Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill • Hacker News Board

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#221

Post by bloppe » Thu, Nov 13, 2025, 7:52 PM UTC

eszed wrote: post #196

bloppe wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alaska is effectively a one-party state. At the federal level, you almost always need compromise to clear a filibuster, and it's easier to find compromise if you can draw on more subjects. Maybe the Democrats get cheaper health care while the Republicans get a giant bust of Trump installed on the former site of the Lincoln memorial. Neither measure would pass in isolation, but together they might.

So they could agree to pass two bills. This would require the two "sides" to trust each other, but it could (ideally would) also function to build trust, which would be a good thing.

Assuming there was enough trust to "guarantee" that one bill would pass right after the other, then what's the point of having the single subject rule in the first place? Sounds like you still have riders but with extra steps (and an opportunity to betray trust).

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#222

Post by cameron_b » Thu, Nov 13, 2025, 7:52 PM UTC

Y-bar wrote: post #140

danudey wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal isn't about guaranteeing that all states have X number of votes; the house and the senate vote separately on things. For a bill to pass the house and the senate requires: 1. A majority vote by the house whose members are allocated by population and therefore (ostensibly) represent the general population 2. A majority vote by the senate whose members are allocated by state and therefore (ostensibly) represent…

> The distinction I think that most people from outside of the US probably don't fully understand is that, unlike in a lot of countries, each state is its own economy, government, politics, etc. rather than one sort of unified government that covers the whole country. This is exactly how I see how my country and EU works. I feel like this is something I am intimately familiar with. > Thus comes the senate, where a ma…

Before 1913, State's legislatures would elect their US Senators. Since 1913, Senators are directly elected but to longer terms than their peers in the House, as a way to make them less beholden to the whims of the zeitgeist and more stable in their consideration of "what serves the state" in that they do not face elections immediately and the results of their work are meant to be evaluated over a longer period. -- this is the intent, reality may bear out differently

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#223

Post by par1970 » Thu, Nov 13, 2025, 7:52 PM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #4

The Senate is fundamentally a ridiculous way of representing 350 million people and we’re going to continue to get absurd unrepresentative outcomes for as long as it remains a relevant body. There’s no getting around this and it will structurally just get worse and worse. Simply no way something like it exists 200 years from now, it is probably the biggest flaw in the US political structure right now.

Are you arguing this?

(Premise 1) If a country has 350 million people, then the Senate will produce unrepresentative outcomes.

(Premise 2) America has 350 million people.

(Conclusion 1) So, the Senate will produce unrepresentative outcomes in America.

(Conclusion 2) So, the Senate is bad for America.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#224

Post by missingcolours » Thu, Nov 13, 2025, 7:52 PM UTC

adamors wrote: post #63

khuey wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What actually happened is that a group of squishy Democrats and Angus King didn't actually want the filibuster nuked so when they realized Republicans weren't going to extend the ACA subsidies they called the whole thing off without even reading the bill they were going to pass. The hemp ban isn't even the shadiest part, the self-dealing of allowing certain Senators who were connected to a putsch to loot the treasury…

The fact that all 8 are either retiring or not facing reelection in 2026 means that this was probably orchestrated by the minority leadership. It’s exactly 8 senators, safe seats, no comments from Schumer. There is no coup.

This is what always happened with Republican shutdowns too.

- You get nothing

- Eventually everyone understands they're going to get nothing, so they ask some sacrificial lambs to vote to end it while they posture and pretend they would have "kept fighting"

With Republicans this was called "RINOs" and "tea party" but it's the same thing now.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#225

Post by theoldgreybeard » Thu, Nov 13, 2025, 7:52 PM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #4

The Senate is fundamentally a ridiculous way of representing 350 million people and we’re going to continue to get absurd unrepresentative outcomes for as long as it remains a relevant body. There’s no getting around this and it will structurally just get worse and worse. Simply no way something like it exists 200 years from now, it is probably the biggest flaw in the US political structure right now.

Senators are supposed to be representatives of the State Legislatures, not The People - that's what the House of Representatives is for.

The 17th amendment was a huge mistake.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#226

Post by blackguardx » Thu, Nov 13, 2025, 7:53 PM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #107

giantg2 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are from a smaller state, you would think it would still make sense. Otherwise the rural concerns just get steamrolled by the urban concerns. The point still stands about trying to level out concerns between smaller and larger states, which is why it was created with years of debate and a majority even if it wasn't consensus.

I'm from an even smaller political entity than Wyoming, although we don't get any Senate representation at all. It would be beyond absurd to grant us equal voting power to California and obviously not a sustainable way of constructing a political system.

You say smaller political entity, but the city of Washington D.C has 100k more people than the entire state of Wyoming...

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#227

Post by theoldgreybeard » Thu, Nov 13, 2025, 7:53 PM UTC

dehrmann wrote: post #53

bavent wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having the house capped is also ridiculous. My rep is also the rep for 750k+ other people. One person cannot represent a district that size appropriately at a federal level. They also cannot really respond to constituents properly either when they have that many.

But 5,000 representatives can't run a country, either.

The federal government isn't supposed to "run the country".

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#228

Post by nxor » Thu, Nov 13, 2025, 7:54 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #89

whimsicalism wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You need something that essentially represents each whole state as a unit. You can have a group of people that represent each state as a unit. Political power should absolutely be proportional to population represented though.

"Political power should absolutely be proportional to population represented though." That's your opinion. The opinion of people in Wyoming is likely different. What the facts would show if you look into the history of why the Senate was necessary, it would show that smaller states wouldn't have joined, and would be justified in leaving. The real problem is that the scope of decisions at the federal level has gotten…

I interacted with someone from Wyoming once. She made this point: Wyoming has a lot of Native Americans, and it struck her as contradictory when people would say "native Americans are underrepresented" alongside "Wyomingites are overrepresented." Of course there's nuance but it was interesting in any case.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#229

Post by tastyfreeze » Thu, Nov 13, 2025, 7:54 PM UTC

bloppe wrote: post #189

tastyfreeze wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Single subject bill amendment. Several states require single subject bills in State legislature. The same must be required at the federal level. The pushback has always been "then nothing will get done". From where I am standing that would be a good thing. No more sneaking shit in at the last minute. Vote on every single issue. People will still try to sneak stuff in. I remember seeing a video of a Minnesota legislat…

Alaska is effectively a one-party state. At the federal level, you almost always need compromise to clear a filibuster, and it's easier to find compromise if you can draw on more subjects. Maybe the Democrats get cheaper health care while the Republicans get a giant bust of Trump installed on the former site of the Lincoln memorial. Neither measure would pass in isolation, but together they might.

You say that like everybody that is in one party agrees on everything. That is absolutely false.

It is also an inaccurate portrayal of Alaska state politics. While historically the State Legislature has been majority republican it has been more even since 2015ish. Which is coincidentally when weed was made legal.

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

How we vote in federal elections has more to do with Republicans in general being more aligned with the majority interests in Alaska.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#230

Post by hamdingers » Thu, Nov 13, 2025, 7:54 PM UTC

dangus wrote: post #56

mullingitover wrote: post #10

[flagged]

8 individual Democrats. Don’t lump in the rest who held the line. You are “both sides”ing this when the GOP is the only side that worked tirelessly to end healthcare subsidies and allow America’s poorest to go hungry.

8 democrats who don't care about reelection right now, who were up for a turn as the rotating villain.