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)

timschochet said:
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.
Click to expand...


You can try to justify it however you want, but using the power of the government to punish speech in any way is certainly illiberal and absolutely trending towards fascism. Being offended by something doesn't change that.

Every single Republican should absolutely denounce him individually and make it clear that they disagree with him. And his constituents should absolutely get rid of him.

But in no way should Congress censure him over his personal or political views/speech.

 
Foosball God said:
No.  He represnts them.  That is the point of a representative.
Click to expand...
I refer you and Grove Diesel to Edmund Burke. He argued that representatives are not agents of their districts alone, but are elected to be true to their conscience and their wisdom and their duty to do good for the entire nation.

 
I would support censure if he is committing illegal acts or is found to be violating house ethics rules.  I don't support censure if he makes idiotic statements.  If the latter is the test - we'd be censuring multiple congressmen daily.

 
Reg Lllama of Brixton said:
Wait...big difference between "censure" and "censor".   
Click to expand...
Sure, but I don't see either one as being part of a liberal democracy. The government has no business telling individuals what they should or shouldn't have said in any capacity. Each individual member is certainly free to do so. And I'm all for the Republican Party leadership censuring him as well. But the US government simply has no business censuring or censoring.

 
TobiasFunke said:
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.
Click to expand...
He would be removed from any committee chairs he held as well.

 
Nugget said:
I would support censure if he is committing illegal acts or is found to be violating house ethics rules.  I don't support censure if he makes idiotic statements.  If the latter is the test - we'd be censuring multiple congressmen daily.
Click to expand...
Well I seem to be a sole minority here (which is fine), but again, I just want to stress that King wouldn't be censured because his statements are idiotic, or wrong, or because we all disagree with them. I really think you guys are missing the point.

He would be censured because his statements are bigoted and thus offensive. And no we wouldn't be censuring multiple congressmen daily because the vast majority don't engage in open bigotry.

 
timschochet said:
I refer you and Grove Diesel to Edmund Burke. He argued that representatives are not agents of their districts alone, but are elected to be true to their conscience and their wisdom and their duty to do good for the entire nation.
Click to expand...
Just because a deceased Irish politician believes it to be true doesn't make it true.

 
GroveDiesel said:
Sure, but I don't see either one as being part of a liberal democracy. The government has no business telling individuals what they should or shouldn't have said in any capacity. Each individual member is certainly free to do so. And I'm all for the Republican Party leadership censuring him as well. But the US government simply has no business censuring or censoring.
Click to expand...
Uhhhhh...you sure about that?

 
GroveDiesel said:
Sure, but I don't see either one as being part of a liberal democracy. The government has no business telling individuals what they should or shouldn't have said in any capacity. Each individual member is certainly free to do so. And I'm all for the Republican Party leadership censuring him as well. But the US government simply has no business censuring or censoring.
Click to expand...
While I disagree with your distinction (though I respect it), I'd be fine with the bolded. Let's see it happen.

 
timschochet said:
I refer you and Grove Diesel to Edmund Burke. He argued that representatives are not agents of their districts alone, but are elected to be true to their conscience and their wisdom and their duty to do good for the entire nation.
Click to expand...
That still doesn't make them a representative of our nation. He has one vote. He has no authority to represent the US as a whole in any capacity. The Executive is quite clearly the only branch given that sort of role and authority.

 
Foosball God said:
He would be removed from any committee chairs he held as well.
Click to expand...
I did not know that. I wasn't down with this censure thing anyway, but that kinda locks it up for me. Although the GOP is well within its rights to do that if it chooses, it shouldn't be an official act of the government or the congress.

BTW I'd still love to hear from someone familiar with the Iowa 4th as to how this guy keeps getting elected.

 
Foosball God said:
Just because a deceased Irish politician believes it to be true doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...
It's the whole idea behind representative democracy. Otherwise, why not just have the public vote on every issue? The Founding Fathers designed this brilliant system knowing that our representatives would not always do as the voters wished.

 
GroveDiesel said:
That still doesn't make them a representative of our nation. He has one vote. He has no authority to represent the US as a whole in any capacity. The Executive is quite clearly the only branch given that sort of role and authority.
Click to expand...
OK, I think we're talking about two different things. I never used the word authority.

But the idea is that a representative, when making decisions, should not simply confine himself to thinking about the best interests of the voters who elected him, but also the best interests of the nation as a whole.

 
timschochet said:
It's the whole idea behind representative democracy. Otherwise, why not just have the public vote on every issue? The Founding Fathers designed this brilliant system knowing that our representatives would not always do as the voters wished.
Click to expand...
I would argue that the Founding Father's knew that a government can not be run if a public vote were required for every issue.  A representative government is designed so that one representative can speak for a segment of people.  If my representative is not representing enough of my beliefs, or represents something that is so far away from my beliefs, then it is up to me to vote for someone that will better represent me.

 
He then accused Obama of favoring the black farmers, saying, "We have a very, very urban senator, Barack Obama, who has decided he's going to run for president, and what does he do? He introduces legislation to create a whole new Pigford claim."
Click to expand...
At an immigration reform rally, King said of Obama, "Now I don't assert where he was born, I will just tell you that we are all certain that he was not raised with an American experience."
Click to expand...
After the death of Mike Brown and the protests that followed, King said he wasn't concerned about Missouri racially profiling looters "because they all appear to be of a single origin, I should say, a continental origin might be the way to phrase that."
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/SteveKingIA/status/564822411296514049/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

 King claimed it would be "sexist" and "racist" to put Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill. "This is liberal activism on the part of the president that's trying to identify people by categories, and he's divided us on the lines of groups," King explained. 
Click to expand...
King uploaded a YouTube video where he proudly displayed a Confederate flag on his desk. This, some people pointed out, is especially jarring because Iowa supported the Union during the Civil War. Some days later, King went on MSNBC to do what he does best—refuse to back down and argue that no, actually it was people who objected to racism who were actually racists. "This whole 'white people' business does get a little tired," King told Chris Hayes. "I'd ask you to go back through history and figure out where these contributions that have been made by these categories of people that you're talking about—where did any other sub-group of people contribute more to civilization?"
Click to expand...


#### this racist POS

 
timschochet said:
I refer you and Grove Diesel to Edmund Burke. He argued that representatives are not agents of their districts alone, but are elected to be true to their conscience and their wisdom and their duty to do good for the entire nation.
Click to expand...
you're going to get IK all hot and bothered with all this Burke talk.  not to mention the fact that I don't think it will get you too far with the criticisms of illiberalism being levied.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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...
I mentioned judicial nominations in part because I think that's a great example of the slippery slope coming to pass.  It was really easy for folks to talk themselves into opposing the Bork nomination -- he was extreme, it was seen as a vitally important seat, this is once-in-a-generation thing, etc.  If you had predicted at the time that this would lead to the Senate simply ignoring a valid nomination for a full year just because it could, people would have said you were being silly.  And yet here we are.

Partisans love to invoke the other side's bad behavior as an excuse to justify bad behavior of their own.  That's why it doesn't just end with one questionable action.  Censure King today, and I promise that Trump supporters -- who are not the most classically liberal bunch in the world -- will be looking for opportunities to one-up you the next time a Democrat says something nasty about the president.  That's how partisans operate.

 
Bigger issue is what are we going to do with all the people in Iowa and other parts of the country that like this guy. We have s real mess on our hands.

 
Tucker Carlson just said King is probably right. This stuff is going to just become the mainstream "conservative" POV for the immediate future.

 
Ilov80s said:
Tucker Carlson just said King is probably right. 
Click to expand...
That's tremendously disappointing. I was never the biggest fan of Carlson but he always struck me as pretty reasonable. I haven't paid much attention to him in a few years, but first there was that shameful exchange with Bill Nye on global warming, and now this. What happened to this guy? 

 
Being racist is fashionable these days, Tim.  It replaced toy dogs in purses.  Get with the program!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
I did not know that. I wasn't down with this censure thing anyway, but that kinda locks it up for me. Although the GOP is well within its rights to do that if it chooses, it shouldn't be an official act of the government or the congress.

BTW I'd still love to hear from someone familiar with the Iowa 4th as to how this guy keeps getting elected.
Click to expand...
They really gerrymandered that district after the last census.  Its biggest city is Ames, but that is a college town (Iowa State University) and doesn't get as much turnout because of that.  The northwest part of Iowa votes straight R.  Mostly farmers that don't want their family farm being lost due to estate taxes (a somewhat legitimate beef).  Doesn't matter who the candidate is.  It's embarrassing they elect this guy.

 
rodg12 said:
Hey now.  We're not all bad.  We even made a shirt for King...

https://www.raygunsite.com/products/steve-king

He's definitely a blight on my state, though.  A big, fat blemish that needs to be removed.  Unfortunately his district votes R regardless of who is on the ticket.  Hopefully this changes that.
Click to expand...
Lol...awesome shirt!

oh and I hear you about the safe R district thing.  I'm in one as well...Trump's "My Kevin" is my rep.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ilov80s said:
Tucker Carlson just said King is probably right. This stuff is going to just become the mainstream "conservative" POV for the immediate future.
Click to expand...
you guys sound surprised.  I have no idea why.  there's a reason this guy keeps getting re-elected.  this isn't new for him.

 
The right to free speech is more important than the right not to be offended.  If you don't like what he says, don't listen to him.

 
joffer said:
you guys sound surprised.  I have no idea why.  there's a reason this guy keeps getting re-elected.  this isn't new for him.
Click to expand...
I am more surprised by a major news network show host who has been on tv for over a decade agreeing with King. 

 
jonessed said:
The right to free speech is more important than the right not to be offended.  If you don't like what he says, don't listen to him.
Click to expand...
I pretty much agree with this, but freedom of speech is not unlimited. For example...

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words".[27] Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction".[28] Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen as a 'direct personal insult'".[29][30]

Along with fighting words, speech might be unprotected if it either intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly inflicts severe emotional distress.[31]However, such a rule (which has never been explicitly decided) would be limited to private figures. The Court held in Hustler v. Falwell (1988) that satire which could be seen as offensive to a "public figure" is fully protected.[32] Such speech is rooted in a historical protection of political satire.[33] A notable example of a case involving offensive speech was the Court's decision in Texas v. Johnson (1989), which struck down a law criminalizing flag burning in Texas.[34]

Threats of violence that are directed at a person or group of persons that has the intent of placing the target at risk of bodily harm or death are generally unprotected.[35] However, there are several exceptions. For example, the Supreme Court has held that "threats may not be punished if a reasonable person would understand them as obvious hyperbole", he writes.[36][37] Additionally, threats of "social ostracism" and of "politically motivated boycotts" are constitutionally protected.[38] However, sometimes even political speech can be a threat, and thus becomes unprotected.[39]

 
GroveDiesel said:
And frankly, I think that King is an idiot, but this particular comment seems xenophobic and nationalistic, not racist.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what else he has said, but I agree.

 
Had a family member post a YouTube video about the great Muslim invasion in Europe due to birth rates and what will happen in America.  My more abbrassive cousin responded he would start going bareback more often to help stem the tide.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this.  Just donated.  

 
Well I for one am boycotting the state.  I know, it is a huge personal sacrifice, but I went ahead and cancelled all my future travel plans to Iowa.   

 
Ilov80s said:
I am more surprised by a major news network show host who has been on tv for over a decade agreeing with King. 
Click to expand...
Which thing was he agreeing with?  I'm sure it's something I've missed in the news cycles but which of his crazy statements did he agree with?

 
AAABatteries said:
Which thing was he agreeing with?  I'm sure it's something I've missed in the news cycles but which of his crazy statements did he agree with?
Click to expand...
So I rewatched it. It's kind of hard to figure exactly what Tucker is agreeing to. King basically rehashed his tweet about "other people's babies" and said he meant exactly what he said. Tucker agreed but said that it sounded like it had racial component to it. Not sure exactly what Tucker meant. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
A view about a movie (Get Out) which seems to be confirmed by Steve King:

Now, our biggest fear is ideology. We are in a cultural civil war, with race at center stage, and "Get Out" perfectly captures the fears mainstream, white, middle America holds of liberalism and the browning of America.

 
Peyton Marino said:
What exactly was Tucker agreeing with him on?  Everything?  One specific point?  
Click to expand...
You will have to watch yourself. I can't tell.  King talks about his while tweet and reiterates his points. Tucker agrees but thinks it might be imply America has a racial identity which he seemed to disagree with.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

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