Gun Legislation, Crime, and Events

[mtutiger]

17 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

 

It's not that prayers are bad, it's that the constant calls for them ring completely hollow when all that happens are just prayers.

It's not that hard to understand, yet we will remain collectively obtuse about it as per yoosh.

And the idea that there are "spiritual solutions".... again, we are a country of 330+ million. No "black mirror" style mind control device exists to make everyone perfect and happy. So policy should be crafted around actual problem solving instead of magical thinking.

Edited May 25, 2022 by mtutiger

[Motown Bombers]

 

[gehringer_2]

3 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

It's not that prayers are bad, it's that the constant calls for them ring completely hollow when all that happens are just prayers.

It's not that hard to understand, yet we will remain collectively obtuse about it as per yoosh

When the prayers start solving the problem then we can keep talking about them in the halls of government. Until then, a different tack is needed.

[1776]

1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said:

I'm suggesting eliminating the senate as we know it today. Why are people in Wyoming more important than California? 

I would ask you, why aren’t people of Wyoming deserving of the same representation as California in the Senate? There is a reason the phrase, “fly over states” exists. 
I understand your point but don’t think we’ll agree on this. 

[CMRivdogs]

 

[Tiger337]

1 hour ago, 1776 said:

Expanding the court by 4 seats is, in essence, changing rules isn’t it? What’s the difference in this and adding 20 yards to the football field when your opponent has the ball in the red zone? Maybe not the best example but you get the idea. If you can’t win playing by the rules, change the rules. What’s the difference? 
I would ask this question whatever the makeup of the court.

 

Adding seats seems like game playing to me.  Setting term limits seems reasonable.  Set term limits for congress too!  

[Motown Bombers]

4 minutes ago, 1776 said:

I would ask you, why aren’t people of Wyoming deserving of the same representation as California in the Senate? There is a reason the phrase, “fly over states” exists. 
I understand your point but don’t think we’ll agree on this. 

Wyoming has 576,000 people. California has 39.5 million people. California has 12% of the US population. Wyoming has 0.1% of the US population. Why does Wyoming deserve such a unequal representation? California should have 12% of the representation in senate. Hell, even a compromise of 10% for California and 1% for Wyoming. That would still be over representing Wyoming. No one can provide any good reason why Wyoming should have the same 2% representation in the senate as California. 

[gehringer_2]

14 minutes ago, 1776 said:

I would ask you, why aren’t people of Wyoming deserving of the same representation as California in the Senate? There is a reason the phrase, “fly over states” exists. 
I understand your point but don’t think we’ll agree on this. 

I don't know what you mean by 'same.' Democracy is not giving pieces of land equal rights - it's giving people equal rights. Your vote in WY on national policy has no right to count 10 times as much a mine in MI. There is no justification in a democratic country for Wy and Ca to have the same number of reps at ANY government level. As Rob says, it's primarily an anachronism which has come down to us as the result of a lot of troubled history without any purpose in good government. In a proper 'Federal' system states exist to divide government function into more responsive units where optimum, not to disenfranchise voters in one state at the expense of those in another. If you are a US citizen, your vote toward US policies should count the same everywhere, or you really don't have a nation, you have something on the way to being broken.

Edited May 25, 2022 by gehringer_2

[gehringer_2]

3 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Adding seats seems like game playing to me.  Setting term limits seems reasonable.  Set term limits for congress too!  

we have term limits in MI, they have been pretty much a disaster. Be careful what you wish for.

[pfife]

1 hour ago, 1776 said:

Expanding the court by 4 seats is, in essence, changing rules isn’t it? What’s the difference in this and adding 20 yards to the football field when your opponent has the ball in the red zone? Maybe not the best example but you get the idea. If you can’t win playing by the rules, change the rules. What’s the difference? 
I would ask this question whatever the makeup of the court.

 

so you're arguing this is no different than a game?

[pfife]

12 minutes ago, 1776 said:

I would ask you, why aren’t people of Wyoming deserving of the same representation as California in the Senate? There is a reason the phrase, “fly over states” exists. 
I understand your point but don’t think we’ll agree on this. 

They are deserving of equal representation which isn't what happens right now.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

3 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Adding seats seems like game playing to me.  Setting term limits seems reasonable.  Set term limits for congress too!  

But then we're stuck unnecessarily with decades of minority rule until those Justices age out. Why should people suffer needlessly at the hands of minority rule for decades when we can just add Justices and work to fix the solution?

[1776]

1 hour ago, Tigerbomb13 said:

We currently have minority rule in this country and that minority rule believing guns are more important than dead kids, but hey 1787. 

The Democrats are in possession of the Executive Office , the House of Representatives and the Senate with the tiebreaker (VP). 

I understand your frustration but how do you contend with the fact that the Democrats are in control and at the same time state that the minority rules?

 

 

[pfife]

1 minute ago, 1776 said:

The Democrats are in possession of the Executive Office , the House of Representatives and the Senate with the tiebreaker (VP). 

I understand your frustration but how do you contend with the fact that the Democrats are in control and at the same time state that the minority rules?

 

 

Being the majority in the Senate clearly doesn't mean you control it, and minority also controls the SCOTUS.

 

[Motown Bombers]

Just now, 1776 said:

The Democrats are in possession of the Executive Office , the House of Representatives and the Senate with the tiebreaker (VP). 

I understand your frustration but how do you contend with the fact that the Democrats are in control and at the same time state that the minority rules?

 

 

Democratic senators represent 56.5% of the population and only have 50% of the senate. Democrats have represented the majority of population since 1996 but have only controlled the senate 12 of those 26 years. There is also a filibuster in place that once again favors the minority. In one 4 year term by Trump, 3 supreme court justices were appointed by a president who lost the popular vote and a senate that represents a minority of the population. 

[Motown Bombers]

Going further, while Democrats have the slimmest of majorities in the senate, it all hinges on one senator from the 12th least populist state. 

[gehringer_2]

9 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

we have term limits in MI, they have been pretty much a disaster. Be careful what you wish for.

I should clarify - I think term limits can help, but we over reacted and made them too short in MI. The two terms for Gov is OK but we should have allowed more like 4-5 terms  for the House and Senate. There is too much churn and too little expertise in the MI Legislature. I think it's enough to insure the dinosaurs get moved out before they start seeing themselves as the institution - maybe 15 to 18 yrs.

[Motown Bombers]

We haven't even gotten to the fact that DC has more people than Wyoming, Vermont and Alaska and has no senate representation. 

[1776]

1 minute ago, Motown Bombers said:

Going further, while Democrats have the slimmest of majorities in the senate, it all hinges on one senator from the 12th least populist state. 

And that was the intent of the founding fathers when they established the Constitution. The purpose of the structure of our government forces debate and equal representation, regardless of state populations. Again, the flip side is West Virginia is told to sit in the corner and simply do as told by the good folks in California and New York…or…compromise! 

The conversation that isn’t happening here is that Senators are not bound to vote their party affiliation. There is a presumption here that if the Democrats have 55 Senators that they should, without question, expect 55 yes votes. Anyone that dares vote their constituents desires is betraying the party. This is true from either party. I see how Manchin drives the party crazy. If he fell in lockstep with the administration this wouldn’t even be a topic. 

[pfife]

ah yes, the intent of the founding fathers.   My favorite justification for all injustice. 

Checking in with the "intent of the founding fathers" department, it was to protect slavery.   Sweet intentions.  

Edited May 25, 2022 by pfife

[1776]

9 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

We haven't even gotten to the fact that DC has more people than Wyoming, Vermont and Alaska and has no senate representation. 

And I’m sure that if it were the case that DC was a hothead of conservative voters you’d be just as excited about awarding them two seats in the Senate.

[pfife]

2 minutes ago, 1776 said:

And I’m sure that if it were the case that DC was a hothead of conservative voters you’d be just as excited about awarding them two seats in the Senate.

hypocrisy doesn't matter anymore.  Not that having someone impute your feelings about how you'd feel in a fake scenario means you're a hypocrite, but proving it even effectively is worthless.   

Edited May 25, 2022 by pfife

[Motown Bombers]

1 minute ago, 1776 said:

And that was the intent of the founding fathers when they established the Constitution. The purpose of the structure of our government forces debate and equal representation, regardless of state populations. Again, the flip side is West Virginia is told to sit in the corner and simply do as told by the good folks in California and New York…or…compromise! 

The conversation that isn’t happening here is that Senators are not bound to vote their party affiliation. There is a presumption here that if the Democrats have 55 Senators that they should, without question, expect 55 yes votes. Anyone that dares vote their constituents desires is betraying the party. This is true from either party. I see how Manchin drives the party crazy. If he fell in lockstep with the administration this wouldn’t even be a topic. 

It doesn't force equal representation. What is equal about a state with 12% of the US population having the same representation as 0.1%? 

If the Democrats had 56 senators, they wouldn't need every vote to pass legislation and would pass what the majority of Americans want. 

I find it funny you skipped over Texas. Texas has more people than New York and is the 2nd largest state but you made sure to only mention the large liberal states. I think you're telling on yourself. Again, Californians and New Yorkers are every bit American as West Virginians so why do they count less? 

[Motown Bombers]

2 minutes ago, 1776 said:

And I’m sure that if it were the case that DC was a hothead of conservative voters you’d be just as excited about awarding them two seats in the Senate.

If DC was a hotbed of conservative voters, it would have been a state by now because the minority has outsized control. 

[Motown Bombers]

Republicans: We don't want California and New York controlling us.

Also Republicans: Kevin McCarthy and Elise Stefanik are our leaders. 

Edited May 25, 2022 by Motown Bombers