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

Sen. Joe Manchin says no to $2T bill: ‘I can’t vote for it’

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 108 posts

Re: Sen. Joe Manchin says no to $2T bill: ‘I can’t vote for it’

#91

Post by mocheeze »

maxerickson wrote: post #24
errcorrectcode wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gerrymandering is completely out of control. Mostly R's are locking-in their wins for the foreseeable future. I don't think it's a D/R thing in particular. He's completely corrupt by WV coal and other corporate interests paying him to be an insurgent DINO to do their bidding. Sinema is clearly a nutter and possibly corrupt too. The D's and R's also contain too many corrupt, plutocrat sycophants to name individually h…

Senate isn't gerrymandered.

No, it's worse. Some states have far-outsized voting power compared to others. Same as the electoral college.

Re: Sen. Joe Manchin says no to $2T bill: ‘I can’t vote for it’

#92

Post by mocheeze »

whythre wrote: post #51
syki wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not irrelevant if a majority consistently feel their will is ignored. It’s not irrelevant if it leads to widespread discontent. The system set up 250 years ago is no longer sustainable. It’s needs to be changed.

The only reason our nation exists is because of the agreements made between large and small states. Rhode Island was not interested in being completely politically eclipsed by New York, and rightly so. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. The system set up 250 years ago was and is a wonder. When you cry out for sweeping change you ignore what happens if the transformation is prosecuted badly. Most revolutions ar…

And the American revolution was rational and free of bloodshed? Or the Confederation's revolution?

Re: Sen. Joe Manchin says no to $2T bill: ‘I can’t vote for it’

#93

Post by senectus1 »

syki wrote: post #73
garmaine wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You made an automatic assumption that this bill is in the best interests of the masses. That may not be the case.

I made no such assumption. I don’t know anything about the bill and don’t care if it is in the best interests of the masses. I do care about the majority of the electorate having their votes count for something with regard to public policy (provided said policy does not violate Constitutional rights). It’s best to read what I wrote without trying to guess my feelings on things I’ve not talked about.

yeah I read it that way, I'm not sure why these two posters are twisting your words/intentions.

Re: Sen. Joe Manchin says no to $2T bill: ‘I can’t vote for it’

#94

Post by yucky »

syki wrote: post #3

Democratic senators represent 40 million more people than Republican senators and their agenda can't be passed. The last time Republican senators represented more than half the population was 1996. Rural, low population states have far too much power in the present system. This is not sustainable. I know Manchin is nominally a Democrat but it's not him that is blocking the legislation it is him and all 50 Republican…

Is it possible that the people those Senators (including Manchin) represent, aren't interested in a "New Deal" style bill that nobody fully understands?

Re: Sen. Joe Manchin says no to $2T bill: ‘I can’t vote for it’

#95

Post by kcplate »

syki wrote: post #3

Democratic senators represent 40 million more people than Republican senators and their agenda can't be passed. The last time Republican senators represented more than half the population was 1996. Rural, low population states have far too much power in the present system. This is not sustainable. I know Manchin is nominally a Democrat but it's not him that is blocking the legislation it is him and all 50 Republican…

> Democratic senators represent 40 million more people than Republican senators and their agenda can't be passed.

Sorry, but it needs to be said that this is a fundamental misunderstanding of who the senate represents. The senate represents the states, not the people. That is why there are only 2 per state. The house represents the people and is proportional to the population.

Re: Sen. Joe Manchin says no to $2T bill: ‘I can’t vote for it’

#96

Post by syki »

kcplate wrote: post #95
syki wrote: post #3

Democratic senators represent 40 million more people than Republican senators and their agenda can't be passed. The last time Republican senators represented more than half the population was 1996. Rural, low population states have far too much power in the present system. This is not sustainable. I know Manchin is nominally a Democrat but it's not him that is blocking the legislation it is him and all 50 Republican…

> Democratic senators represent 40 million more people than Republican senators and their agenda can't be passed. Sorry, but it needs to be said that this is a fundamental misunderstanding of who the senate represents. The senate represents the states, not the people. That is why there are only 2 per state. The house represents the people and is proportional to the population.

There is no misunderstanding on my part. I’m pointing out why I think the current system is not sustainable. I’m complaining about the setup of the current system. Since the abandonment of state legislatures appointing senators I think it’s common to say senators represent the people of the state that elected them.

The House is not proportional to population since each state gets one member of the House regardless of population size. One Representative from California represents around 745,000 people and this number is greater than the population of 6 states.

Re: Sen. Joe Manchin says no to $2T bill: ‘I can’t vote for it’

#97

Post by kcplate »

syki wrote: post #96
kcplate wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Democratic senators represent 40 million more people than Republican senators and their agenda can't be passed. Sorry, but it needs to be said that this is a fundamental misunderstanding of who the senate represents. The senate represents the states, not the people. That is why there are only 2 per state. The house represents the people and is proportional to the population.

There is no misunderstanding on my part. I’m pointing out why I think the current system is not sustainable. I’m complaining about the setup of the current system. Since the abandonment of state legislatures appointing senators I think it’s common to say senators represent the people of the state that elected them. The House is not proportional to population since each state gets one member of the House regardless of…

They may be elected by the people in their state (which is simply the way the states have chosen to appoint them), but they still represent the state.

Re: Sen. Joe Manchin says no to $2T bill: ‘I can’t vote for it’

#98

Post by syki »

kcplate wrote: post #97
syki wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no misunderstanding on my part. I’m pointing out why I think the current system is not sustainable. I’m complaining about the setup of the current system. Since the abandonment of state legislatures appointing senators I think it’s common to say senators represent the people of the state that elected them. The House is not proportional to population since each state gets one member of the House regardless of…

They may be elected by the people in their state (which is simply the way the states have chosen to appoint them), but they still represent the state.

Do you know of any other elected officials who are elected by popular vote who are said to not represent the people that elected them? At any rate, let’s not quibble on this minor semantic issue and ignore what was wrong with your original post. Also, the Constitution dictates how senators are elected. The states themselves have no choice in this matter. See the 17th Amendment.

Re: Sen. Joe Manchin says no to $2T bill: ‘I can’t vote for it’

#99

Post by garmaine »

senectus1 wrote: post #93
syki wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made no such assumption. I don’t know anything about the bill and don’t care if it is in the best interests of the masses. I do care about the majority of the electorate having their votes count for something with regard to public policy (provided said policy does not violate Constitutional rights). It’s best to read what I wrote without trying to guess my feelings on things I’ve not talked about.

yeah I read it that way, I'm not sure why these two posters are twisting your words/intentions.

It’s a fair interpretation. A representative’s job is to represent his constituents, not to pass bills on party lines written by oligarchs. The allocation of R/D senators doesn’t factor into this. “What is best for the people of West Virginia?” is the only question he should be considering.

Re: Sen. Joe Manchin says no to $2T bill: ‘I can’t vote for it’

#100

Post by pandaman »

syki wrote: post #3

Democratic senators represent 40 million more people than Republican senators and their agenda can't be passed. The last time Republican senators represented more than half the population was 1996. Rural, low population states have far too much power in the present system. This is not sustainable. I know Manchin is nominally a Democrat but it's not him that is blocking the legislation it is him and all 50 Republican…

This would be a tragedy if the majority of people wanted some laws for themselves but were held back by the minority from implementing them. Luckily, this is not the case in the US, which is a federation: if the majority of e.g. Californians want some laws for themselves then they can just make them the laws of California. The consequences of that is that if e.g. Texans want some laws for California then they need to convince the majority of the states too, which is not easy and that is by design.
Post reply on HN