What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

116th Congress: Episode 1 - Trial by Fire

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 116th Congress: Episode 1 - Trial by Fire

I wonder how much 100 proof vodka Gätz is hiding in his office. But that aside, the Republican women in this story are truly shameless.

TERFs be b1tches.
 
Re: 116th Congress: Episode 1 - Trial by Fire

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
I wonder how much 100 proof vodka Gätz is hiding in his office. But that aside, the Republican women in this story are truly shameless.

TERFs be b1tches.
Click to expand...

To be fair, Republican women aren't any sort of RF. They're just self-hating baby machines.

The trans/TERF debate in a nutshell.

(Trigger warning for transphobic viewers: not only is the presenter trans, she's also at least 5 times smarter than I which means 5000 times smart than you.)
 
Last edited:
Re: 116th Congress: Episode 1 - Trial by Fire

joecct said:
My recollection is Harry used a tactical nuke and then it escalated to full blown Senate Nuclear War.
Click to expand...

This argument has been decided on the board and it's come to the conclusion that Mitch would have done what Mitch has done no matter what Harry did. Also, it's pretty hard to say Harry started it when it was the Republicans obstructionist tactics that have been me tooed by the Democrats that caused it to be necessary in the first place.
 
Re: 116th Congress: Episode 1 - Trial by Fire

I'm going to say something very unpopular. I'm glad those rules are gone. They were nonsense. Everything not explicitly defined otherwise in the Constitution should be 50% + 1. Over the long haul, conventions which suspend democratic majorities work in the favor of the status quo and in the service of the rich and powerful. They have been ways for the Old Boy Network to prevent real democratic reform.

The velvet glove of conviviality has always masked the iron fist of the oppressor. After all, at the end of the day every one of these as-sholes is working in his class interest, and that class is not ours.

Best to have everything out in the open.
 
Last edited:
Re: 116th Congress: Episode 1 - Trial by Fire

Easy for you to say when you arent the one who is being effected by many of these policies...
 
Re: 116th Congress: Episode 1 - Trial by Fire

The rules were put in place to help protect the political minority from the majority making rules without extended debate - or at all.
 
Re: 116th Congress: Episode 1 - Trial by Fire

Kepler said:
LOL. Blow me.
Click to expand...

Ummm...no?

That is a severe overreaction to what I said which was not an attack on you, but was a criticism of ALL OF US. We may not like all the rules of the Senate by full on majority rule is bad news and the GOP is showing why right now. Some of those rules protect the minority from the mob rule of the majority. I would rather have that all day and twice on Sunday over 50+1 on all decisions.

Of course you hate everything the Senate is and stands for and I dont so it is not expected we would be on the opposite sides of this issue.
 
Re: 116th Congress: Episode 1 - Trial by Fire

From "Today in History" on FB

During this week in 1913, the 17th Amendment is ratified. For the first time in American history, voters would be able to directly elect their United States Senators. The decision seems like a no-brainer. Shouldn’t the people get to elect their own Senators?

Well, maybe not.

The debate surrounding the 17th Amendment is eerily similar to those surrounding today’s efforts to eliminate the Electoral College. The 17th Amendment had many unfortunate and unintended consequences. Why would the Electoral College be any different?

Originally, the Constitution provided that state legislatures should select U.S. Senators. Imagine that you do not get to vote for your Senator. Instead, you know that you will elect your state legislators, then THEY will choose someone to represent your state in the United States Senate. Early Americans lived this way, and they began to want something more democratic.

“The thing we do want,” Senator Albert J. Beveridge said at the time, “the thing upon which the people are determined, the thing which they ought to have . . . is a right of the people to elect their Senators themselves.” Any other position, Beveridge concluded, stems from a “profound distrust of the people” and should not be tolerated in a democracy.

Unfortunately, his statement reflected a deep misunderstanding of our founding principles. The Founders were never trying to create a *pure* democracy. Instead, they created a republic, complete with separation of powers, checks and balances, and other safeguards for liberty. The senatorial election process was one of these safeguards.

The Senate was created to serve a different function than the House of Representatives. The House is a purely democratic body with “one person, one vote” representation. The Senate was intended to be a more republican, deliberative body with “one state, one vote” representation. The House gives the people a voice. The Senate was supposed to give the states a voice.

Nevertheless, the 17th Amendment was passed, and it had a lot of support. Only 191 legislators *nationwide* opposed ratification—152 of those votes came from Vermont and Connecticut! Most state legislatures unanimously supported the change. Besides the concern about being “more democratic,” people were upset about legislative stalemates in the selection process for Senators. Some people were also concerned that their state legislators were open to bribery.

But if your state legislator is open to bribery in one area, why wouldn’t he be in other areas? And why would you keep electing him?

Ratification of the 17th Amendment has had many unforeseen consequences.

The original constitutional provision made Senators accountable to state legislatures. Thus, the states themselves, as sovereign entities, had a voice in the federal legislative process. They could defend themselves from encroachments upon their power or from mandates put upon them by a federal government quick to make promises but slow to fund them. But the 17th Amendment, as Senator Zell Miller noted in 2004, “was the death of the careful balance between State and Federal Government. . . . Today State governments have to stand in line because they are just another one of the many special interests that try to get Senators to listen to them, and they are at an extreme disadvantage because they have no PAC.”

Since 1913, the federal government has massively grown in size, cost and power. But what would it look like today if the 17th Amendment had never been ratified?

In a few decades, will we be asking the same question about our presidential election system?

---------------------
If you are enjoying the daily dose of history, please know that 👍❤ & c☺mments help convince this site that you’d like to keep seeing them every day.

Gentle reminder: History posts are copyright © 2013-2019 by Tara Ross. I appreciate use of the sh☺re feature instead of cutting/pasting.

#TDIH #OTD #AmericanHistory #USHistory #liberty #freedom #ShareTheHistory
Click to expand...
 
Re: 116th Congress: Episode 1 - Trial by Fire

Of course you'd post that. :p Yeah, let's have a 70-30 Republican supermajority in the Senate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top