• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

McConnell files an interesting brief and I like it.

How come?
 
What creeps me out is how easy it is for businesses to essentially write the rules for their industries. I own a government contracting company and it's terrifying how the government gets screwed because politicians are eager to use their authority in the interest of what are effectively their private clients instead of the public.

Case in point is the design of woodworking saws. Lumber companies usually mill logs using giant circular saws with an average of a one inch kerf. Hand lumber milling saws use a one sixteenth inch kerf. That means that hand lumber milling produces about half again as much lumber per log as Big Timber gets out of that same log. Also, why is it that the design of saws has come to a screeching halt since about 1903?

The truth is that better technology exists, but those in American government who are trying to replace the Constitution with a king want to punish people for making tangible products. If nobody understands how a person's work is useful, we will all lose respect for each other. It all goes downhill from there.

Yet for some unknown reason (follow the money) the feds give big tax breaks to lumber companies for using massively inefficient equipment and finding creative names for glued-up sawdust.
 
Last edited:
If I was more confident in how the government handles its own cybersecurity, I would suggest being able to vote online. With today's technology, you don't need to be -in- the building to conduct normal business. It's great for optics, and it would be a pain in the butt for C-SPAN to cover, don't get me wrong, and would lead to less transparency than now.

However, since the statements about Hillary's email server, both for and against, I'm not sure much has changed in Congress that shows me they know anything about cybersecurity. For instance, I seem to remember some comment about how if the server was under physical security, it couldn't be hacked. Then there was prior to Hillary's scandal, which was Ted Stevens' "the internet is a series of tubes." To paraphrase Buzz Lightyear, "I don't believe Congress has ever attended IT School."

While the executive branch definitely does show signs of learning on the job, remember this is the same executive branch/Department of Justice that at one point said that backdoors should be in every application ever. If Congress/the Executive Branch ever shows knowledge about cybersecurity, this would be a valid method to explore. But right now, Congress casting votes online should be strictly prohibited.
 
If a Representative or a Senator can't bother to show up and vote, they have no business being in Congress.
I think that all depends on the circumstances
 
In general, the more options for voting the better. But I know I'm getting screwed in some fashion if I'm on the same side as McTurtle.
 
Legislators have an implicit legal obligation to show up and vote. If they can't do that, they are abstaining, period.
Agree! Congress is supposed to be a collaborative effort; working together to reach an understanding of the issue and the electorate, coming to agreement, compromising, starting over, if needed, offering something new. In person is the best way to conduct the nations business. And for those new at the job, in person is the best way to learn those skills. Doing thing electronically allows each person ignore others and remain in a bubble of one's own position. That's no way to run a country.

Mitch the Lich insisted on personal presence in the past no matter how sick the person was. He can just get his sorry ass into Congress if he wants his vote to count.
 
If a Representative or a Senator can't bother to show up and vote, they have no business being in Congress.

Interesting. So your opinion is that if a representative or a senator has some kind of personal issue or crisis that prevents them from showing up one a vote day, all the people they represent should lose their voice?

Did you think this one through, or is this just partisan knee jerk?
 
I agree with ruling. A body of unelected proxies is not Congress.
 
Some people just want to prevent legislation from happening.
 
This one is the result of experience with parliamentary procedure in bad neighborhoods where it was us versus the charismatic personality cults and we had to make decisions quickly. There is such a thing as a quorum, but as a rule, if you are elected, you show up, or we decide without you.
 
Makes a lot of sense. Proxy voting could allow much more interaction from a representative’s own state so they dont need to live in DC