The W
Views: 98388166
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.8.14 1509
The W - Current Events & Politics - This is getting stupid now
This thread has 8 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1(2355 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (19 total)
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 418 days
Last activity: 418 days
#1 Posted on
When the former Senator from Alaska (its current Governor) appoints his daughter to fill the last two years of his term as a X-Mas present, it shows what a joke the Senate has become (Republican and Democrat).



I want you to know, I agree with everything I've just said.
Promote this thread!
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1208 days
Last activity: 1005 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Especially when you consider that AK seemed to have actually competent candidates to appoint.

Thanks Frank for handing the Democrats that Senate seat...



What kind of disjointed society do we live in if Merry Christmas is Politically Incorrect?
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 3 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.02
I think Tony Knowles will make a realistic run for that seat, but in the end I think Daughter (Lisa) Murkowski will hold it. It's not like she's plumber-turned-Senator. She was the majority leader of the State House.

And come on, politics is a business of nepotism. How many Senators, Congressmen, Governors or *cough "W" cough* Presidents are holding the seats their daddies held? How different is it from giving your kids your fund-raising contacts, political chits, and every other advantage in a race, and actually just appointing them to a seat?



It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Aphrodite, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Spider-Man, and Boston.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1255 days
Last activity: 21 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#4 Posted on
I really think that the so-called "nepotism" is not as bad as you might imagine. First off, with the exception of the lovely AK case, all of the sons/wives/brothers have to be elected. I mean it is true that there has been a rash of it lately (Hillary Clinton, GW Bush, Libby Dole) but it is nothing that has not happened before, and will likely continue to happen. The Kennedy family? JQ Adams?
I do not care if the entire Senate is made up of blood-cousins. I really don't. They are elected to that office, and right or wrong, people want them there for some reason. And, as long as they do their job, I could care less who they are related to.
If you still have a problem with nepotism, I think it is time to take a close look at the WAY these people are elected. The fact that relatives are being elected is simply a symptom of an "overall" corruption in the election process....




My attempt at a webpage


You are DeadPool!


Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 11 min.
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.05
didn't sonny bono's wife take his seat after he died?



Trill-Wiz-Elf-Mal-Cha died in The Dungeons of Doom on level 6. Killed by a dwarf.

R-D-Z
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 3 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.02
I agree about the nepotism thing. If it's all in the context of the system, then change the system. But on that same note, don't bitch about Murkowski appointing his daughter, change the rules that let him appoint his own succesor.



It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Aphrodite, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Spider-Man, and Boston.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1208 days
Last activity: 1005 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
The only problem with changing the rules is that somebody has to appoint the succesor. It's not like Cognress where a special election ahs to be held in order to fill the seat. The logical change(if there is one) would be to stipulate specific rules eliminating nepotism. Though realistically in most states sthere is nothing to stop an outgoing governor from appointing him or herself to a senate seat.



What kind of disjointed society do we live in if Merry Christmas is Politically Incorrect?
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1255 days
Last activity: 21 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#8 Posted on
Well, the problem is that I still believe that Senators should not be elected by the popular vote anyway. I think that was perhaps one of the lamest changes that our government has undergone in its history. A Senator is not supposed to represent the people, per se, rather the State's interests in this so called "Alliance of States." The People's Branch was supposed to be, and still is the House. I, for one, think the way things are now that there is no real difference between the House and the Senate, and having two separate branches that are both elected by popular vote is simply ridiculous.
Yeah, unless his daughter happened to be the best person for the job, he should definitely not have appointed her. The State Assembly should have made that call, not the outgoing Senator.
Personally I think that we should go back to the State's Elected body voting for US Senators, the way it was originally intended. You do not like who your state has in the Senate? You vote out the guy or girl who put him there. Your vote still counts. Put all of the power of determining who gets a US Senate seat in the hands of the State body, and you will also go a long way towards eliminating situations like this.



My attempt at a webpage


You are DeadPool!


Mr. Heat Miser
Blutwurst








Since: 27.1.02

Since last post: 2484 days
Last activity: 586 days
#9 Posted on
That's a very interesting position, Poolboy - and it seems to make a lot of sense. Right now, the function of the senate just duplicates the function of the house, with things weighted more strongly to low-population states like idaho, wyoming, delaware, the dakotas etc..

What do others on the board think about eliminating the senate altogether?
(yes, I know it would never happen - this is pure speculation)

Lots of governments get by with a unicameral (one-house) system - in the US I think that Nebraska is organized this way. It seems to me like it would eliminate a lot of duplication, and save taxpayers money without hurting much of anything, since the public could still split their vote between the house and the executive branch.

Thoughts?




Everything I touch, starts to melt in my clutch........
I'm too much!
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 138 days
Last activity: 138 days
#10 Posted on
The senate puts all states, regardless of population, on equal footing. I think that was a pretty good idea, as small population states like Wyoming can get screwed in the House pretty easily.

-Jag



War is when you kill people with no names.
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 418 days
Last activity: 418 days
#11 Posted on

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    Well, the problem is that I still believe that Senators should not be elected by the popular vote anyway. I think that was perhaps one of the lamest changes that our government has undergone in its history. A Senator is not supposed to represent the people, per se, rather the State's interests in this so called "Alliance of States." The People's Branch was supposed to be, and still is the House. I, for one, think the way things are now that there is no real difference between the House and the Senate, and having two separate branches that are both elected by popular vote is simply ridiculous.
    Yeah, unless his daughter happened to be the best person for the job, he should definitely not have appointed her. The State Assembly should have made that call, not the outgoing Senator.
    Personally I think that we should go back to the State's Elected body voting for US Senators, the way it was originally intended. You do not like who your state has in the Senate? You vote out the guy or girl who put him there. Your vote still counts. Put all of the power of determining who gets a US Senate seat in the hands of the State body, and you will also go a long way towards eliminating situations like this.









Another example of the coupists, oops I mean the Founders, having a better idea of how to form a government than those damn progressives of the early 20th century. Remember, the people who brought to you these multi-million dollar Senate campaigns by having direct elections are the geniuses who created the IRS.



I want you to know, I agree with everything I've just said.
Mr. Heat Miser
Blutwurst








Since: 27.1.02

Since last post: 2484 days
Last activity: 586 days
#12 Posted on

    Originally posted by Jaguar
    The senate puts all states, regardless of population, on equal footing. I think that was a pretty good idea, as small population states like Wyoming can get screwed in the House pretty easily.

    -Jag



But that does run counter to the whole idea of majority rules - (picking small and large states kind of randomly)-
Should Wyoming have an equal say with Texas? Should Rhode Island have an equal say with New York? I don't know what the answer is, but it's an interesting question.



Everything I touch, starts to melt in my clutch........
I'm too much!
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1208 days
Last activity: 1005 days
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by Mr. Heat Miser
    But that does run counter to the whole idea of majority rules -

Do some research into the Connecticut Compromise and you'll learn more as to why this happened. Basically there were to plans: The Virginia Plan based on population and the New Jersey Plan based on equal representation. What Conn. came up with is what we still see today.

The Progressives did some good stuff; just not when it comes to Constitution-altering concepts.



What kind of disjointed society do we live in if Merry Christmas is Politically Incorrect?
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1255 days
Last activity: 21 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#14 Posted on
The Senate was always supposed to be the branch of government where individual states had their voice. I think a lot of people's vision of what the United States was intended to be by the founders is clouded by what it has become. It was always supposed to be very similar to the United Nations, just a little more centralized. The House of Representatives was the forum of the people, where membership was strictly determined by popular vote. The Senate was the forum of the States, where each State, regardless of population, recieved two votes. Then, of course, you have the Presidency, which is determined by the Electoral College, which is a neat blending of the two. Yes, it is supposed to be a government of the people, but each state was supposed to have representatives elected by the people, and that was where that power lied. The Senate was a form of "Two-tiered Representative Democracy" where people you elected would elect a representative at a higher level. The people at the State level still had the power to vote out a person who made a bad choice, so the common voter's position was not taken for granted.
States were supposed to be way more powerful than they are now. Really, the federal government was supposed to handle the debt, run the army, and that was about it. The Constitution was to establish an alliance that would allow freedom of trade, movement, and a common defense for each of the States. This whole idea of taking the State's vote away from the Senate selection process really was likely the death-nell of powerful individual States.
Really, if you make it so that everything is strictly popular vote, why the hell should Rhode Island, Vermont, Wyoming, or Montana even be in the United States? Their voices whould be totally drowned out by the Texas/New York/California vote, and the people who live there would really have votes that meant nothing. That is why I am both pro-electoral college, and pro giving the State Assembly's back their power for Senator.
And having lived in Nebraska for a number of years before moving to this Liberal-haven I exist in now- a one-chamber Assembly is not necessarily the best thing in the world. They STILL can't get anything done in Nebraska. There has been road construction (the very same project) going on on I-80 for like 10 years now... and they really have no accomplished much of anything. They just seem to close the road and- dig....

(edited by Pool-Boy on 24.12.02 1159)


My attempt at a webpage


You are DeadPool!


redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 418 days
Last activity: 418 days
#15 Posted on
Please don't insult the coupists, I mean the Founders, by comparing them in any way to the idiots in the UN. Remember this about Rhode Island, they wouldn't join the Union until 2 years into Washington's first term as President, much easier to make your own money and run your own scams than joining with 12 other states.



I want you to know, I agree with everything I've just said.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1255 days
Last activity: 21 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#16 Posted on

    Originally posted by redsoxnation
    Please don't insult the coupists, I mean the Founders, by comparing them in any way to the idiots in the UN. Remember this about Rhode Island, they wouldn't join the Union until 2 years into Washington's first term as President, much easier to make your own money and run your own scams than joining with 12 other states.

Hahaha... I was not comparing them specifically- just the general structure :).
Yeah, that was one hell of a coup...



My attempt at a webpage


You are DeadPool!


TheCow
Landjager








Since: 3.1.02
From: Knoxville, TN

Since last post: 2389 days
Last activity: 2388 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#17 Posted on
Hmmmm...

I've always been of the belief that the Great Depression / New Deal-era was the time when states truly became dependant on the federal government for subsistence. (Maybe I'm also thinking of the Great Society...) Either way, I'm not entirely sure that I see how throwing the Senate vote back to a representative system would help to clear up much of anything. At this point, the states really lack enough power (having fallen subservient to the federal gov't) for their appointments to really mean anything more than what they are now.

Maybe this is also because I'm slightly jaded about my State Assembly's ability to handle its only state constituional duty (creating a budget - state shut down for 3 days in July this year because of that) that I just couldn't trust them appointing Senators. I understand your reasoning behind it, and although I once knew the reason behind changing the voting process on Senators (bulkiness jumped out at me, but I'm not sure why), it's slipped my mind now.







Which Neglected Mario Character Are You?

MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 3 days
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.02
Back in the day, maybe there was a reason for States to have equal representation. But today? For whatever reason, States don't really mean a whole lot anymore. This is not the 18th century. You don't have a three-day journey on hourseback to get to the nearest state. "States" are pretty damn irrelevant.

I will give that there are cultural and economic differences between different regions of the country. Maybe we should guarentee the Northeast, West Coast, Midwest, South, etc. some measure of minimum influence. But I just don't see the difference between, say, South Dakota and North Dakota. Or Rhode Island and Connecticut. Or Nebraska dn Kansas. On the other hand, there is alot of difference between New York City and Upstate. And the New York suburbs have more in common with the Jersey suburbs than either the city OR the State.

My point is that today, State boundaries are pretty much arbitrary. They should either be reconfigured (THAT would be a fun political battle to watch), and updated periodically (like House Districts), or sone away with.

Maybe I'm pissy because Big States and Urban centers always get screwed because of the Senate and the way States' boundaries are drawn.




It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Aphrodite, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Spider-Man, and Boston.
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 22.4.02
From: Long Island

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#19 Posted on

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    I will give that there are cultural and economic differences between different regions of the country. Maybe we should guarentee the Northeast, West Coast, Midwest, South, etc. some measure of minimum influence. But I just don't see the difference between, say, South Dakota and North Dakota. Or Rhode Island and Connecticut.


We don't have meaningful counties, and Rhode Island does?

Although I will give you this: If you want to redraw states, New York can have Fairfield County. That's where all the rich bastards are.



Today's Out-Of-Context Quote, Courtesy of Punkinhead:

"I'm gonna go dig up a date!"
Pages: 1Thread ahead: Why are people so stupid?
Next thread: FBI seeks 5 men in U.S. illegally
Previous thread: Free Health care BS
(2355 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Im starting to wonder why I live here. California Fjords This state is so screwed up from the governor down it is not even funny anymore...
The W - Current Events & Politics - This is getting stupid nowRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.143 seconds.