What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

What is Congress going to do about Steve King? (1 Viewer)

What can they do? If Iowa wants to elect white nationalists, what is to be done?

I mean, if you have an idea, let us know. There's a big white house that could use some spring cleaning.

 
No comment on whether censure is appropriate, but I think the much better question is what is the 4th District of Iowa going to do about Steve King.

Another good question is what are any of us going to do about it. This is the current leading candidate to face him in the general in 2018. Your money is good in Iowa.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You're apparently going to take him way too seriously. I'm going to have a cup o' joe and a metaphor, sure in the knowledge aint nuttin gonna change til you talkatroids stop rearranging the deck chairs on this sinking ship.

 
timschochet said:
Just looked it up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Representatives_expelled,_censured,_or_reprimanded

6 congressmen have been censured for "unparliamentary language," and one for insulting the Speaker. So I don't think free speech has anything to do with it.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between rules about what you can do or say on the floor of the Congress and what you say outside of Congress.

Edit to add: Mitch McConnell can keep Elizabeth Warren from insulting Sessions on the Senate floor, but he can't stop her from saying whatever she wants to the press on the street.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
In the modern history of the United States House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (since 1966), censure has been used five times,[17] most recently in December 2010 against Charles B. Rangel.

It seems to me that censure is the proper response to Mr. King.
Click to expand...
It is.

But this is a GOP problem, not a Congress problem.

It's the same problem the GOP has always had, riding the tiger of nationalism without getting flipped on its back and getting ridden.

Which has happened.

 
Foosball God said:
All but one were in the 1800's and the other in 1921.  I think that is a stretch to use.
Click to expand...
Look, King had a right to say what he said, he has free speech. But Congress has the right to censure him for it- and I think, a duty.

This man is an embarrassment to our nation. It's no different than if Louis Farrakhan had run for office and been elected.

 
timschochet said:
Look, King had a right to say what he said, he has free speech. But Congress has the right to censure him for it- and I think, a duty.

This man is an embarrassment to our nation. It's no different than if Louis Farrakhan had run for office and been elected.
Click to expand...
Unless you feel he is innappropriately using his congressional power I would not censure and leave it to his constituents to remove him from office.  If he represents their beliefs then he should stay.

 
apalmer said:
There's a difference between rules about what you can do or say on the floor of the Congress and what you say outside of Congress.
Click to expand...
I don't think so.

Let's suppose Louis Gohmert, outside of Congress,  was asked by a journalist what he thought of Paul Ryan. And Gohmert said, "I think Paul Ryan is a piece of ####." You don't think he would be censured?

 
Foosball God said:
He's a moron, but I thinking censuring someone for things they say is a bad precedent to set.
Click to expand...
I'm not violently opposed to Congress passing some kind of resolution saying "Steve King is moron and he hasn't even written a decent book since It," but overall I agree that this is a bad precedent.  If there's one thing we've learned from SCOTUS nomination fights, it's that once you start down that path, both sides tend to escalate things until the well is completely poisoned.

 
Foosball God said:
Unless you feel he is innappropriately using his congressional power I would not censure and leave it to his constituents to remove him from office.  If he represents their beliefs then he should stay.
Click to expand...
I understand your point but I respectfully disagree. Censure is not part of the Constitution, but it was introduced by our Founding Fathers as an instrument of reprimand, and it wasn't limited to the scope you've defined.

 
timschochet said:
I don't think so.

Let's suppose Louis Gohmert, outside of Congress,  was asked by a journalist what he thought of Paul Ryan. And Gohmert said, "I think Paul Ryan is a piece of ####." You don't think he would be censured?
Click to expand...
No, he wouldn't.  Elizabeth Warren was free to tell the press exactly what she thought of Jeff Sessions and did so.  She just couldn't say it on the floor of the Seante.

 
timschochet said:
I don't think so.

Let's suppose Louis Gohmert, outside of Congress,  was asked by a journalist what he thought of Paul Ryan. And Gohmert said, "I think Paul Ryan is a piece of ####." You don't think he would be censured?
Click to expand...
Your example involves uncollegial speech that demeans a fellow legislator.  I don't think that merits censure, but I can see the case for it.  In King's case, you're arguing for censure entirely because of the ideological view he was expressing.  That's an entirely different thing, and it should be subject to a higher level of protection.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I'm not violently opposed to Congress passing some kind of resolution saying "Steve King is moron and he hasn't even written a decent book since It," but overall I agree that this is a bad precedent.  If there's one thing we've learned from SCOTUS nomination fights, it's that once you start down that path, both sides tend to escalate things until the well is completely poisoned.
Click to expand...
I think it's poisoning the well NOT to do something about this guy. To let him continue without some sort of reprimand- nothing could poison the well worse than that, IMO.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Your example involves uncollegial speech that demeans a fellow legislator.  I don't think that merits censure, but I can see the case for it.  In King's case, you're arguing for censure entirely because of the ideological view he was expressing.  That's an entirely different thing, and it should be subject to a higher level of protection.
Click to expand...
I was specifically attempting to counter his "on the floor" argument.

But I agree with you that it should be. However, I am arguing that rank bigotry and racial hatred should not be subject to the "higher level of protection".

 
timschochet said:
I understand your point but I respectfully disagree. Censure is not part of the Constitution, but it was introduced by our Founding Fathers as an instrument of reprimand, and it wasn't limited to the scope you've defined.
Click to expand...
I didn't say whether it was limited or not.  I said that I don't think we want to go down the road of censuring someone for stating a personal opinion, even if it is as moronic as his.  The current political climate could result in censuring something much more benign.  I just don't think it is necessary and offers up the opportunity for more harm than good in the long run.

 
Foosball God said:
I didn't say whether it was limited or not.  I said that I don't think we want to go down the road of censuring someone for stating a personal opinion, even if it is as moronic as his.  The current political climate could result in censuring something much more benign.  I just don't think it is necessary and offers up the opportunity for more harm than good in the long run.
Click to expand...
Again, understand but disagree. And FWIW, I always find myself disagreeing, as a general rule, with the "slippery slope" argument, because I think it's rather insulting to human reasoning.

If I say, "We should do A", and you warn, "If we do A, then next time around we might do B", my answer is that no we don't have to do B. We can wait until that time comes and then decide if B makes sense or if it's a step too far. But just because we did A now, doesn't mean we're somehow doomed to do B in the future. The slippery slope has never made sense to me.

 
Foosball God said:
  I said that I don't think we want to go down the road of censuring someone for stating a personal opinion, even if it is as moronic as his.  
Click to expand...
I also want to comment on this point- whether King was speaking on the floor or not, he was speaking as a United States Representative. In a sense, he does this every time he speaks so long as he serves in the office he does, but specifically in this instance he wrote a tweet as a US Representative, and then gave a radio interview doubling down on his remarks as a US representative. His opinion was NOT personal or private.

 
And frankly, I think that King is an idiot, but this particular comment seems xenophobic and nationalistic, not racist.

 
timschochet said:
Again, understand but disagree. And FWIW, I always find myself disagreeing, as a general rule, with the "slippery slope" argument, because I think it's rather insulting to human reasoning.

If I say, "We should do A", and you warn, "If we do A, then next time around we might do B", my answer is that no we don't have to do B. We can wait until that time comes and then decide if B makes sense or if it's a step too far. But just because we did A now, doesn't mean we're somehow doomed to do B in the future. The slippery slope has never made sense to me.
Click to expand...
The slippery slope exists because democrats and republicans no longer care about reason, they care about being on the winning side and making anyone not on their side look bad.  Reason has nothing do with it.

But that is beside the point.  The point is more that personal opinions should not be censured, if your personal opinions don't match those of your constituents then it is up to them to remove him.  What if his constituents believe exactly what he believes?

 
GroveDiesel said:
And frankly, I think that King is an idiot, but this particular comment seems xenophobic and nationalistic, not racist.
Click to expand...
By itself this argument could be made, though personally I might reject it. But taken into context of his other statements over the years (such as recently when he questioned whether or not any outstanding human achievements have occurred outside of the white race) I don't think there's any question at all.

 
timschochet said:
I also want to comment on this point- whether King was speaking on the floor or not, he was speaking as a United States Representative. In a sense, he does this every time he speaks so long as he serves in the office he does, but specifically in this instance he wrote a tweet as a US Representative, and then gave a radio interview doubling down on his remarks as a US representative. His opinion was NOT personal or private.
Click to expand...
Again, what if his constiuency believes the same as he does?

 
timschochet said:
SInce you're making that accusation (apparently), then you should explain why it is so.
Click to expand...
You are arguing that the US government should officially censure the political speech of an individual because you disagree with it. That's pretty much the very definition of illiberalism and fascism.

 
Foosball God said:
The slippery slope exists because democrats and republicans no longer care about reason, they care about being on the winning side and making anyone not on their side look bad.  Reason has nothing do with it.

But that is beside the point.  The point is more that personal opinions should not be censured, if your personal opinions don't match those of your constituents then it is up to them to remove him.  What if his constituents believe exactly what he believes?
Click to expand...
Then that's too bad. He represents more than them. He represents the United States.

 
GroveDiesel said:
xenophobic and nationalistic, not racist.
Click to expand...
f1 xenophobia/racism -> r1 nationalism -> r2 fascism.

It's hard to explain, because these things are so prevalent, and I think because f1 does not automatically result in nationalism, however when it is tied to concepts of civilization or national mores, or justifies power or state action, then it does.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
GroveDiesel said:
You are arguing that the US government should officially censure the political speech of an individual because you disagree with it. That's pretty much the very definition of illiberalism and fascism.
Click to expand...
I would argue that you're wrong on two counts:

1. I want King censured, not because I disagree with him, but because I find his statements offensive. IMO, bigotry and hatred should be beyond the pale.

2. A public, Congressional censure does not remove King from office. It does not place any monetary penalty on him, or put him behind bars. It is purely and solely an expression of public disapproval by the Congress as a whole. So I don't believe that fascism or illiberalism have anything to do with it.

 
I agree with most people that there's no reason for censure and that this is a matter for the GOP and the people of Iowa.  But I'm not buying all this facist, anti-free speech stuff either.  Censure and censor might sound similar but they're totally different. 

Censor is telling someone they have to shut the #### up. The government can't do that unless it's got a really good reason to do so. Censure (in this context) is telling someone they probably should have shut the #### up because they sounded like a ####ing idiot. I don't have a huge problem with a branch of government doing that even in an official capacity. So long as there's no real world consequences to it I don't see it as a First Amendment issue.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top