Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Then why have a house and a senate? Sence their both elected by the people what is the difference between them? Election terms? Constitutional duties? That can easily be remedied by one body.
At least they have some *ahem* skin in the game.Right. As if landholders aren't a venal group who will use legislative powers to bend laws to their interest.
the less that is left in the hands of a state legislature, the better off we are.
state legislators are typically the most venal, corrupt, sleazy, one way assholes on the planet.
most of them would sell their mother's uterus for a buck and throw in the ovaries.
obama was a proud member of the IL state legislature, IIRC.
QED
The system is different, but somehow or another we'd end up with the same results?Red herring....A return to Senators appointed by the state legislatures and seated by the Governors would neither restrict voting, nor even deprive anyone of any vote.
Also, the framers were perfectly good with being governed by landholders....They were simply against being a landholder subject to membership in the Lucky Sperm Club.
BTW, we're not supposed to be "ruled over" by de jure government...They are supposed to be the servants and we the masters....There's a reason I use the term "gubmint".
And you'd use FUCKInG GUbZmint if you appointed Senators. FFS we appoint Senators in Canada and it's a disaster. True, the system is different, but the idea that those appointed wouldn't be cronies who've donated a ton of money to the politicians is hilarious. I love how ambassadors are selected in this country BTW. Write big cheques and you can live in a comfy residence in Dublin on the taxpayers dime. As if it would be any different in the Senate.
The voters would never stand for not being able to elect their Senators
We have enough back room dealing thank-you
Nobody asked whether it was politically feasible. It probably isn't. Any more than property qualifications, which I also support.
Exactly. Mob rul is exactly what the founders wanted to avoid by having the senate elected by the state legeslatures.
The founding fathers didn't want women, blacks or poor people voting either. This isn't the 18th century FFS.
I find it absolutely stunning that the right would even debate restricting voting. When people around the world think of America, they think freedom, which is synonymous with democracy. They don't think "Ruled by landholders." That is what people are trying to escape when they come here. There is no freedom greater than choosing those who rule over you.
Please show me where in the constitution that it mentions race or sex in regards to voting. Voting rights were subject to the descression of the states. Besids, your fictional strawman wont work here. Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And whats the point of having two popularly elected bodies? The point was so that both the state and the people can have a say in the federal government. But now, thanks mostly to the 17th Amendment, the 10th amendment is virtually void and the federal governement can tax the citizens of a state and use the peoples money to bribe legislative behavior that the state may deem not in its best interst. Obamacare is a perfect example.
No Representation without taxation. It's a good policy. People who have no stake in the government don't care what happens.
Everyone pays taxes.
Not everyone pays more in taxes than they receive in direct welfare. Which means they not only pay no taxes but they get money back. Yet they have the right to vote for more and at whose expense? A Conflict of interest?
The system is different, but somehow or another we'd end up with the same results?Red herring....A return to Senators appointed by the state legislatures and seated by the Governors would neither restrict voting, nor even deprive anyone of any vote.
Also, the framers were perfectly good with being governed by landholders....They were simply against being a landholder subject to membership in the Lucky Sperm Club.
BTW, we're not supposed to be "ruled over" by de jure government...They are supposed to be the servants and we the masters....There's a reason I use the term "gubmint".
And you'd use FUCKInG GUbZmint if you appointed Senators. FFS we appoint Senators in Canada and it's a disaster. True, the system is different, but the idea that those appointed wouldn't be cronies who've donated a ton of money to the politicians is hilarious. I love how ambassadors are selected in this country BTW. Write big cheques and you can live in a comfy residence in Dublin on the taxpayers dime. As if it would be any different in the Senate.
No Representation without taxation. It's a good policy. People who have no stake in the government don't care what happens.
Everyone pays taxes.
Not everyone pays more in taxes than they receive in direct welfare. Which means they not only pay no taxes but they get money back. Yet they have the right to vote for more and at whose expense? A Conflict of interest?
The voters would never stand for not being able to elect their Senators
We have enough back room dealing thank-you
Nobody asked whether it was politically feasible. It probably isn't. Any more than property qualifications, which I also support.
And I reckon you support slavery and the 3/5ths provision, also.
It is a common consensus that a popularly elected Senate was a mistake? By whom? I've heard the exact opposite whenever I've heard scholars talking about it.
An appointed upper chamber occurs in the British Parliamentary system and it's a joke.
Right now there are 25 attourny generals sueing the federal government to get out from under the heavy thumb of Obamacare. Do you think that Obamacare would be possible if the Senate was appointed by those same states? And please show me where the constitution mentions race or gender in regards to voting.
Like I said, this isn't the 18th century anymore.
Then why have a house and a senate? Sence their both elected by the people what is the difference between them? Election terms? Constitutional duties? That can easily be remedied by one body.
The upper chamber is still important. There's a reason people say the Senate is where bills go to die. Even with segmented direct elections, it's still the more deliberative body between the two and serves as a valuable check against the House's whims, and provides the opportunity for the parties to split power like we have now.
The founding fathers didn't want women, blacks or poor people voting either. This isn't the 18th century FFS.
I find it absolutely stunning that the right would even debate restricting voting. When people around the world think of America, they think freedom, which is synonymous with democracy. They don't think "Ruled by landholders." That is what people are trying to escape when they come here. There is no freedom greater than choosing those who rule over you.
Please show me where in the constitution that it mentions race or sex in regards to voting. Voting rights were subject to the descression of the states. Besids, your fictional strawman wont work here. Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And whats the point of having two popularly elected bodies? The point was so that both the state and the people can have a say in the federal government. But now, thanks mostly to the 17th Amendment, the 10th amendment is virtually void and the federal governement can tax the citizens of a state and use the peoples money to bribe legislative behavior that the state may deem not in its best interst. Obamacare is a perfect example.
Exactly, and that is what you assholes are shooting for, the disenfranchisement of all but the very moneyed class.
Everyone pays taxes.
Not everyone pays more in taxes than they receive in direct welfare. Which means they not only pay no taxes but they get money back. Yet they have the right to vote for more and at whose expense? A Conflict of interest?
Like some of the big corperations?
Everyone pays taxes.
Not everyone pays more in taxes than they receive in direct welfare. Which means they not only pay no taxes but they get money back. Yet they have the right to vote for more and at whose expense? A Conflict of interest?
Let's apply the same standards to politicians voting for war. How about any politician voting for war has to send their kids abroad to fight on the front lines. And if they have no kids, they have to go themselves.
Right now there are 25 attourny generals sueing the federal government to get out from under the heavy thumb of Obamacare. Do you think that Obamacare would be possible if the Senate was appointed by those same states? And please show me where the constitution mentions race or gender in regards to voting.
Like I said, this isn't the 18th century anymore.
Yeah. Well in the absence of your argument I still want to know where the Constitution specifies race or gender in regards to voting.
Not everyone pays more in taxes than they receive in direct welfare. Which means they not only pay no taxes but they get money back. Yet they have the right to vote for more and at whose expense? A Conflict of interest?
Let's apply the same standards to politicians voting for war. How about any politician voting for war has to send their kids abroad to fight on the front lines. And if they have no kids, they have to go themselves.
Nah. Thats why people like me exist. Thats why we have a voulinteer military. And I dont want to have my life dependant on a liberal anti war hippy who would rather be smoking weed than looking after my back in a line company in Afghanistan.
Like I said, this isn't the 18th century anymore.
Yeah. Well in the absence of your argument I still want to know where the Constitution specifies race or gender in regards to voting.
Or women, eh? It says "men." It says nothing about women. And yet we have the temerity to allow females to vote. It's been all downhill since.
