Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul has been named one of the most corrupt members of Congress in a new report from the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
The report says Paul "double-billed" his travel expenses a number of times over the last decade, meaning he may have been reimbursed for the same flights both under his official allowance as congressman, and by either non-profit groups under his control or his campaign committee.
In the interview, Yenni refused to confirm or deny any content of the article besides admitting to the sexting, saying he didn’t want to rehash it “line by line.” He did say he “believed” a lot of the story was untrue. It’s unclear why knowing what he himself did or did not do is a matter of “belief.”
Louisiana’s age of consent is 17, though Yenni could be subject to a federal law prohibiting the use of a telecommunications device for “the transmission of any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or child pornography, knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of age,” WWLTV reported when the allegations first surfaced.
Married-with-children Oklahoma state senator and Trump campaign chair Ralph Shortey is under investigation after he was found in a motel room with an underage male.
Shortey, 35, has been in office long enough that he will get his state retirement.
There is a law that strips elected officials of their pension if convicted of a felony like bribery, corruption, or perjury, but it does not include prostitution with a minor.
Voters in New York state will decide this fall whether to allow a judge to strip or reduce the pensions of public officials convicted of corruption.
The question will appear on the November ballot as a proposed constitutional amendment.
...
Lawmakers passed a law in 2011 that allowed judges to revoke or reduce pensions of crooked lawmakers, but that law didn't apply to sitting lawmakers at the time. A constitutional amendment is needed to apply the pension forfeiture law to all lawmakers.
Montana law enforcement officials have charged GOP House candidate Greg Gianforte with misdemeanor assault following an alleged physical altercation with a reporter Wednesday evening, just hours before voters head to the polls.
Gianforte is expected to appear in court before June 7. He faces a maximum sentence of six months in jail, a $500 fine, or both
Shortey, 35, has been in office long enough that he will get his state retirement.
There is a law that strips elected officials of their pension if convicted of a felony like bribery, corruption, or perjury, but it does not include prostitution with a minor.
The way that was worded made me wonder for a second why a minor would pick up a politician in their 30's.
Montana law enforcement officials have charged GOP House candidate Greg Gianforte with misdemeanor assault following an alleged physical altercation with a reporter Wednesday evening, just hours before voters head to the polls.
Gianforte is expected to appear in court before June 7. He faces a maximum sentence of six months in jail, a $500 fine, or both
...And Gianforte won his election, probably due to most of the votes being in by mail before he assaulted Jacobs.
I guess three points here:
1) He should not be seated in the House. Had he done this while serving, he would surely be expected to resign.
2) He won the state by just 6%. (His predecessor won by 16%, and Trump won by 20%.)
3) Why the hell is Montana its own state? Just enough people for one representative, but two senators?
Supposed to help combat the tyranny of the majority. While California can curb stomp Montana in the House by sheer numbers, they're both only 2% each of the Senate.
Holman wrote:
3) Why the hell is Montana its own state? Just enough people for one representative, but two senators?
That's kinda the point of a 2-chamber Congress...reps are based on population but every state gets 2 senators.
Yeah, and it's bullshit. Under-populated rural states get so much more political power than heavily-populated states. A senator from Wyoming has something like 67 times the representational power than a senator from California. It's bananas.
Isgrimnur wrote:Supposed to help combat the tyranny of the majority. While California can curb stomp Montana in the House by sheer numbers, they're both only 2% each of the Senate.
I can see this to some degree, but in practice the tyranny of the minority is much more likely.
Political disenfranchisement leads to unrest and revolt. Start telling people in the flyover firewall that their votes and representation will never matter again, and you better hope Canada grants overflight for coast to coast travel.
Isgrimnur wrote:Political disenfranchisement leads to unrest and revolt.
Also, one could argue that it's the heavily populated states that are disenfranchised right now. When legislation that is highly popular with the public-- say background checks on guns-- gets blocked in the senate, it's often because the votes of senators representing tiny populations carry so much more representational weight.
Yeah, there's nothing politically "organic" about big empty western states. It's not like Wyoming and Nebraska had the histories and independent interests of a Virginia or a Massachusetts.
The Founders' logic was extended west mainly in order to kick the can of slavery down the road, and then to give fiefdoms to mineral and railroad companies.
Holman wrote:
3) Why the hell is Montana its own state? Just enough people for one representative, but two senators?
That's kinda the point of a 2-chamber Congress...reps are based on population but every state gets 2 senators.
Yeah, and it's bullshit. Under-populated rural states get so much more political power than heavily-populated states. A senator from Wyoming has something like 67 times the representational power than a senator from California. It's bananas.
I think the problem is the other way. It's time to break up the big population states. Although combining a few of the tiny ones wouldn't hurt.
Holman wrote:
3) Why the hell is Montana its own state? Just enough people for one representative, but two senators?
That's kinda the point of a 2-chamber Congress...reps are based on population but every state gets 2 senators.
Yeah, and it's bullshit. Under-populated rural states get so much more political power than heavily-populated states. A senator from Wyoming has something like 67 times the representational power than a senator from California. It's bananas.
And yet we are more held hostage to the insanity of the House of Reps. Go figure.
Holman wrote:
3) Why the hell is Montana its own state? Just enough people for one representative, but two senators?
That's kinda the point of a 2-chamber Congress...reps are based on population but every state gets 2 senators.
Yeah, and it's bullshit. Under-populated rural states get so much more political power than heavily-populated states. A senator from Wyoming has something like 67 times the representational power than a senator from California. It's bananas.
I think the problem is the other way. It's time to break up the big population states. Although combining a few of the tiny ones wouldn't hurt.
What do you see as the problem? Disproportional representation? Unless you split up the metropolitan areas, you're still going to have states with a very highly concentrated population. Splitting up large cities into different states sounds like a pretty bad idea.
Los Angeles County alone would be the 9th largest state in terms of population; Cook County, IL 23rd, and Harris County, TX 26th. And those are just single counties, metro areas are made up of several counties.
Alefroth wrote:
What do you see as the problem? Disproportional representation? Unless you split up the metropolitan areas, you're still going to have states with a very highly concentrated population. Splitting up large cities into different states sounds like a pretty bad idea.
Divided by 50, the average state would have about 6.5 million people. Only NYC has a larger population at 8.5 million. Unless you're talking about metro areas, where we already see split between states (NY, DC, Chicago, Philly, etc)
Alefroth wrote:
What do you see as the problem? Disproportional representation? Unless you split up the metropolitan areas, you're still going to have states with a very highly concentrated population. Splitting up large cities into different states sounds like a pretty bad idea.
Divided by 50, the average state would have about 6.5 million people. Only NYC has a larger population at 8.5 million. Unless you're talking about metro areas, where we already see split between states (NY, DC, Chicago, Philly, etc)
Yes, that's if we remap all 50 states. Are you supporting the idea of tiny states consisting of nothing but densely populated urban areas?
Alefroth wrote:
Yes, that's if we remap all 50 states. Are you supporting the idea of tiny states consisting of nothing but densely populated urban areas?
I don't see it happening, of course, and it wouldn't be simple, but I don't see any serious problems with it. Although apart from NYC, the largest city has just under 4 million, so other cities would need some areas outside of the "densely populated urban areas".
I think the only weird thing is that if the state exactly overlaps the city, the state government seems somewhat superfluous. I suppose there are some things that state government does that city government doesn't, but it's still somewhat weird.
Holman wrote:
3) Why the hell is Montana its own state? Just enough people for one representative, but two senators?
That's kinda the point of a 2-chamber Congress...reps are based on population but every state gets 2 senators.
Yeah, and it's bullshit. Under-populated rural states get so much more political power than heavily-populated states. A senator from Wyoming has something like 67 times the representational power than a senator from California. It's bananas.
And yet we are more held hostage to the insanity of the House of Reps. Go figure.
I believe that there is value in ensuring rural voices are heard. the problem isn't that they have a disproportionate vote, the problem is that they have become represented by stupid people.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Defiant wrote:
I don't see it happening, of course, and it wouldn't be simple, but I don't see any serious problems with it. Although apart from NYC, the largest city has just under 4 million, so other cities would need some areas outside of the "densely populated urban areas".
Well, not exactly. It's not like everything outside the city is countryside -- the Chicago metro area, for example, has a population of 9.5 million, almost 2/3 of which is outside the City of Chicago proper.
If you want to find a way to make the political differences in the country even more stark and bitter, a good place to start would be to isolate urban centers from rural areas.
Jeff V wrote:
Well, not exactly. It's not like everything outside the city is countryside -- the Chicago metro area, for example, has a population of 9.5 million, almost 2/3 of which is outside the City of Chicago proper.
Sure, but I don't think countryside need be a necessity of a state.
ImLawBoy wrote:If you want to find a way to make the political differences in the country even more stark and bitter, a good place to start would be to isolate urban centers from rural areas.
Wait a second...that puts my new house on the frontier!
