Working Across the Isle

[EquALLity]

Hey guys,
So, I'm participating in my second Model Congress, and I actually got to choose my committee this time, so naturally I chose the ethics committee. I'm starting to think it maybe isn't for me?
When I was in the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, opposition to legislation I supported was primarily coming from a good place. Like for example, my bill was expanding nuclear energy to stop climate change, and people were worried it was dangerous. I can totally work with those people and address their concerns. However, in the Ethics Committee... some people just don't seem to care about other people, and it's impossible for me not to throw them shade.

Like for example, my friend's bill in the committee is to allow undocumented parents of minor citizens to stay in the United States. There are some people who don't support it because they think it encourages illegal immigration, and they don't really care about not splitting up families. There's one girl who said she would support it with an amendment she added and one I am trying to get passed, but there is one guy who is just... ugh!

He used the term "anchor babies", saying, "find me a better word". Internally, I'm just like... I can find A LOT of words to describe YOU.
Also, my amendment is to make it so that the protections granted under the bill expire after the minor reaches adulthood. I would rather not have to do this, but I think it will help the bill pass, and we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. After my speech in favor of the amendment, he asked if I thought that my amendment would still be in line with the emotional idea of the bill, to keep FAMILIES together, because it would allow children to be with their parents until adulthood. He said the EMOTIONAL idea - it's not emotional, it's ethical and moral, don't fricking try to diminish it.

It's actually honestly hard for me not to throw them shade... Like, I asked this one girl three questions in a row after she spoke that were possibly slightly accusatory. I think they were...
"Does the speaker believe that the children of undocumented immigrants should be punished for the actions of their parents?"
"Does the speaker believe that separating families through deportation of parents is acceptable?"
I forget the other one. But like... Ugh, do you just not give a shit about other people? How am I supposed to work with you???
Then I gave a pro speech, in which I said things like "it's very inappropriate/unacceptable that we should be deporting non-violent undocumented immigrants and splitting up families".

My friend said that I didn't sound rude when I asked her, but idk... Maybe I'm overthinking this?
How do you guys deal with people you find morally wrong and devoid of compassion?

[brimstoneSalad]

Try to identify the root of the problem, like that they think these people will be a drag on the U.S. economy.

You can change the provision to only allow it for children who are doing well in school and without bad disciplinary history, thus proving the parents are doing a good job.
e.g. at least 3.5 GPA for the year, and no suspensions for the past year.

It's a starting point for negotiation and compromise.

(actually start at 2.5 GPA and no juvi for the past six months, and then move from that point).

[EquALLity]

^That's a good idea, though I think there are some issues with it, but the bill passed with my amendment.

My bill passed the committee too, with some amendments that I had planned anyway, and with another amendment making the rules only apply to federal elections. My bill, probably unsurprisingly, is about money in politics. I made the limits only apply to federal elections to help it get passed and resolve some issues. However, one person wouldn't vote for it because third party candidates rely on Super PACs, and I'm not sure how to counter that... I said that, if they really have public support and that is what matters, then their advertising should be in proportion to that public support, not artificially pumped up by money from a few donors. But she still wasn't satisfied, and I need a 2/3rds majority in the full session for it to pass, because it's a Constitutional Amendment.

Also, after getting to know people in my committee better... they're not so bad. The immigration thing was frustrating, but that really conservative guy voted for my bill when it was about to not pass committee (or so it seemed, but one guy was actually going to abstain, but that wasn't obvious), and he said it he thought it was a good bill even though he had some issues. He's nice, they're all nice, I guess the immigration thing got a little under my skin because that's something that's a really strong moral issue to me, but they're still good people.

[EquALLity]

Model Congress is one of the most fun and educational things if you want to learn about government.
My bill this time was about campaign finance reform. It was basically a Constitutional Amendment making Super PACs ineffective on the federal level - however, individuals can still donate directly to campaigns (with the $2700 limit). I wanted to do a public financing system, but then I would have to outline how that would work, and that would be a whole additional bill... I still don't really like the ability to donate to campaigns at all, though, because rich people automatically by necessity have a greater influence than the average poor person. But that's ok, getting rid of Super PACs on fed level, making money not speech, and making corporations not granted free speech rights was a huge step towards making advertising more representative of the people and thereby elections more democratic.
My bill passed in committee with the addition of the federal election part, as opposed to it making Super PACs completely ineffective. So it would've went on to full anyway, but it ended up going to the joint full with both the Senate and House because campaign finance reform was apart of the Presidential Platform. There was a brief Q&A session, and then it passed with the necessary 2/3rds majority. I was actually surprised, because before in committee, the Ethics committee (mine) had to merge with the Government Oversight and Reform committee to work on the Presidential platform. It just so happened that I already did a bill for the first part of the platform, so we discussed it a bit, and LOTS of people from the other committee thought corporations are people with the right to free speech via money. So... they're the reform committee, but they're against any type of governmental reform... OK.
Corporations are as good as people because they are run by people? Are you KIDDING me? I pointed out that the reason why we HAVE free speech is because PEOPLE care about issues and want to advocate for their IDEAS about HUMANITY. A corporation has no such interest; it by definition only has an interest in its own profits. Another person who supported my bill (who presented my bill with me at the full since we were supposed to have two people) pointed out that corporations don't actually represent everyone in the corporation; they just represent the people at the top, which was actually an amazing point that I never thought of.
Some of the students from the --------- school are actually blatantly dishonest. Or really stupid. Because during that merged committee session I also said something about how we don't allow certain speech that is too harmful anyway - if we don't let people yell fire in a movie theater because that's too harmful, then what is undermining our entire democratic process?
And this guy is like, "Comparing criticizing Hillary Clinton to yelling fire in a movie theater is absolutely wrong/inaccurate/ludicrous/some BS thing". I clarified that I was (obviously) saying it's harmful because it undermines democracy, not because of the specific message of a given political advertisement. But seriously, that's super obvious, that guy was deliberately misrepresenting what I was saying. He's good at politics.
I went up to him after and clarified again, and he understood. He's actually friendly if you talk with him, but when he's making points in a formal setting he is just... Blegh. Like another time during a full session he referenced the previous speaker by saying, "While the previous speaker was rattling on about ______" Honestly, that's just rude.
In my committee, the delegates of that school were great though, and the guy who presented the bill with me was actually from that school. He said that some of those people are obnoxious, but that he doesn't think they actually mean to or realize they sound like assholes. I guess that's good?
Not to hate on that school specifically, but it's just that I've noticed a number of their delegates seem to be really good at being politicians. All about STYLE, not substance. They are masters about moving their arms around excessively, walking around as they speak in an animated way, and dodging questions entirely when inconvenient.
Like, in committee someone asked me about my amendment, and it was a question I genuinely hadn't contemplated the answer to before. So I was like, "Oh, that's a great question. Hmm, well, *thinks for a second* under the language of my amendment I would say that ______"
And another time, I genuinely didn't know the answer to something, so I was like, "I will look over my bill and take that into consideration and get back to you about it." If I was from that school, I wouldn't been like, "Well, what this bill is doing is blah blah blah *completely ignores actual question and summarizes bill in lengthy way while talking in a way that makes it seem like I know what I'm talking about*.

Yeah. And during the Q&A someone asked the extremely stupid question that went something like, "Given that Hillary Clinton lost the election despite the usage of Super PACs to Donald Trump who didn't, how can you say that Super PACs really have an impact on elections?"
Are you fricking kidding me? Really? You're going to say they don't matter? So why do you even care if we eliminate them? But anyway... I was like, "Thank you for the question... To me, that's like saying that because cigarettes don't always cause cancer that we can't say cigarettes don't cause cancer and lung disease. Obviously Super PACs aren't going to swing EVERY SINGLE election, but that doesn't mean they don't have a significant impact. Super PACs do political advertising, which obviously has an impact on elections."
Then someone who supported my bill from my committee was like, "What do you think of grassroots campaigns in relation to this bill?" Haha. He literally was just giving me permission to talk about why my bill matters so much AND to bring Bernie Sanders into it.
"Thank you, that is a great question!!! I would like to reference the Bernie Sanders campaign, which through being funded by small donors at 27 to 28 dollars per person, was even able to raise more money than Hillary Clinton during some months. I believe this shows that we don't actually need Super PACs to fund political campaigns. Additionally, it shows that removing Super PACs from the equation by necessity makes politicians closer to the voters. When you only rely on donations from people to your campaign directly, you need to get their support to donate to you, so you have to support the people."
Some people were confused about Constitutionality... "Are you aware that the Supreme Court already ruled that blah blah blah"
"Yes, the Supreme Court did rule that money is speech in Citizens United etc. etc. but this bill is actually a Constitutional Amendment, so it would override any of those Supreme Court Cases".

So yeah. The President signed it in today, which I knew would happen, because he's from my school and I know where he stands. So that's good... We got SUBSTANTIALLY more done in four days than what the actual Congress will likely get done in the next century. We got campaign finance reform, we stopped drug gouging, we got correct sex education, we got "Cap and Tax", we got cybersecurity, reduced (or eliminated?) solitary confinemnet, we got much more that I don't know about or am forgetting... Seriously, we're MILLIONS of times more productive than Congress. I'm just saying.

Anyway, to anyone who actually read through all of this (I'm sorry, I realize this is probably a mess), if you can, you should totally join a Model Congress club at your school. Model Congress is seriously so fun.
I mean, if you're a political nerd like me... My friend was bored a lot during committee, and to be fair I phased out sometimes at my first Model Congress because I was in a committee in which most of the bills were about technology. But overall I still really enjoyed being in that committee, so it was still a great experience. I mean, if you know you don't like that stuff, then I guess it's not for you. Worth a shot if you're not sure though.

[PsYcHo]

We got SUBSTANTIALLY more done in four days than what the actual Congress will likely get done in the next century. We got campaign finance reform, we stopped drug gouging, we got correct sex education, we got "Cap and Tax", we got cybersecurity, reduced (or eliminated?) solitary confinemnet, we got much more that I don't know about or am forgetting... Seriously, we're MILLIONS of times more productive than Congress.

Of course you got more done than congress. I assume no one was lobbying your class? Sadly, but realistically, give me a suitcase full of cash and I'm sure I could have swayed the votes from many of your classmates.

I'm curious as to the reduction or elimination of solitary confinement. (Might start another thread on it) Were there specific guidelines, or was it just a generalization? (I'm assuming the prisoner who keeps shanking people in the eye doesn't just have his shank taken away and a stern reprimand.)

I wish this model congress thing was in my school back in the day. Sounds neat.

[EquALLity]

We got SUBSTANTIALLY more done in four days than what the actual Congress will likely get done in the next century. We got campaign finance reform, we stopped drug gouging, we got correct sex education, we got "Cap and Tax", we got cybersecurity, reduced (or eliminated?) solitary confinemnet, we got much more that I don't know about or am forgetting... Seriously, we're MILLIONS of times more productive than Congress.

Of course you got more done than congress. I assume no one was lobbying your class? Sadly, but realistically, give me a suitcase full of cash and I'm sure I could have swayed the votes from many of your classmates.

I'm curious as to the reduction or elimination of solitary confinement. (Might start another thread on it) Were there specific guidelines, or was it just a generalization? (I'm assuming the prisoner who keeps shanking people in the eye doesn't just have his shank taken away and a stern reprimand.)

I wish this model congress thing was in my school back in the day. Sounds neat.

The Vice President actually said they were investigating our committee for corruption.
Our friend (who was the President) messaged us and was like "Wait did you guys not support campaign finance reform" and I was like "no your VP just thought my bill didn't go far enough because it didn't limit the amount of money a campaign can spend". To be fair though, a lot of the other committee was against reform in general... so the VP said they were investigating us for corruption, even though they actually weren't.

It's a club that goes on trips, not a class.*

What do you mean by a generalization? Sorry, I don't remember the specific legislation. I didn't really pay attention because there was a bill covering the same topic in my committee, so I kind of ignored that part. Sorry.

[PsYcHo]

What do you mean by a generalization? Sorry, I don't remember the specific legislation. I didn't really pay attention because there was a bill covering the same topic in my committee, so I kind of ignored that part. Sorry.

Typical politician.

Just curious what guidelines they had changed in the bill. Solitary confinement serves two purposes, punishment and protection, so I was wondering how they were addressing those concerns in the bill. (IOW, is Stabby McShankeye just allowed to roam in general population, or is it more he is separated but able to communicate with others somehow.) I think I could start the thread without the specifics, I was just curious as to what the congress had decided.

[EquALLity]

What do you mean by a generalization? Sorry, I don't remember the specific legislation. I didn't really pay attention because there was a bill covering the same topic in my committee, so I kind of ignored that part. Sorry.

Typical politician.

Just curious what guidelines they had changed in the bill. Solitary confinement serves two purposes, punishment and protection, so I was wondering how they were addressing those concerns in the bill. (IOW, is Stabby McShankeye just allowed to roam in general population, or is it more he is separated but able to communicate with others somehow.) I think I could start the thread without the specifics, I was just curious as to what the congress had decided.

Hmm, I don't know, sorry. The one in my committee was increased regulation, not a ban. It would only be used when necessary.

[EquALLity]

Also, I want to say something about conservatives.

I used to think a few things about conservative people (excluding politicians):
1) Social conservatives are all bigots/stupid. Like, ALL of them. Seriously.
2) Economic conservatives who want lots of deregulation are dogmatic capitalists who blindly worship capitalism. And they're not bad people, but they're closed-minded... Most of them, but not all.

And that wasn't right. To be fair to myself, which I like to be, my experiences with republicans have been bad. The people in the Young Republicans club at my school are extremists, and pretty much all republicans I knew who were social conservatives are bigots, and pretty much all economic conservatives I knew are dogmatists. But I had a small sample size.

That conservative guy in my committee who said his idol was Ben Shapiro and called the babies of undocumented immigrants "anchor babies" is not a bigot or an idiot, and he's not an arrogant asshole either. He doesn't really have good views on immigration, but he's clearly not coming from a bad place. He didn't vote to allow undocumented parents of children who are citizens to stay in the country, even just until those children reach adulthood, and I very strongly disagree with his opinion morally, but I don't think has bad feelings towards immigrants. He's clearly not stupid either, and is actually very rational. He might just live in a bubble, he goes to a private preppy Catholic school, so maybe he doesn't know many undocumented immigrants... But I don't mean to be condescending towards him whatsoever, it's just that he's not a jerk and is rational, so I'm trying to think of why he has the stance he does on immigration.
In our debate about a bill creating price caps on drugs to stop price gouging, he said that the better solution is to deregulate and to limit the patenting to create competition. He doesn't want to completely deregulate, and he's not against all government regulation.

A few other things to show he's not crazy:
1) supports demilitarization of police
2) believes in man-made climate change (strongly seems to, anyway, I didn't directly ask, but he implied a few times)
3) his bill was investigating the former DI for lying about the NSA
4) he supported my bill, which was a nonpartisan bill, and even though he had some reservations he voted for it when it looked like it was about to not pass committee and said it was a good bill
5) said waterboarding is horrific torture that many people don't realize is so bad, and supports limiting solitary confinement whenever possible

He's also not a jerk. Some conservatives I know are... super obnoxiously arrogant, and talk over you, and kick you out of their club...
But he's like, actually nice. Conservatives, even social conservatives, can be nice. Moderate conservative people do exist! They actually DO!

Epiphany.

[PsYcHo]

Conservatives, even social conservatives, can be nice. Moderate conservative people do exist! They actually DO!

Yeah, some of those conservative types may actually be pretty socially progressive, it's just that they don't believe government should be intervening as much as they are on some aspects of 'Merican life.