurmountable hurdle, this would seemingly require an amendment to the Constitution.  Article II, Section 1:

Since Congress sets the number of Representatives, it would seem unlikely that they will move against their own self-interest in this day and age.  I'll posit that growing the House would require a grass-roots movement with the size defined in a Constitutional amendment (as was originally intended, but never ratified).

Right on the first half, I was unclear but meant that even if the only way to get it done is through a compromise where the Electors stay the same but the House grows. I'm perfectly fine with the Electors growing as well, but that may have to be sacrificed.

And also completely agree on how to get it done. It would absolutely have to be grass roots because the current Representatives would understand exactly what I'm arguing for. They would know better than anyone that a larger House would mean less money in their pockets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

While not an insurmountable hurdle, this would seemingly require an amendment to the Constitution.  Article II, Section 1:

Since Congress sets the number of Representatives, it would seem unlikely that they will move against their own self-interest in this day and age.  I'll posit that growing the House would require a grass-roots movement with the size defined in a Constitutional amendment (as was originally intended, but never ratified).

The easy fix is to dump the stupid electoral system and go to a popular vote for President, and it is what we should do if we are going to amend the Constitution for this.

Alternatively, we can just let a tyrannical minority siphon off the wealth of this country and destroy its institutions until we have a civil war, collapse, or both.

I get that 30 to 40% desire idiocracy.  As much as we tout our founding fathers forward thinking, they were stupid to allow for unchecked minority control.  No other country in the world has our fucked up system.  The Senate was supposed to be the check on Presidential power.  Turns out there was no check at all.  The founding fathers are rolling over in their graves, pissed at us because they also gave us a way to fix this that we haven't used in decades.

Edited by FondrenRoad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

While not an insurmountable hurdle, this would seemingly require an amendment to the Constitution.  Article II, Section 1:

Since Congress sets the number of Representatives, it would seem unlikely that they will move against their own self-interest in this day and age.  I'll posit that growing the House would require a grass-roots movement with the size defined in a Constitutional amendment (as was originally intended, but never ratified).

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying would require a Constitutional amendment. If you're arguing that changing the number of representatives would, that's certainly not true and would only need an act of Congress as had been done regularly throughout the 19th Century. The last time it happened was 1911. But, again, maybe I just have a case if the stupid today and am not following.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Right on the first half, I was unclear but meant that even if the only way to get it done is through a compromise where the Electors stay the same but the House grows. I'm perfectly fine with the Electors growing as well, but that may have to be sacrificed.

And also completely agree on how to get it done. It would absolutely have to be grass roots because the current Representatives would understand exactly what I'm arguing for. They would know better than anyone that a larger House would mean less money in their pockets.

I actually disagree (a little).  If it wasn't so goddamn expensive to run and campaign every two years because the number of races spreads the donor money more thin then I think plenty of incumbents would get on board. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying would require a Constitutional amendment. If you're arguing that changing the number of representatives would, that's certainly not true and would only need an act of Congress as had been done regularly throughout the 19th Century. The last time it happened was 1911. But, again, maybe I just have a case if the stupid today and am not following.

No, I'm saying the current climate in Congress would never lead them raise the rep count.  It goes against legislators' self interests ($$$).  I think it would take an amendment to the Constitution which wrests the power out of Congress' hands and defines the rep count mathematically, presumably based on census results.

Edited by jimmyjazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Captainant said:

On the bright side, gohmert just tested positive for COVID and was talking in close proximity with Barr without wearing a face mask. Hopefully there will be a learning moment for everyone involved.

Will Ferrell Lol GIF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

I actually disagree (a little).  If it wasn't so goddamn expensive to run and campaign every two years because the number of races spreads the donor money more thin then I think plenty of incumbents would get on board. 

It wouldn't make it any more expensive if we expanded the House because your opponents would also get less money (more races for donors to have to spread it around to).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

It wouldn't make it any more expensive if we expanded the House because your opponents would also get less money (more races for donors to have to spread it around to).

That was my point, sorry if I made it awkwardly. 

The argument is that incumbents wouldn't get on board and I disagree; if there's relatively finite amount of donor money to go around then the presumption is that more candidates spreads it out (the harder to buy a congressman argument made above); if the cost to run would therefore be less and didn't require continuous campaigning I think you could get at least some of the incumbents to buy-in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

It wouldn't make it any more expensive if we expanded the House because your opponents would also get less money (more races for donors to have to spread it around to).

We should probably start a separate thread for this topic. It's worthy of discussion but this probably isn't the best place. In fact, I'd argue it could even work over on the DT board (maybe).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is by its very nature political. I don't think it belongs over there at all. I have stayed out of the ruckus over the fact that the DT forum has become a political forum for those who are too cowardly to debate in the politics forum. But politics is still politics.

And I should clarify that corrupt and corruptible incumbents will never support it. The hundreds of Congresspeople who expect cushy jobs after they retire, who take bribes, etc. will realize that it will be harder when you're battling thousands for that cushy job after Congress instead of dozens and that the bribes are suddenly smaller when that lobbyist has to pay off thousands instead of dozens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Political topics are discussed over there all of the time. What I meant was the discussion wouldn't necessarily have to be partisan. Still, point well taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...