Tea Partiers want to repeal the 17th amendment

[jillian]

The tea baggers are probably some of the most idiotic people on earth.

Wanna know why they want to repeal this amendment? They listen to Glen Beck. He don't know shit about the Constitution either.

Alright Biker, why was the Senate set up the way it was set up?

Here's another question: why did the people request a change?

who's 'the people"? tea party freaks?

 

[LuckyDan]

How do you feel about appointing judges?

 

[Queen]

Yeah. What sane person, who understands checks and balances, doesn't want to return Senate control back to the States and restore their power over the Federal Government?

Tell me how taking the power away from the people and giving it to the back room dealings is a good thing.

It provides a check on the Federal Governments by the states. and a Check on the majority from creating a tyranical federal government.

You think that a rich man like Montana’s William Clark, a copper-mining magnate who bought a Senate seat in 1899 by paying $2,500 to each legislator to vote for him before we had the 17th amendment, being a Senator would make a state more powerful?

Crazy shit. Very crazy shit.

 

[Avatar4321]

The tea baggers are probably some of the most idiotic people on earth.

Wanna know why they want to repeal this amendment? They listen to Glen Beck. He don't know shit about the Constitution either.

Alright Biker, why was the Senate set up the way it was set up?

Here's another question: why did the people request a change?

Because Progressives played on their emotions and they had limited understanding of why it was set up the way it was. Since then the Government has grown out of control and corruption is even worse now than ever.

Experiment failed. Let's return to the original plan.

 

[Avatar4321]

Tell me how taking the power away from the people and giving it to the back room dealings is a good thing.

It provides a check on the Federal Governments by the states. and a Check on the majority from creating a tyranical federal government.

You think that a rich man like Montana’s William Clark, a copper-mining magnate who bought a Senate seat in 1899 by paying $2,500 to each legislator to vote for him before we had the 17th amendment, being a Senator would make a state more powerful?

Crazy shit. Very crazy shit.

I think the states controling who was in the Senate would empower the states, yes. If they want to waste their power with corruption, it hurts them more than it hurts the nation at large.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I actually think it would not be such a bad idea.

Your average voter is a nincompoop.

 

[Queen]

How do you feel about appointing judges?

Are judges politicians?

This is a strawman. Stick to the topic.

 

[jillian]

It provides a check on the Federal Governments by the states. and a Check on the majority from creating a tyranical federal government.

You think that a rich man like Montana’s William Clark, a copper-mining magnate who bought a Senate seat in 1899 by paying $2,500 to each legislator to vote for him before we had the 17th amendment, being a Senator would make a state more powerful?

Crazy shit. Very crazy shit.

I think the states controling who was in the Senate would empower the states, yes. If they want to waste their power with corruption, it hurts them more than it hurts the nation at large.

in other words you want to obstruct the right of the people to voice their own choice

are you really not capable of seeing what that would do?

how sad.

let me put this in simple terms for you....

what would happen is the majority party of the state legislature would pick one of its boys/girls in the back room...

that person would be funded by lobbyists for multinational corporations...

you'd then send the person annointed to the senate where they would devise foreign policy on behalf of the multinational corporate lobbyists.

are you all really this vapid?

the real answer is election finance reform... but your hacks in the court decided that corporations are people with first amendment rights.

 

[Avatar4321]

How do you feel about appointing judges?

Are judges politicians?

This is a strawman. Stick to the topic.

Yes. Yes they are.

Politician
1 : a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government

Judges certainly conduct the business of government. They have their own branch of government.

 

[HUGGY]

Yeah. What sane person, who understands checks and balances, doesn't want to return Senate control back to the States and restore their power over the Federal Government?

You don't think the lobbiests can find the individual states and the senatorial offices in WDC?

GAAAWWWWDDD!!!! You people are stupid. The problem is not HOW the senate gets elected...it is what happens after they get elected. When are you morons going to wake up and smell the coffee? You look over there...and over here like that fool Bush joking about WMDs ...and the problem and the answer is staring you right in the face. The coruption in congress doesn't go there with the elected candidate from either party...IT's ALREADY THERE WAITING FOR THEM with buckets of money representing special interests. I would respect the teabaggers if they only had the sense to know who the enemy really is.

 

[EriktheRed]

Alright Biker, why was the Senate set up the way it was set up?

Here's another question: why did the people request a change?

Because Progressives played on their emotions and they had limited understanding of why it was set up the way it was. Since then the Government has grown out of control and corruption is even worse now than ever.

Experiment failed. Let's return to the original plan.

Yes, of course....


People are only thinking for themselves when they go along with conservative views.


Btw, this idea that "corruption is even worse now than ever" seems pretty subjective. Any actual data to compare now with then?

 

[LuckyDan]

How do you feel about appointing judges?

Are judges politicians?

This is a strawman. Stick to the topic.

But that's my point.

If we elected SC Justices they would be political beings (not that many aren't now). If appointment would make Senators less interested in being re-elected till they die, they might be the more deliberative, less political body they were originally meant to be.

I kinda like the idea, now that I think of it.

 

[Avatar4321]

You think that a rich man like Montana’s William Clark, a copper-mining magnate who bought a Senate seat in 1899 by paying $2,500 to each legislator to vote for him before we had the 17th amendment, being a Senator would make a state more powerful?

Crazy shit. Very crazy shit.

I think the states controling who was in the Senate would empower the states, yes. If they want to waste their power with corruption, it hurts them more than it hurts the nation at large.

in other words you want to obstruct the right of the people to voice their own choice

are you really not capable of seeing what that would do?

how sad.

I want to restore the check the States had on both the Federal Government and the majority.

There are three groups involved - Federal - State - People. Our nation worked when we had each of those groups checking the other one.

However, because we've eliminated the check the States have, they have lost significant power. And the power doesn't go to the people, it goes to the Federal Government.

The people are supposed to be represented in the House. The States in the Senate. It was designed this way specifically so we could have the appropriate checks on every group.

 

[Queen]

It provides a check on the Federal Governments by the states. and a Check on the majority from creating a tyranical federal government.

You think that a rich man like Montana’s William Clark, a copper-mining magnate who bought a Senate seat in 1899 by paying $2,500 to each legislator to vote for him before we had the 17th amendment, being a Senator would make a state more powerful?

Crazy shit. Very crazy shit.

I think the states controling who was in the Senate would empower the states, yes. If they want to waste their power with corruption, it hurts them more than it hurts the nation at large.

LOL!! Waste their power? It doesn't hurt them, it makes them rich if some billionaire can pay them to appoint him to the Senate.

Are you in favor of what Blagovitch tried to do? He was going to appoint someone to a Senate seat for money.

That's exactly what would happen if the 17th amendment was repealed.

Are teabaggers in support of that scumbag Blago?



Awesome.

 

[jillian]

I think the states controling who was in the Senate would empower the states, yes. If they want to waste their power with corruption, it hurts them more than it hurts the nation at large.

in other words you want to obstruct the right of the people to voice their own choice

are you really not capable of seeing what that would do?

how sad.

I want to restore the check the States had on both the Federal Government and the majority.

There are three groups involved - Federal - State - People. Our nation worked when we had each of those groups checking the other one.

However, because we've eliminated the check the States have, they have lost significant power. And the power doesn't go to the people, it goes to the Federal Government.

The people are supposed to be represented in the House. The States in the Senate. It was designed this way specifically so we could have the appropriate checks on every group.

no you don't want to restore anything. you want to fix elections and go back to the days when the landed gentry ran the country.

and that might be the most self-defeating most ignorant thing i've ever seen anyone want in politics...

unless, of course, you're worth a billion dollars or two.

 

[LuckyDan]

You think that a rich man like Montana’s William Clark, a copper-mining magnate who bought a Senate seat in 1899 by paying $2,500 to each legislator to vote for him before we had the 17th amendment, being a Senator would make a state more powerful?

Crazy shit. Very crazy shit.

I think the states controling who was in the Senate would empower the states, yes. If they want to waste their power with corruption, it hurts them more than it hurts the nation at large.

LOL!! Waste their power? It doesn't hurt them, it makes them rich if some billionaire can pay them to appoint him to the Senate.

Are you in favor of what Blagovitch tried to do? He was going to appoint someone to a Senate seat for money.

That's exactly what would happen if the 17th amendment was repealed.

Are teabaggers in support of that scumbag Blago?



Awesome.

And it would still be illegal.

 

[Queen]

How do you feel about appointing judges?

Are judges politicians?

This is a strawman. Stick to the topic.

But that's my point.

If we elected SC Justices they would be political beings (not that many aren't now). If appointment would make Senators less interested in being re-elected till they die, they might be the more deliberative, less political body they were originally meant to be.

I kinda like the idea, now that I think of it.

They would do the bidding (even worse than elected Senators do now) of the lobby that bought them their seat.

At least now, if a Senator does stuff we don't like we can vote them out. If the highest bidder appoints his man, we have no say.

We have nothing.

Now, we have our vote. We can call them up as I've called DiFi many times and tell them, I will not vote for you if you ____________ in fact I will campaign against you.

Now, we have a voice.

Teabag kooks want to take that away from us.

 

[Avatar4321]

Here's another question: why did the people request a change?

Because Progressives played on their emotions and they had limited understanding of why it was set up the way it was. Since then the Government has grown out of control and corruption is even worse now than ever.

Experiment failed. Let's return to the original plan.

Yes, of course....


People are only thinking for themselves when they go along with conservative views.


Btw, this idea that "corruption is even worse now than ever" seems pretty subjective. Any actual data to compare now with then?

Alright, answer me these questions:

When did the Federal Government ever run a deficit over trillions of dollars before the Senate was taken from the States?

When were earmarks a problem before the Senate was taken from the States?

When people are directly elected, lobbyists have more power to influence them because the politicians need money to run their campaigns. When the Senate is chosen by the people, the lobbyists can't directly contribute Senators campaigns. In order to buy a Senator, they would have to influence all the States officials to appoint said Senator.

Their influence is weakend. You guys are the ones always complaining about the lobbyists. Restore the Senate, and you will dilute their power significantly.

 

[Queen]

no you don't want to restore anything. you want to fix elections and go back to the days when the landed gentry ran the country.

and that might be the most self-defeating most ignorant thing i've ever seen anyone want in politics...

unless, of course, you're worth a billion dollars or two.

That's the strangest thing about teabaggers and Republicans. They constantly vote against their own interests.


It's brainwashing of the highest order. Maybe Glenn Beck has magic hypnotising eyes. I can't watch him long enough to get sucked in I guess. He starts crying or acting psychotic and I have to turn the channel.

 

[Queen]

I think the states controling who was in the Senate would empower the states, yes. If they want to waste their power with corruption, it hurts them more than it hurts the nation at large.

LOL!! Waste their power? It doesn't hurt them, it makes them rich if some billionaire can pay them to appoint him to the Senate.

Are you in favor of what Blagovitch tried to do? He was going to appoint someone to a Senate seat for money.

That's exactly what would happen if the 17th amendment was repealed.

Are teabaggers in support of that scumbag Blago?



Awesome.

And it would still be illegal.

Was it illegal in 1899 before the 17th amendment was added?

Didn't you click any of my links?