General political discussion

[Huber.]

An 18 year old Panamanian named Sheryl?

 

[czvo]

In the midst of highly publicized steps to dismantle insurance coverage for 32 million people and defund women’s healthcare facilities, Republican lawmakers have quietly laid the foundation to give away Americans’ birthright: 640m acres of national land. In a single line of changes to the rules for the House of Representatives, Republicans have overwritten the value of federal lands, easing the path to disposing of federal property even if doing so loses money for the government and provides no demonstrable compensation to American citizens.

At stake are areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Forests and Federal Wildlife Refuges, which contribute to an estimated $646bn each year in economic stimulus from recreation on public lands and 6.1m jobs. Transferring these lands to the states, critics fear, could decimate those numbers by eliminating mixed-use requirements, limiting public access and turning over large portions for energy or property development.

In addition to economic stimulus from outdoor activities, federal land creates revenue through oil and gas production, logging and other industrial uses. According to the BLM, in 2016, it made $2bn in royalty revenue from federal leases. The Outdoor Industry Association estimates federal tax revenue from the recreation economy at almost $40bn.

Ignoring those figures, the new language for the House budget, authored by Utah Republican representative Rob Bishop, who has a history of fighting to transfer public land to the states, says that federal land is effectively worthless. Transferring public land to “state, local government or tribal entity shall not be considered as providing new budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory spending or increasing outlays.”

Essentially, the revised budget rules deny that federal land has any value at all, allowing the new Congress to sidestep requirements that a bill giving away a piece of federal land does not decrease federal revenue or contribute to the federal debt.

Republican eagerness to cede federal land to local governments for possible sale, mining or development is already moving states to act. Western states, where most federal land is concentrated, are already introducing legislation that pave the way for land transfers.

In Wyoming, for example, the 2017 senate has introduced a joint resolution that would amend the state constitution to dictate how public land given to the state by the federal government after 2019 is managed. It has little public support, but Wyoming Senate President Eli Bebout said that he thought the state should be preemptively thinking about what it would do with federal land.

The Congressional devaluation of national property is the most far-reaching legislative change in a recent push to transfer federal lands to the states. Because of the Republican majority in Congress, bills proposing land transfers could now swiftly diminish Forest Service and BLM lands across the country.

“We didn’t see it coming. I think it was sneaky and underhanded. It exemplifies an effort to not play by the rules,” said Alan Rowsome, senior director of government relations at The Wilderness Society. “This is the worst Congress for public lands ever.”

Rowsome said he’s not exactly sure how the rule will be used, but he thinks the first places to come under attack might include areas adjacent to the majestic Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona and Minnesota’s Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Those areas hold uranium and copper, respectively.

Rowsome said he’s worried that sensitive tracts of public land, like the oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, could soon be up for sale. Some 60% percent of Alaska is made up of national land, and the state’s representatives have tried to pass laws claiming parts of it for state use as recently as 2015. “It’s amazing ecosystem and worthy of protection, and it’s very likely that House Republican majority will open that up for drilling,” Rowsome said.
Giving away national land has been part of the Republican Party platform since the mid-80s, after Reagan declared himself a Sagebrush Rebel, but it’s regained steam in the past few years as 20 states have introduced some form of legislation suggesting that federal property be given to local governments.

In 2015, Bishop and fellow Utah representative Chris Stewart formed the Federal Land Action Group, a congressional team with the specific intent to come up with a framework for transferring public land. “Washington bureaucrats don’t listen to people,” Bishop said in a statement. “Local governments do.”

But Rowsome argues that’s a populist message without any popular support, pushed by a small faction of legislators with support from industries like mining and energy. Despite the Republican message that Washington has overstepped in designating national parks and monuments, a 2016 study found that 95% of the American public believes that National Parks are worth protecting and 80% said they’d be willing to pay higher taxes to do so.

“Western Republicans that are perpetuating the idea are very well funded by the oil and gas industry during their campaign,” Rowsome said. “It’s special interests wielding power for an agenda that will advance their goal. Nearly 90% of BLM lands are already open, but they can’t stop trying to get more.”

A 2016 Colorado College survey of seven western states found that 60% of voters rejected both the sale of public lands to states and giving states control without sale.

In 2012, Arizona voters struck down two pieces of legislation that would have turned over federal land to the state, including one that claimed the Grand Canyon as state land.

Opponents fear that local governments, especially in states with small budgets, won’t be able to invest in management and will sell off land to make money. Last summer, the Forest Service was spending $240m a week to suppress wildfires, and the Department of Interior estimates the cost of deferred maintenance, like updating roads, at around $11bn.

In December, Wyoming Governor Matt Mead said that transferring public land to his state was legally and financially impractical. He cited firefighting costs on public land as something that the state budget wouldn’t have room for.

Historically, when federal lands have been transferred to states, they have become less accessible. Idaho sold off almost 100,000 acres of its public land between 2000 and 2009. In Colorado, access has been limited the public can only use 20% of state trust land for hunting and fishing.


John Gale, conservation director for the advocacy group Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, said that he’s worried about access for sportsmen. He believes that there’s a further danger in segmenting ecosystems through state-by-state development.

“70% of the headwaters of our streams and rivers in the West are on public lands,” he said. “Rivers and migratory corridors don’t follow state boundaries.”

The incoming administration hasn’t been clear about where it falls on transfers. Montana Congressman Ryan Zinke, tapped to be the next Secretary of Interior, voted for the rules package, but in the past he’s been against land transfers. President-elect Donald Trump has spoken out against reallocating federal land, but he’s also met with prominent pro-land transfer groups.

Nevertheless, bills proposing land transfer will now have an easy route to passage, as they won’t need to be backed by any financial justification.

The entire rules package passed on party lines, but it runs counter to legislation that passed both the House and Senate in November, the Outdoor Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act of 2016. Signed into law in December, the legislation requires the Department of Commerce to count the over half a trillion dollars from the outdoor recreation economy in the country’s GDP for the first time.

“It’s not just natural resources that are on the auction block, but jobs,” said Gale. “For a party that prides itself on being fiscally conservative ... they’re talking out of both sides of their mouth.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/19/bureau-land-management-federal-lease

 

[AZ_]

This doesn't seem very democratic, can someone please explain to me why this type of legislation should be adopted?

View: https://twitter.com/politicswolf/status/824299437371588612

 

[Tornicade]

This doesn't seem very democratic, can someone please explain to me why this type of legislation should be adopted?

View: https://twitter.com/politicswolf/status/824299437371588612

How is not democratic? there gerrymandering is just a short term issues as gerrymandering is being reduced significantly just like in ohio.

Why should a city have so much say over a town, how democratic would it be for Columbus to speak for Springfield or Dayton because they have more people.

Geographical representation is just as democratic as important as individual representation.

In terms of a National election population density shouldn't determine where all that states votes go

not only that getting away fromt he winner take all system allows for multiple parties and creates an environment where a transition to proportional representation in the government could be possible. which as of now would be impossible to implement .

 

[gourimoko]

Geographical representation is just as democratic as important as individual representation.

How? People have equal rights to representation based on citizenship and personhood, not parcels of land.

While I agree that districting helps when forming a republic; I wouldn't equate individual voting rights with the right of states to partition districts as they see fit, or apportion delegates along that basis for political ends.

 

[Tornicade]

How? People have equal rights to representation based on citizenship and personhood, not parcels of land.

While I agree that districting helps when forming a republic; I wouldn't equate individual voting rights with the right of states to partition districts as they see fit, or apportion delegates along that basis for political ends.

Do They?

I can ride my back on the sidewalk in one city and get a ticket for it in another? how is that equal?

I can live in the same house with the same value.. have my property annexed by another county... and am I equally paying the same taxes? no not at all. paying taxes that I couldn't even for cause I didn't live in that county at the time.


What about owning car? I can freely move where I want to and pay the same insurance right? no. I can move across the block and pay lower or higher insurance if its a different zip code


As soon as the everyone is under the same rules, the same laws the same everything all across the nation then people have different vested interested and should be represented accordingly by those interest.


oh but Torn torn those are local laws that's not national.. well does Des Moine Iowa get the same amount of funds as the people of Knoxville Tennessee. no they do not. so until federal funding is equal and proportionate among its citizens then maybe people are equally represented by individual vote.


300 people in a condo building are gonna have far different interest and needs than 50 people living in a farm or that own land.

the 20 million people in boomtown are gonna have drastically different needs and views of those 5 million people in layoffville.


There is a reason why we have a seanate where each state regardless of size sends two representatives to the senate. . It is the United Stated not the one state of America and each of those states are divided into counties and so forth.

Congress is made up of two part as a balance and The President of the people should have motivation to represent all of those people . not just the regions that happen to have the most people.

 

[gourimoko]

Do They?

I can ride my back on the sidewalk in one city and get a ticket for it in another? how is that equal?

I can live in the same house with the same value.. have my property annexed by another county... and am I equally paying the same taxes? no not at all. paying taxes that I couldn't even for cause I didn't live in that county at the time.


What about owning car? I can freely move where I want to and pay the same insurance right? no. I can move across the block and pay lower or higher insurance if its a different zip code

If you move across the block and become a voter in another district, you have representation in that district. Your arguments here are non sequitur arguments in that they really have nothing to do with the concept of equal representation; i.e., one man, one vote.

As soon as the everyone is under the same rules, the same laws the same everything all across the nation then people have different vested interested and should be represented accordingly by those interest.


oh but Torn torn those are local laws that's not national.. well does Des Moine Iowa get the same amount of funds as the people of Knoxville Tennessee. no they do not. so until federal funding is equal and proportionate among its citizens then maybe people are equally represented by individual vote.


300 people in a condo building are gonna have far different interest and needs than 50 people living in a farm or that own land.

The 50 people on the farm should not have a greater voice simply because of their smaller number and share of the population. You've provided no reason for them to other than to point out where they live.

the 20 million people in boomtown are gonna have drastically different needs and views of those 5 million people in layoffville.

Which is great, and both should have representation in Congress; which they would.

There is a reason why we have a seanate where each state regardless of size sends two representatives to the senate. . It is the United Stated not the one state of America and each of those states are divided into counties and so forth.

Congress is made up of two part as a balance and The President of the people should have motivation to represent all of those people . not just the regions that happen to have the most people.

The historic reason we have a bicameral Congress is to restrict and mitigate the democratic power of the American people as well as give power to the individual state governments.

The Senate was not popularly elected until the ratification of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. Moreover, the Senate elections are just that, statewide popular elections. Moreover, state assemblies are governed, largely, by representative districts giving the largest regions the most votes; proportional to their populations.

I don't think your argument here makes much sense. Essentially, you're arguing that the fewer people that live in your area of the country, the louder your voice should be heard; even to the detriment of others. And nowhere do you provide a rationale for this, or a reason we should accept such a normative argument.

Again, the fundamental principles of democracy rest on the idea that everyone, every man and woman, has equal representation under the law.

While districting in Congress can float around that, there is no need to move radically away from the notion that someone who lives in Cleveland has just as much of a say in Ohio matters as someone who lives in Cincinnati.

For some reason though, you tend to think that people who live in cities should have less representation than those that don't? I find that strange.

 

[Tornicade]

If you move across the block and become a voter in another district, you have representation in that district. Your arguments here are non sequitur arguments in that they really have nothing to do with the concept of equal representation; i.e., one man, one vote.



The 50 people on the farm should not have a greater voice simply because of their smaller number and share of the population. You've provided no reason for them to other than to point out where they live.



Which is great, and both should have representation in Congress; which they would.



The historic reason we have a bicameral Congress is to restrict and mitigate the democratic power of the American people as well as give power to the individual state governments.

The Senate was not popularly elected until the ratification of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. Moreover, the Senate elections are just that, statewide popular elections. Moreover, state assemblies are governed, largely, by representative districts giving the largest regions the most votes; proportional to their populations.

I don't think your argument here makes much sense. Essentially, you're arguing that the fewer people that live in your area of the country, the louder your voice should be heard; even to the detriment of others. And nowhere do you provide a rationale for this, or a reason we should accept such a normative argument.

Again, the fundamental principles of democracy rest on the idea that everyone, every man and woman, has equal representation under the law.

While districting in Congress can float around that, there is no need to move radically away from the notion that someone who lives in Cleveland has just as much of a say in Ohio matters as someone who lives in Cincinnati.

For some reason though, you tend to think that people who live in cities should have less representation than those that don't? I find that strange.

its funny your arguing to suppress the minority by not equalizing elections to ensure that peoples have a voice in national government regardless of their demographic.
and you say its not rationale.

Your principle is blind to practicality

It doesn't matter whether senators were elected into office or if a state senate selected to the,. what matters is that in the U.S government Each state was provided with equal representation in the senate regardless of size. Without the concept you have no United stated and 250 year later adapting any system where one demographic rules over the rest on the pure basis of population. once again you will no longer have a United States at some point.
The whole idea of the winner takes all setup of the electoral colleges was because states belived casting tll their votes for one candidate provided them leverage with the candidate. It certainly wasn't the intention of the initial electoral colleges.
That isn't the case under todays America.
It not rational for someone to refuse to acknowledge that some things that are important to someone in California might not be so important to someone in Iowa and vice versa.

Currently 10 states make up over 50 percent of the population

the top 20 cities in the states account for 37 percent of the population.

Only 4 states have a higher population than the city of Los Angeles

only 2 states have a higher population than New York,


10 states make up well over 50% of the GNP. the top three states make up 33%


Ultimately around 60 elections only 5 times has a president lost the popular vote.

This supports that Presidential candidates. establish platforms that appeal to the majority of the population.

right now the Electoral college is broken for todays society and the popular vote plan bill in my opinion is unconstitutional because if it reaches 160 it tells States how to handle their elections that didn't vote for it.

An Electoral college though set up to have electors that represent the people they are voting for opens the door for third party candidates and increases the likelihood that candidates build platforms that appeal to multiple demographics.

 

[gourimoko]

its funny your arguing to suppress the minority

Stop.

What minority?

I'm not arguing to suppress anyone's vote.

by not equalizing elections to ensure that peoples have a voice in national government regardless of their demographic.

"equalizing" the election in your terms means changing the value of one person's vote to be greater than another's; you realize that right?

and you say its not rationale.

No, I didn't say it's not rational, I said you have not provided a rationale for me to accept your normative argument.

Your principle is blind to practicality

'One man, one vote' is my principle?

It doesn't matter whether senators were elected into office or if a state senate selected to the,. what matters is that in the U.S government Each state was provided with equal representation in the senate regardless of size. Without the concept you have no United stated and 250 year later adapting any system where one demographic rules over the rest on the pure basis of population.

Your original argument spoke of the bicameral representation in Congress; I wanted to point out that you were confused since the Framers didn't intend for Americans to directly elect the Senate, and the electoral college provides only an indirect means of electing the President.

My argument is that this system is imperfect and outmoded for the reasons I've specified.

once again you will no longer have a United States at some point.

That's unlikely.

The whole idea of the winner takes all setup of the electoral colleges was because states belived casting tll their votes for one candidate provided them leverage with the candidate. It certainly wasn't the intention of the initial electoral colleges.
That isn't the case under todays America.
It not rational for someone to refuse to acknowledge that some things that are important to someone in California might not be so important to someone in Iowa and vice versa.

Currently 10 states make up over 50 percent of the population

the top 20 cities in the states account for 37 percent of the population.

Only 4 states have a higher population than the city of Los Angeles

only 2 states have a higher population than New York,


10 states make up well over 50% of the GNP. the top three states make up 33%


Ultimately around 60 elections only 5 times has a president lost the popular vote.

This supports that Presidential candidates. establish platforms that appeal to the majority of the population.

right now the Electoral college is broken for todays society and the popular vote plan bill in my opinion is unconstitutional because if it reaches 160 it tells States how to handle their elections that didn't vote for it.

An Electoral college though set up to have electors that represent the people they are voting for opens the door for third party candidates and increases the likelihood that candidates build platforms that appeal to multiple demographics.

Right; and we've had this conversation before; and we never get to a point where you're ready to admit that you accept the obvious consequence that you think people in a rural area should have more say than people who live in cities.... Until you can simply answer that dilemma, concisely, I don't see how we can move the conversation forward.

Again, I'm putting to you the normative argument that every American should have an equal say with equal representation; you are arguing against that on the basis that these people have different values/needs. Well, everyone has different values/needs; that's a given, regardless of where they live, there isn't widespread consensus in highly populated states. Yet people who live in highly populated states get their votes diminished due to an antiquated voting system.

Again, all that I'm asking you for is a simple answer to the dilemma put forward: should someone in Iowa have more representation than someone in Texas?

 

[gigabyte056]

people in a rural area should have more say than people who live in cities

That's racist...

Again, all that I'm asking you for is a simple answer to the dilemma put forward: should someone in Iowa have more representation than someone in Texas?

Of Course, the one in Iowa votes the right way, the way the district was designed for, some districting is so ludicrous you can actually visualize them standing over a map and trying to bunch all the undesirables into one district for the purpose of "equal representation" and "one man, one vote, if he's white"

Maybe there is a menu of voting power,White = 1, Asian= 0.8, Black= 0.4 , Latino = you be illegal person, go away, come back do lawn tomorrow.

 

[Tornicade]

That's racist...

Of Course, the one in Iowa votes the right way, the way the district was designed for, some districting is so ludicrous you can actually visualize them standing over a map and trying to bunch all the undesirables into one district for the purpose of "equal representation" and "one man, one vote, if he's white"

Maybe there is a menu of voting power,White = 1, Asian= 0.8, Black= 0.4 , Latino = you be illegal person, go away, come back do lawn tomorrow.

There are demographics that don't involve race and America can vote beyond Skin color.
Iowa voted for Obama in both Elections with 90.75% white population.

 

[gigabyte056]

There are demographics that don't involve race and America can vote beyond Skin color.
Iowa voted for Obama in both Elections with 90.75% white population.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/20/magazine/donald-trumps-america-iowa-race.html?_r=0

 

[Tornicade]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/20/magazine/donald-trumps-america-iowa-race.html?_r=0

and? is your conclusion all states that voted for Trump are racist even the ones that voted twice for Obama?

Once again nothing he refutes that Iowa voted twice for Obama... a Black candidate for president.


Hispanics have passed blacks as the largest minority population and while some may view anti immigration poilitics as racist.

Latinos have doubled in population over the last 25 yearn primarily due to immigration. America historically has tightened up immigration controls when massive amounts of immigrants arrive of one ethnicity regardless of the ethnicity.
Massive Irish immigration then massic german immigration were all met with resistance of some level when they occurred.

Blacks, Hispanic and Asians as well have large population that are not in the top 10 populous states their vote gets drowned out also gets lost under the current electoral system and a potential popular vote electoral system which has no regard for non racial demographics across the nation

 

[David.]

and? is your conclusion all states that voted for Trump are racist even the ones that voted twice for Obama?

Once again nothing he refutes that Iowa voted twice for Obama... a Black candidate for president.


Hispanics have passed blacks as the largest minority population and while some may view anti immigration poilitics as racist.

Latinos have doubled in population over the last 25 yearn primarily due to immigration. America historically has tightened up immigration controls when massive amounts of immigrants arrive of one ethnicity regardless of the ethnicity.
Massive Irish immigration then massic german immigration were all met with resistance of some level when they occurred.

Blacks, Hispanic and Asians as well have large population that are not in the top 10 populous states their vote gets drowned out also gets lost under the current electoral system and a potential popular vote electoral system which has no regard for non racial demographics across the nation

Everything is racist tornicade.

 

[Tornicade]

Everything is racist tornicade.

your only saying that cause your ___fill in ethnicity/race here___