Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A congressman who justifies every vote on Facebook

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 92 posts

Re: A congressman who justifies every vote on Facebook

#71

Post by ryanaghdam »

_delirium wrote: post #17
ryanaghdam wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What isn't "redeeming" about not wanting the government to bother people?

I read the parent comment as being about the social parts of his views, which don't really seem to be about the government refraining from bothering people. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and life as beginning at conception, are both pretty significant (attempted) exercises of the state using its authority to resolve ethical disputes.

This was previously on amashforcongress.com; I found it searching for his views on this issue.

"I believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage, and I oppose government efforts to redefine this private, religious institution."

This seems like a safe way of him saying that the government should not have any say in what constitutes a marriage, but that he is personally against it. There's nothing wrong with disliking something, but not wanting to force your will onto others.

Re: A congressman who justifies every vote on Facebook

#72

Post by ryanaghdam »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #25
ryanaghdam wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What isn't "redeeming" about not wanting the government to bother people?

You say that as if any Tea Party candidate has actually espoused anything that truly constitutes limited government. _delirium more or less summed it up. Why don't you actually read his Wikipedia page to see what I'm talking about instead of repeating really boring quips. You'll note my comment implies that I like actual libertarianism and just not the crap that the Tea Partiers go around calling libertarianism.

Why don't you read more than just his Wikipedia page?

Do you really like actual libertarianism? You know, judging people in categorized groups instead of as individuals isn't very libertarian of you.

Re: A congressman who justifies every vote on Facebook

#74

Post by ryanaghdam »

mieses wrote: post #56
illuminate wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Tea Party has nothing to do with civil libertarianism.

true. the tea party movement started on good principles, attracted the right wing rabble, and became the punching bag for left wing morons.

I think it split into two parts when some intelligent people were talking about the dangers of Keynesianism and some idiots thought they were talking about Kenyans.

Re: A congressman who justifies every vote on Facebook

#75

Post by crusso »

fatkid wrote: post #65
ruswick wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does his attempt at transparency, even though you doubt its earnestness, make him crazy? Most politicians give no justification at all, or only offer totally vacuous platitudes and other bullshit. 100-200 words of justification that you don't agree with/ doubt is still preferable to silence or some 5 minute interview on Meet the Press rife with passive-agressive rhetoric and demagogical nonsense.

where do i say his attempt at transparency is what makes him crazy? I actually think, distortion and all, it's a start. That said, you look through his voting history and talk w/ people on capitol hill, this guy is off his rocker...

and talk w/ people on capitol hill

Yeah, because those people are completely outside of a bubble and worth trusting. Really? You give a rat's ass about what the average "inside the Beltway" person has to say? They're the cause of most of our government problems, why would you trust anyone in DC who isn't swimming in the opposite direction?

I just read through a few pages of the explanations for his votes and I have read large portions of the discussed bills. Amash is being very thoughtful and responsible with the duties of his office in a way that very few in DC care to emulate.

this guy is off his rocker

You've offered no reason to believe that.

Re: A congressman who justifies every vote on Facebook

#76

Post by _delirium »

ryanaghdam wrote: post #71
_delirium wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the parent comment as being about the social parts of his views, which don't really seem to be about the government refraining from bothering people. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and life as beginning at conception, are both pretty significant (attempted) exercises of the state using its authority to resolve ethical disputes.

This was previously on amashforcongress.com; I found it searching for his views on this issue. "I believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage, and I oppose government efforts to redefine this private, religious institution." This seems like a safe way of him saying that the government should not have any say in what constitutes a marriage, but that he is personally against it. There's nothing wrong with disliking…

If that were actually his legislative agenda, that would be interesting. But I don't see him pushing that in terms of how he votes.

The government already does not interfere with the private, religious aspects of marriage. The Catholic Church can define marriage however it wants, and the state has no say in it, which is why you can't get a same-sex marriage in a Catholic church.

What's being debated is who should be recognized as married for official purposes (5th amendment rights, tax filing, survivor benefits, inheritance in the absence of a will, etc.). On that question, Amash supports the Defense Of Marriage Act, which says that the government should recognize only opposite-sex marriages, and not recognize same-sex marriages. If he opposed DOMA, and instead introduced legislation to abolish all government recognition of marriage, I'd give him kudos for that!

Re: A congressman who justifies every vote on Facebook

#77

Post by mapt »

newbie12 wrote: post #7
jbigelow76 wrote: post #5

I commend Rep Amash for his transparency, it's a refreshing change from politicians that do nothing besides talk in double speak and view being tied down to an actual point of view as a political liability. That being said, next time he comes up for election he'll probably get slaughtered in the primaries when a more extreme candidate portrays any pragmatism in the political process as an impurity that needs to be pu…

Rep. Amash is a Tea Party libertarian up for re-election every two years, had no primary challenger in 2012 and it is unlikely he'll be primary challenged next cycle either.

The electoral boundaries set based on who was in office in 2010 have a way of sticking around in most areas. I note that in 2012, Democrats won the sum total of House votes 48.8% to 48.5%, while the Republicans retain the House by a significant margin, 232-200 actual Congressmen. The Republicans invested heavily in winning state legislatures before this period, and are now reaping the rewards in gerrymandered districts.

Re: A congressman who justifies every vote on Facebook

#78

Post by joonix »

Afforess wrote: post #54
joonix wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pork is just a fact of life in Congress and is a rather negligible amount of spending. Refusing to govern because bills have pork/riders is negligent. He should resign.

That you think pork and hidden riders are acceptable is highly disturbing. Corruption should never be the norm. "Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one" -Nietzsche

Pork isn't corruption. It's not illegal. It's a part of the democratic process. It is in the bill and it's voted on. It sounds like your issue is with democracy itself, not with corruption.

Re: A congressman who justifies every vote on Facebook

#79

Post by ryanaghdam »

_delirium wrote: post #76
ryanaghdam wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was previously on amashforcongress.com; I found it searching for his views on this issue. "I believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage, and I oppose government efforts to redefine this private, religious institution." This seems like a safe way of him saying that the government should not have any say in what constitutes a marriage, but that he is personally against it. There's nothing wrong with disliking…

If that were actually his legislative agenda, that would be interesting. But I don't see him pushing that in terms of how he votes. The government already does not interfere with the private, religious aspects of marriage. The Catholic Church can define marriage however it wants, and the state has no say in it, which is why you can't get a same-sex marriage in a Catholic church. What's being debated is who should be…

"What's being debated is who should be recognized as married for official purposes"

It shouldn't make a difference whether or not someone is married... you know, equal protection under the law. The solution to things like survivor benefits and the others you mentioned (and you're right, Amash doesn't mention this solution) is to simply have private contracts that people decide upon themselves.

"If he opposed DOMA, and instead introduced legislation to abolish all government recognition of marriage, I'd give him kudos for that!"

Agreed.

Re: A congressman who justifies every vote on Facebook

#80

Post by drivebyacct2 »

ryanaghdam wrote: post #72
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say that as if any Tea Party candidate has actually espoused anything that truly constitutes limited government. _delirium more or less summed it up. Why don't you actually read his Wikipedia page to see what I'm talking about instead of repeating really boring quips. You'll note my comment implies that I like actual libertarianism and just not the crap that the Tea Partiers go around calling libertarianism.

Why don't you read more than just his Wikipedia page? Do you really like actual libertarianism? You know, judging people in categorized groups instead of as individuals isn't very libertarian of you.

>Why don't you read more than just his Wikipedia page?

Because reading it is enough to know that he doesn't fit the bill of a libertarian?

>Do you really like actual libertarianism?

Yes?

>judging people in categorized groups instead of as individuals isn't very libertarian of you.

Haha, what is your point? Make one instead of just trying to find something to argue about. Find me a Tea Party candidate that fits the actual definition of a libertarian and then we can talk.

Post reply on HN