Excellent Call, Ben

[kaz]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

Senators are bound to represent the states, not a political party. That's how it was for the first 113 years.

Ya. But that is no longer the case. We are not the same now as we were then.

how are we not the same???

I have to agree with Coyote on that. When we were founded, Americans were loyal to their State first. If Virginia had stayed with the Union, Robert E. Lee would have been General of the Union army.

Now politics is all national. We are a central government controlled country, not a distributed country.

It's unfortunate but true.

Some of us want to go back to that. But it's not going to happen

it will never happen if we sit back and do nothing,,,and ben is doing something,,,

IMO anyone that speaks against a return to that is a POS that needs confronted everytime they open their mouth,,,

I agree and I'm in. I'm just expressing doubt that State rights will happen again. Democrats will fight to the death to prevent it. Their whole justification for power is mob rule and State rights are an anathema to mob rule

they seem to call for states rights when a republican is president,,,

Yes. Democrats call for State rights when they want to override legitimate Constitutional Federal powers, like immigration. Then they ignore State rights for things the Federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do. It's an f'd up party

someday the people will wake up and see its the partys themselves that are the problem dividing us,,,

Politics is the art of division. You pit one group against the other, and yes, both parties are experts at it because that is all they do all day. After all, if both parties said they would treat everyone the same, who would send them all their money and support? People give their time and money to these people to get a leg up on their fellow citizen.

As for what is wrong today, it has to do with centralized power. Power corrupts so the more power is centralized the more corrupt it becomes. So subverting Federalism and distribution of power into the model we have now where the President controls about everything from what doctor we see or who educates our children and how, is one of the main issues.

If so, then the party system has NOTHING to do with our problems. Decentralizing power is the key

Would it not be nice for states to get back to governing themselves, so that blue and red states can tend to their own affairs and half the country does not want to secede every Presidential election? It's like when Obama ran on Obamacare. Of all states that opposed it, Massachusetts voted for Scott Brown to stop it because they liked their Romneycare, but the democrats schemed and bypassed Scott Brown to shove it through anyway.

And the 17th amendment is part of the subverting of power as states lose a vote for the Senate.

What if we just took the money out of it? Make all elections publically funded.

Take all the money out of what? My guess is that you would just take corporate money out of the elections cycle, in which case not even corporations would have a voice.

I'm sure you are not suggesting we put a cap on spending that Congress does, especially since passing the 16th amendment for a Federal income tax that was declared unconstitutional decades before by SCOTUS, essentially tilted the power towards total Federal domination of the states. No, people like you want even more spending like $100 trillion to fight the naturally occurring gas carbon dioxide and for free everything costing God only knows how much.

corperations are not people. Why should they have a voice? Same with unions.

OK, technically my car is a possession of mine like my corporation is a possession. But I have the free speech, not my car or my corporation. Government can restrict corporations in terms of deducting campaign contributions, but you can't limit it from my corporation any more than you can say I don't have free speech when I'm driving in a car

 

[Coyote]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

Senators are bound to represent the states, not a political party. That's how it was for the first 113 years.

Ya. But that is no longer the case. We are not the same now as we were then.

how are we not the same???

I have to agree with Coyote on that. When we were founded, Americans were loyal to their State first. If Virginia had stayed with the Union, Robert E. Lee would have been General of the Union army.

Now politics is all national. We are a central government controlled country, not a distributed country.

It's unfortunate but true.

Some of us want to go back to that. But it's not going to happen

it will never happen if we sit back and do nothing,,,and ben is doing something,,,

IMO anyone that speaks against a return to that is a POS that needs confronted everytime they open their mouth,,,

I agree and I'm in. I'm just expressing doubt that State rights will happen again. Democrats will fight to the death to prevent it. Their whole justification for power is mob rule and State rights are an anathema to mob rule

they seem to call for states rights when a republican is president,,,

Yes. Democrats call for State rights when they want to override legitimate Constitutional Federal powers, like immigration. Then they ignore State rights for things the Federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do. It's an f'd up party

someday the people will wake up and see its the partys themselves that are the problem dividing us,,,

Politics is the art of division. You pit one group against the other, and yes, both parties are experts at it because that is all they do all day. After all, if both parties said they would treat everyone the same, who would send them all their money and support? People give their time and money to these people to get a leg up on their fellow citizen.

As for what is wrong today, it has to do with centralized power. Power corrupts so the more power is centralized the more corrupt it becomes. So subverting Federalism and distribution of power into the model we have now where the President controls about everything from what doctor we see or who educates our children and how, is one of the main issues.

If so, then the party system has NOTHING to do with our problems. Decentralizing power is the key

Would it not be nice for states to get back to governing themselves, so that blue and red states can tend to their own affairs and half the country does not want to secede every Presidential election? It's like when Obama ran on Obamacare. Of all states that opposed it, Massachusetts voted for Scott Brown to stop it because they liked their Romneycare, but the democrats schemed and bypassed Scott Brown to shove it through anyway.

And the 17th amendment is part of the subverting of power as states lose a vote for the Senate.

What if we just took the money out of it? Make all elections publically funded.

Take all the money out of what? My guess is that you would just take corporate money out of the elections cycle, in which case not even corporations would have a voice.

I'm sure you are not suggesting we put a cap on spending that Congress does, especially since passing the 16th amendment for a Federal income tax that was declared unconstitutional decades before by SCOTUS, essentially tilted the power towards total Federal domination of the states. No, people like you want even more spending like $100 trillion to fight the naturally occurring gas carbon dioxide and for free everything costing God only knows how much.

corperations are not people. Why should they have a voice? Same with unions.

just a suggestion for a new vote finance law,,

if you dont have a legal right to vote for the candidate you cant give them money in any form either directly or indirectly,,,

what say you???

If all campaigns would be publically funded, then no. Maybe politiians can actually do some real work if they werent running around chading money.

 

[progressive hunter]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

Senators are bound to represent the states, not a political party. That's how it was for the first 113 years.

Ya. But that is no longer the case. We are not the same now as we were then.

how are we not the same???

I have to agree with Coyote on that. When we were founded, Americans were loyal to their State first. If Virginia had stayed with the Union, Robert E. Lee would have been General of the Union army.

Now politics is all national. We are a central government controlled country, not a distributed country.

It's unfortunate but true.

Some of us want to go back to that. But it's not going to happen

it will never happen if we sit back and do nothing,,,and ben is doing something,,,

IMO anyone that speaks against a return to that is a POS that needs confronted everytime they open their mouth,,,

I agree and I'm in. I'm just expressing doubt that State rights will happen again. Democrats will fight to the death to prevent it. Their whole justification for power is mob rule and State rights are an anathema to mob rule

they seem to call for states rights when a republican is president,,,

Yes. Democrats call for State rights when they want to override legitimate Constitutional Federal powers, like immigration. Then they ignore State rights for things the Federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do. It's an f'd up party

someday the people will wake up and see its the partys themselves that are the problem dividing us,,,

Politics is the art of division. You pit one group against the other, and yes, both parties are experts at it because that is all they do all day. After all, if both parties said they would treat everyone the same, who would send them all their money and support? People give their time and money to these people to get a leg up on their fellow citizen.

As for what is wrong today, it has to do with centralized power. Power corrupts so the more power is centralized the more corrupt it becomes. So subverting Federalism and distribution of power into the model we have now where the President controls about everything from what doctor we see or who educates our children and how, is one of the main issues.

If so, then the party system has NOTHING to do with our problems. Decentralizing power is the key

Would it not be nice for states to get back to governing themselves, so that blue and red states can tend to their own affairs and half the country does not want to secede every Presidential election? It's like when Obama ran on Obamacare. Of all states that opposed it, Massachusetts voted for Scott Brown to stop it because they liked their Romneycare, but the democrats schemed and bypassed Scott Brown to shove it through anyway.

And the 17th amendment is part of the subverting of power as states lose a vote for the Senate.

What if we just took the money out of it? Make all elections publically funded.

Take all the money out of what? My guess is that you would just take corporate money out of the elections cycle, in which case not even corporations would have a voice.

I'm sure you are not suggesting we put a cap on spending that Congress does, especially since passing the 16th amendment for a Federal income tax that was declared unconstitutional decades before by SCOTUS, essentially tilted the power towards total Federal domination of the states. No, people like you want even more spending like $100 trillion to fight the naturally occurring gas carbon dioxide and for free everything costing God only knows how much.

corperations are not people. Why should they have a voice? Same with unions.

just a suggestion for a new vote finance law,,

if you dont have a legal right to vote for the candidate you cant give them money in any form either directly or indirectly,,,

what say you???

If all campaigns would be publically funded, then no. Maybe politiians can actually do some real work if they werent running around chading money.

so you want to raise taxs for political parties,,,
go figure,,,

 

[Coyote]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

Senators are bound to represent the states, not a political party. That's how it was for the first 113 years.

Ya. But that is no longer the case. We are not the same now as we were then.

how are we not the same???

I have to agree with Coyote on that. When we were founded, Americans were loyal to their State first. If Virginia had stayed with the Union, Robert E. Lee would have been General of the Union army.

Now politics is all national. We are a central government controlled country, not a distributed country.

It's unfortunate but true.

Some of us want to go back to that. But it's not going to happen

it will never happen if we sit back and do nothing,,,and ben is doing something,,,

IMO anyone that speaks against a return to that is a POS that needs confronted everytime they open their mouth,,,

I agree and I'm in. I'm just expressing doubt that State rights will happen again. Democrats will fight to the death to prevent it. Their whole justification for power is mob rule and State rights are an anathema to mob rule

they seem to call for states rights when a republican is president,,,

Yes. Democrats call for State rights when they want to override legitimate Constitutional Federal powers, like immigration. Then they ignore State rights for things the Federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do. It's an f'd up party

someday the people will wake up and see its the partys themselves that are the problem dividing us,,,

Politics is the art of division. You pit one group against the other, and yes, both parties are experts at it because that is all they do all day. After all, if both parties said they would treat everyone the same, who would send them all their money and support? People give their time and money to these people to get a leg up on their fellow citizen.

As for what is wrong today, it has to do with centralized power. Power corrupts so the more power is centralized the more corrupt it becomes. So subverting Federalism and distribution of power into the model we have now where the President controls about everything from what doctor we see or who educates our children and how, is one of the main issues.

If so, then the party system has NOTHING to do with our problems. Decentralizing power is the key

Would it not be nice for states to get back to governing themselves, so that blue and red states can tend to their own affairs and half the country does not want to secede every Presidential election? It's like when Obama ran on Obamacare. Of all states that opposed it, Massachusetts voted for Scott Brown to stop it because they liked their Romneycare, but the democrats schemed and bypassed Scott Brown to shove it through anyway.

And the 17th amendment is part of the subverting of power as states lose a vote for the Senate.

What if we just took the money out of it? Make all elections publically funded.

Take all the money out of what? My guess is that you would just take corporate money out of the elections cycle, in which case not even corporations would have a voice.

I'm sure you are not suggesting we put a cap on spending that Congress does, especially since passing the 16th amendment for a Federal income tax that was declared unconstitutional decades before by SCOTUS, essentially tilted the power towards total Federal domination of the states. No, people like you want even more spending like $100 trillion to fight the naturally occurring gas carbon dioxide and for free everything costing God only knows how much.

corperations are not people. Why should they have a voice? Same with unions.

OK, technically my car is a possession of mine like my corporation is a possession. But I have the free speech, not my car or my corporation. Government can restrict corporations in terms of deducting campaign contributions, but you can't limit it from my corporation any more than you can say I don't have free speech when I'm driving in a car

You, as an individual can donate what ever you want up to whatever the legal limit is...from your personal money. Just like anyone else.

 

[Votto]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

Senators are bound to represent the states, not a political party. That's how it was for the first 113 years.

Ya. But that is no longer the case. We are not the same now as we were then.

how are we not the same???

I have to agree with Coyote on that. When we were founded, Americans were loyal to their State first. If Virginia had stayed with the Union, Robert E. Lee would have been General of the Union army.

Now politics is all national. We are a central government controlled country, not a distributed country.

It's unfortunate but true.

Some of us want to go back to that. But it's not going to happen

it will never happen if we sit back and do nothing,,,and ben is doing something,,,

IMO anyone that speaks against a return to that is a POS that needs confronted everytime they open their mouth,,,

I agree and I'm in. I'm just expressing doubt that State rights will happen again. Democrats will fight to the death to prevent it. Their whole justification for power is mob rule and State rights are an anathema to mob rule

they seem to call for states rights when a republican is president,,,

Yes. Democrats call for State rights when they want to override legitimate Constitutional Federal powers, like immigration. Then they ignore State rights for things the Federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do. It's an f'd up party

someday the people will wake up and see its the partys themselves that are the problem dividing us,,,

Politics is the art of division. You pit one group against the other, and yes, both parties are experts at it because that is all they do all day. After all, if both parties said they would treat everyone the same, who would send them all their money and support? People give their time and money to these people to get a leg up on their fellow citizen.

As for what is wrong today, it has to do with centralized power. Power corrupts so the more power is centralized the more corrupt it becomes. So subverting Federalism and distribution of power into the model we have now where the President controls about everything from what doctor we see or who educates our children and how, is one of the main issues.

If so, then the party system has NOTHING to do with our problems. Decentralizing power is the key

Would it not be nice for states to get back to governing themselves, so that blue and red states can tend to their own affairs and half the country does not want to secede every Presidential election? It's like when Obama ran on Obamacare. Of all states that opposed it, Massachusetts voted for Scott Brown to stop it because they liked their Romneycare, but the democrats schemed and bypassed Scott Brown to shove it through anyway.

And the 17th amendment is part of the subverting of power as states lose a vote for the Senate.

What if we just took the money out of it? Make all elections publically funded.

Take all the money out of what? My guess is that you would just take corporate money out of the elections cycle, in which case not even corporations would have a voice.

I'm sure you are not suggesting we put a cap on spending that Congress does, especially since passing the 16th amendment for a Federal income tax that was declared unconstitutional decades before by SCOTUS, essentially tilted the power towards total Federal domination of the states. No, people like you want even more spending like $100 trillion to fight the naturally occurring gas carbon dioxide and for free everything costing God only knows how much.

corperations are not people. Why should they have a voice? Same with unions.

just a suggestion for a new vote finance law,,

if you dont have a legal right to vote for the candidate you cant give them money in any form either directly or indirectly,,,

what say you???

If all campaigns would be publically funded, then no. Maybe politiians can actually do some real work if they werent running around chading money.

And maybe if those in Congress were limited to one or two terms, they would not have to worry about re-election at all. In fact, they might be faced with having to govern a world that they soon will have to reenter rather than voting themselves a special health care plan as the rest of us are forced into other health care plans.

But I digress.

 

[kaz]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

Senators are bound to represent the states, not a political party. That's how it was for the first 113 years.

Ya. But that is no longer the case. We are not the same now as we were then.

how are we not the same???

I have to agree with Coyote on that. When we were founded, Americans were loyal to their State first. If Virginia had stayed with the Union, Robert E. Lee would have been General of the Union army.

Now politics is all national. We are a central government controlled country, not a distributed country.

It's unfortunate but true.

Some of us want to go back to that. But it's not going to happen

it will never happen if we sit back and do nothing,,,and ben is doing something,,,

IMO anyone that speaks against a return to that is a POS that needs confronted everytime they open their mouth,,,

I agree and I'm in. I'm just expressing doubt that State rights will happen again. Democrats will fight to the death to prevent it. Their whole justification for power is mob rule and State rights are an anathema to mob rule

they seem to call for states rights when a republican is president,,,

Yes. Democrats call for State rights when they want to override legitimate Constitutional Federal powers, like immigration. Then they ignore State rights for things the Federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do. It's an f'd up party

someday the people will wake up and see its the partys themselves that are the problem dividing us,,,

Politics is the art of division. You pit one group against the other, and yes, both parties are experts at it because that is all they do all day. After all, if both parties said they would treat everyone the same, who would send them all their money and support? People give their time and money to these people to get a leg up on their fellow citizen.

As for what is wrong today, it has to do with centralized power. Power corrupts so the more power is centralized the more corrupt it becomes. So subverting Federalism and distribution of power into the model we have now where the President controls about everything from what doctor we see or who educates our children and how, is one of the main issues.

If so, then the party system has NOTHING to do with our problems. Decentralizing power is the key

Would it not be nice for states to get back to governing themselves, so that blue and red states can tend to their own affairs and half the country does not want to secede every Presidential election? It's like when Obama ran on Obamacare. Of all states that opposed it, Massachusetts voted for Scott Brown to stop it because they liked their Romneycare, but the democrats schemed and bypassed Scott Brown to shove it through anyway.

And the 17th amendment is part of the subverting of power as states lose a vote for the Senate.

What if we just took the money out of it? Make all elections publically funded.

Take all the money out of what? My guess is that you would just take corporate money out of the elections cycle, in which case not even corporations would have a voice.

I'm sure you are not suggesting we put a cap on spending that Congress does, especially since passing the 16th amendment for a Federal income tax that was declared unconstitutional decades before by SCOTUS, essentially tilted the power towards total Federal domination of the states. No, people like you want even more spending like $100 trillion to fight the naturally occurring gas carbon dioxide and for free everything costing God only knows how much.

corperations are not people. Why should they have a voice? Same with unions.

just a suggestion for a new vote finance law,,

if you dont have a legal right to vote for the candidate you cant give them money in any form either directly or indirectly,,,

what say you???

If all campaigns would be publically funded, then no. Maybe politiians can actually do some real work if they werent running around chading money.

There's just that pesky first amendment. Doesn't bother you, huh?

 

[Votto]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

Senators are bound to represent the states, not a political party. That's how it was for the first 113 years.

Ya. But that is no longer the case. We are not the same now as we were then.

how are we not the same???

I have to agree with Coyote on that. When we were founded, Americans were loyal to their State first. If Virginia had stayed with the Union, Robert E. Lee would have been General of the Union army.

Now politics is all national. We are a central government controlled country, not a distributed country.

It's unfortunate but true.

Some of us want to go back to that. But it's not going to happen

it will never happen if we sit back and do nothing,,,and ben is doing something,,,

IMO anyone that speaks against a return to that is a POS that needs confronted everytime they open their mouth,,,

I agree and I'm in. I'm just expressing doubt that State rights will happen again. Democrats will fight to the death to prevent it. Their whole justification for power is mob rule and State rights are an anathema to mob rule

they seem to call for states rights when a republican is president,,,

Yes. Democrats call for State rights when they want to override legitimate Constitutional Federal powers, like immigration. Then they ignore State rights for things the Federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do. It's an f'd up party

someday the people will wake up and see its the partys themselves that are the problem dividing us,,,

Politics is the art of division. You pit one group against the other, and yes, both parties are experts at it because that is all they do all day. After all, if both parties said they would treat everyone the same, who would send them all their money and support? People give their time and money to these people to get a leg up on their fellow citizen.

As for what is wrong today, it has to do with centralized power. Power corrupts so the more power is centralized the more corrupt it becomes. So subverting Federalism and distribution of power into the model we have now where the President controls about everything from what doctor we see or who educates our children and how, is one of the main issues.

If so, then the party system has NOTHING to do with our problems. Decentralizing power is the key

Would it not be nice for states to get back to governing themselves, so that blue and red states can tend to their own affairs and half the country does not want to secede every Presidential election? It's like when Obama ran on Obamacare. Of all states that opposed it, Massachusetts voted for Scott Brown to stop it because they liked their Romneycare, but the democrats schemed and bypassed Scott Brown to shove it through anyway.

And the 17th amendment is part of the subverting of power as states lose a vote for the Senate.

What if we just took the money out of it? Make all elections publically funded.

Take all the money out of what? My guess is that you would just take corporate money out of the elections cycle, in which case not even corporations would have a voice.

I'm sure you are not suggesting we put a cap on spending that Congress does, especially since passing the 16th amendment for a Federal income tax that was declared unconstitutional decades before by SCOTUS, essentially tilted the power towards total Federal domination of the states. No, people like you want even more spending like $100 trillion to fight the naturally occurring gas carbon dioxide and for free everything costing God only knows how much.

corperations are not people. Why should they have a voice? Same with unions.

just a suggestion for a new vote finance law,,

if you dont have a legal right to vote for the candidate you cant give them money in any form either directly or indirectly,,,

what say you???

If all campaigns would be publically funded, then no. Maybe politiians can actually do some real work if they werent running around chading money.

so you want to raise taxs for political parties,,,
go figure,,,

Taxation curse all our ills.

 

[kaz]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

Senators are bound to represent the states, not a political party. That's how it was for the first 113 years.

Ya. But that is no longer the case. We are not the same now as we were then.

how are we not the same???

I have to agree with Coyote on that. When we were founded, Americans were loyal to their State first. If Virginia had stayed with the Union, Robert E. Lee would have been General of the Union army.

Now politics is all national. We are a central government controlled country, not a distributed country.

It's unfortunate but true.

Some of us want to go back to that. But it's not going to happen

it will never happen if we sit back and do nothing,,,and ben is doing something,,,

IMO anyone that speaks against a return to that is a POS that needs confronted everytime they open their mouth,,,

I agree and I'm in. I'm just expressing doubt that State rights will happen again. Democrats will fight to the death to prevent it. Their whole justification for power is mob rule and State rights are an anathema to mob rule

they seem to call for states rights when a republican is president,,,

Yes. Democrats call for State rights when they want to override legitimate Constitutional Federal powers, like immigration. Then they ignore State rights for things the Federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do. It's an f'd up party

someday the people will wake up and see its the partys themselves that are the problem dividing us,,,

Politics is the art of division. You pit one group against the other, and yes, both parties are experts at it because that is all they do all day. After all, if both parties said they would treat everyone the same, who would send them all their money and support? People give their time and money to these people to get a leg up on their fellow citizen.

As for what is wrong today, it has to do with centralized power. Power corrupts so the more power is centralized the more corrupt it becomes. So subverting Federalism and distribution of power into the model we have now where the President controls about everything from what doctor we see or who educates our children and how, is one of the main issues.

If so, then the party system has NOTHING to do with our problems. Decentralizing power is the key

Would it not be nice for states to get back to governing themselves, so that blue and red states can tend to their own affairs and half the country does not want to secede every Presidential election? It's like when Obama ran on Obamacare. Of all states that opposed it, Massachusetts voted for Scott Brown to stop it because they liked their Romneycare, but the democrats schemed and bypassed Scott Brown to shove it through anyway.

And the 17th amendment is part of the subverting of power as states lose a vote for the Senate.

What if we just took the money out of it? Make all elections publically funded.

Take all the money out of what? My guess is that you would just take corporate money out of the elections cycle, in which case not even corporations would have a voice.

I'm sure you are not suggesting we put a cap on spending that Congress does, especially since passing the 16th amendment for a Federal income tax that was declared unconstitutional decades before by SCOTUS, essentially tilted the power towards total Federal domination of the states. No, people like you want even more spending like $100 trillion to fight the naturally occurring gas carbon dioxide and for free everything costing God only knows how much.

corperations are not people. Why should they have a voice? Same with unions.

OK, technically my car is a possession of mine like my corporation is a possession. But I have the free speech, not my car or my corporation. Government can restrict corporations in terms of deducting campaign contributions, but you can't limit it from my corporation any more than you can say I don't have free speech when I'm driving in a car

You, as an individual can donate what ever you want up to whatever the legal limit is...from your personal money. Just like anyone else.

You mean like Soros?

 

[Votto]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

Senators are bound to represent the states, not a political party. That's how it was for the first 113 years.

Ya. But that is no longer the case. We are not the same now as we were then.

how are we not the same???

I have to agree with Coyote on that. When we were founded, Americans were loyal to their State first. If Virginia had stayed with the Union, Robert E. Lee would have been General of the Union army.

Now politics is all national. We are a central government controlled country, not a distributed country.

It's unfortunate but true.

Some of us want to go back to that. But it's not going to happen

it will never happen if we sit back and do nothing,,,and ben is doing something,,,

IMO anyone that speaks against a return to that is a POS that needs confronted everytime they open their mouth,,,

I agree and I'm in. I'm just expressing doubt that State rights will happen again. Democrats will fight to the death to prevent it. Their whole justification for power is mob rule and State rights are an anathema to mob rule

they seem to call for states rights when a republican is president,,,

Yes. Democrats call for State rights when they want to override legitimate Constitutional Federal powers, like immigration. Then they ignore State rights for things the Federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do. It's an f'd up party

someday the people will wake up and see its the partys themselves that are the problem dividing us,,,

Politics is the art of division. You pit one group against the other, and yes, both parties are experts at it because that is all they do all day. After all, if both parties said they would treat everyone the same, who would send them all their money and support? People give their time and money to these people to get a leg up on their fellow citizen.

As for what is wrong today, it has to do with centralized power. Power corrupts so the more power is centralized the more corrupt it becomes. So subverting Federalism and distribution of power into the model we have now where the President controls about everything from what doctor we see or who educates our children and how, is one of the main issues.

If so, then the party system has NOTHING to do with our problems. Decentralizing power is the key

Would it not be nice for states to get back to governing themselves, so that blue and red states can tend to their own affairs and half the country does not want to secede every Presidential election? It's like when Obama ran on Obamacare. Of all states that opposed it, Massachusetts voted for Scott Brown to stop it because they liked their Romneycare, but the democrats schemed and bypassed Scott Brown to shove it through anyway.

And the 17th amendment is part of the subverting of power as states lose a vote for the Senate.

What if we just took the money out of it? Make all elections publically funded.

Take all the money out of what? My guess is that you would just take corporate money out of the elections cycle, in which case not even corporations would have a voice.

I'm sure you are not suggesting we put a cap on spending that Congress does, especially since passing the 16th amendment for a Federal income tax that was declared unconstitutional decades before by SCOTUS, essentially tilted the power towards total Federal domination of the states. No, people like you want even more spending like $100 trillion to fight the naturally occurring gas carbon dioxide and for free everything costing God only knows how much.

corperations are not people. Why should they have a voice? Same with unions.

just a suggestion for a new vote finance law,,

if you dont have a legal right to vote for the candidate you cant give them money in any form either directly or indirectly,,,

what say you???

If all campaigns would be publically funded, then no. Maybe politiians can actually do some real work if they werent running around chading money.

There's just that pesky first amendment. Doesn't bother you, huh?

Do you really think they know or care? If it does not suit them, they ignore it like they do federal immigration laws.

 

[progressive hunter]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

Senators are bound to represent the states, not a political party. That's how it was for the first 113 years.

Ya. But that is no longer the case. We are not the same now as we were then.

how are we not the same???

I have to agree with Coyote on that. When we were founded, Americans were loyal to their State first. If Virginia had stayed with the Union, Robert E. Lee would have been General of the Union army.

Now politics is all national. We are a central government controlled country, not a distributed country.

It's unfortunate but true.

Some of us want to go back to that. But it's not going to happen

it will never happen if we sit back and do nothing,,,and ben is doing something,,,

IMO anyone that speaks against a return to that is a POS that needs confronted everytime they open their mouth,,,

I agree and I'm in. I'm just expressing doubt that State rights will happen again. Democrats will fight to the death to prevent it. Their whole justification for power is mob rule and State rights are an anathema to mob rule

they seem to call for states rights when a republican is president,,,

Yes. Democrats call for State rights when they want to override legitimate Constitutional Federal powers, like immigration. Then they ignore State rights for things the Federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do. It's an f'd up party

someday the people will wake up and see its the partys themselves that are the problem dividing us,,,

Politics is the art of division. You pit one group against the other, and yes, both parties are experts at it because that is all they do all day. After all, if both parties said they would treat everyone the same, who would send them all their money and support? People give their time and money to these people to get a leg up on their fellow citizen.

As for what is wrong today, it has to do with centralized power. Power corrupts so the more power is centralized the more corrupt it becomes. So subverting Federalism and distribution of power into the model we have now where the President controls about everything from what doctor we see or who educates our children and how, is one of the main issues.

If so, then the party system has NOTHING to do with our problems. Decentralizing power is the key

Would it not be nice for states to get back to governing themselves, so that blue and red states can tend to their own affairs and half the country does not want to secede every Presidential election? It's like when Obama ran on Obamacare. Of all states that opposed it, Massachusetts voted for Scott Brown to stop it because they liked their Romneycare, but the democrats schemed and bypassed Scott Brown to shove it through anyway.

And the 17th amendment is part of the subverting of power as states lose a vote for the Senate.

What if we just took the money out of it? Make all elections publically funded.

Take all the money out of what? My guess is that you would just take corporate money out of the elections cycle, in which case not even corporations would have a voice.

I'm sure you are not suggesting we put a cap on spending that Congress does, especially since passing the 16th amendment for a Federal income tax that was declared unconstitutional decades before by SCOTUS, essentially tilted the power towards total Federal domination of the states. No, people like you want even more spending like $100 trillion to fight the naturally occurring gas carbon dioxide and for free everything costing God only knows how much.

corperations are not people. Why should they have a voice? Same with unions.

just a suggestion for a new vote finance law,,

if you dont have a legal right to vote for the candidate you cant give them money in any form either directly or indirectly,,,

what say you???

If all campaigns would be publically funded, then no. Maybe politiians can actually do some real work if they werent running around chading money.

so you want to raise taxs for political parties,,,
go figure,,,

Taxation curse all our ills.

let me know when that happens,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

Senators are bound to represent the states, not a political party. That's how it was for the first 113 years.

Ya. But that is no longer the case. We are not the same now as we were then.

how are we not the same???

I have to agree with Coyote on that. When we were founded, Americans were loyal to their State first. If Virginia had stayed with the Union, Robert E. Lee would have been General of the Union army.

Now politics is all national. We are a central government controlled country, not a distributed country.

It's unfortunate but true.

Some of us want to go back to that. But it's not going to happen

it will never happen if we sit back and do nothing,,,and ben is doing something,,,

IMO anyone that speaks against a return to that is a POS that needs confronted everytime they open their mouth,,,

I agree and I'm in. I'm just expressing doubt that State rights will happen again. Democrats will fight to the death to prevent it. Their whole justification for power is mob rule and State rights are an anathema to mob rule

they seem to call for states rights when a republican is president,,,

Yes. Democrats call for State rights when they want to override legitimate Constitutional Federal powers, like immigration. Then they ignore State rights for things the Federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do. It's an f'd up party

someday the people will wake up and see its the partys themselves that are the problem dividing us,,,

Politics is the art of division. You pit one group against the other, and yes, both parties are experts at it because that is all they do all day. After all, if both parties said they would treat everyone the same, who would send them all their money and support? People give their time and money to these people to get a leg up on their fellow citizen.

As for what is wrong today, it has to do with centralized power. Power corrupts so the more power is centralized the more corrupt it becomes. So subverting Federalism and distribution of power into the model we have now where the President controls about everything from what doctor we see or who educates our children and how, is one of the main issues.

If so, then the party system has NOTHING to do with our problems. Decentralizing power is the key

Would it not be nice for states to get back to governing themselves, so that blue and red states can tend to their own affairs and half the country does not want to secede every Presidential election? It's like when Obama ran on Obamacare. Of all states that opposed it, Massachusetts voted for Scott Brown to stop it because they liked their Romneycare, but the democrats schemed and bypassed Scott Brown to shove it through anyway.

And the 17th amendment is part of the subverting of power as states lose a vote for the Senate.

What if we just took the money out of it? Make all elections publically funded.

Take all the money out of what? My guess is that you would just take corporate money out of the elections cycle, in which case not even corporations would have a voice.

I'm sure you are not suggesting we put a cap on spending that Congress does, especially since passing the 16th amendment for a Federal income tax that was declared unconstitutional decades before by SCOTUS, essentially tilted the power towards total Federal domination of the states. No, people like you want even more spending like $100 trillion to fight the naturally occurring gas carbon dioxide and for free everything costing God only knows how much.

corperations are not people. Why should they have a voice? Same with unions.

OK, technically my car is a possession of mine like my corporation is a possession. But I have the free speech, not my car or my corporation. Government can restrict corporations in terms of deducting campaign contributions, but you can't limit it from my corporation any more than you can say I don't have free speech when I'm driving in a car

You, as an individual can donate what ever you want up to whatever the legal limit is...from your personal money. Just like anyone else.

even if you dont have a legal right to vote for them???

 

[AZrailwhale]

But you'll need significant majorities all around to get it through.

Ben Sasse Calls for Repealing 17th Amendment

Ben Sasse Calls for Repealing 17th Amendment, Eliminating Popular-Vote Senate Elections

State legislatures should be required to appoint Senators. Direct vote just eliminates State rights. It should be viewed as a sacrifice to leave a State legislature to the Federal legislature. A step DOWN in power, not up.

Direct elections of senators is worse than the income tax. It's that bad

Elected office at every level should be a sacrifice. Pay should be low, duties onerous. The original idea was that elected officials would SERVE their constituents, not rule them as happens now.

 

[Coyote]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

Senators are bound to represent the states, not a political party. That's how it was for the first 113 years.

Ya. But that is no longer the case. We are not the same now as we were then.

how are we not the same???

I have to agree with Coyote on that. When we were founded, Americans were loyal to their State first. If Virginia had stayed with the Union, Robert E. Lee would have been General of the Union army.

Now politics is all national. We are a central government controlled country, not a distributed country.

It's unfortunate but true.

Some of us want to go back to that. But it's not going to happen

it will never happen if we sit back and do nothing,,,and ben is doing something,,,

IMO anyone that speaks against a return to that is a POS that needs confronted everytime they open their mouth,,,

I agree and I'm in. I'm just expressing doubt that State rights will happen again. Democrats will fight to the death to prevent it. Their whole justification for power is mob rule and State rights are an anathema to mob rule

they seem to call for states rights when a republican is president,,,

Yes. Democrats call for State rights when they want to override legitimate Constitutional Federal powers, like immigration. Then they ignore State rights for things the Federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do. It's an f'd up party

someday the people will wake up and see its the partys themselves that are the problem dividing us,,,

Politics is the art of division. You pit one group against the other, and yes, both parties are experts at it because that is all they do all day. After all, if both parties said they would treat everyone the same, who would send them all their money and support? People give their time and money to these people to get a leg up on their fellow citizen.

As for what is wrong today, it has to do with centralized power. Power corrupts so the more power is centralized the more corrupt it becomes. So subverting Federalism and distribution of power into the model we have now where the President controls about everything from what doctor we see or who educates our children and how, is one of the main issues.

If so, then the party system has NOTHING to do with our problems. Decentralizing power is the key

Would it not be nice for states to get back to governing themselves, so that blue and red states can tend to their own affairs and half the country does not want to secede every Presidential election? It's like when Obama ran on Obamacare. Of all states that opposed it, Massachusetts voted for Scott Brown to stop it because they liked their Romneycare, but the democrats schemed and bypassed Scott Brown to shove it through anyway.

And the 17th amendment is part of the subverting of power as states lose a vote for the Senate.

What if we just took the money out of it? Make all elections publically funded.

Take all the money out of what? My guess is that you would just take corporate money out of the elections cycle, in which case not even corporations would have a voice.

I'm sure you are not suggesting we put a cap on spending that Congress does, especially since passing the 16th amendment for a Federal income tax that was declared unconstitutional decades before by SCOTUS, essentially tilted the power towards total Federal domination of the states. No, people like you want even more spending like $100 trillion to fight the naturally occurring gas carbon dioxide and for free everything costing God only knows how much.

corperations are not people. Why should they have a voice? Same with unions.

OK, technically my car is a possession of mine like my corporation is a possession. But I have the free speech, not my car or my corporation. Government can restrict corporations in terms of deducting campaign contributions, but you can't limit it from my corporation any more than you can say I don't have free speech when I'm driving in a car

You, as an individual can donate what ever you want up to whatever the legal limit is...from your personal money. Just like anyone else.

even if you dont have a legal right to vote for them???

I don't think it matters. And it would be a logistical nightmare to track it. That means someone in another state couldn't donate to a candidate elsewhere (who they can't vote for). What do campaign laws say about individuals donating?

 

[kaz]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

Senators are bound to represent the states, not a political party. That's how it was for the first 113 years.

Ya. But that is no longer the case. We are not the same now as we were then.

how are we not the same???

I have to agree with Coyote on that. When we were founded, Americans were loyal to their State first. If Virginia had stayed with the Union, Robert E. Lee would have been General of the Union army.

Now politics is all national. We are a central government controlled country, not a distributed country.

It's unfortunate but true.

Some of us want to go back to that. But it's not going to happen

it will never happen if we sit back and do nothing,,,and ben is doing something,,,

IMO anyone that speaks against a return to that is a POS that needs confronted everytime they open their mouth,,,

I agree and I'm in. I'm just expressing doubt that State rights will happen again. Democrats will fight to the death to prevent it. Their whole justification for power is mob rule and State rights are an anathema to mob rule

they seem to call for states rights when a republican is president,,,

Yes. Democrats call for State rights when they want to override legitimate Constitutional Federal powers, like immigration. Then they ignore State rights for things the Federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do. It's an f'd up party

someday the people will wake up and see its the partys themselves that are the problem dividing us,,,

Politics is the art of division. You pit one group against the other, and yes, both parties are experts at it because that is all they do all day. After all, if both parties said they would treat everyone the same, who would send them all their money and support? People give their time and money to these people to get a leg up on their fellow citizen.

As for what is wrong today, it has to do with centralized power. Power corrupts so the more power is centralized the more corrupt it becomes. So subverting Federalism and distribution of power into the model we have now where the President controls about everything from what doctor we see or who educates our children and how, is one of the main issues.

If so, then the party system has NOTHING to do with our problems. Decentralizing power is the key

Would it not be nice for states to get back to governing themselves, so that blue and red states can tend to their own affairs and half the country does not want to secede every Presidential election? It's like when Obama ran on Obamacare. Of all states that opposed it, Massachusetts voted for Scott Brown to stop it because they liked their Romneycare, but the democrats schemed and bypassed Scott Brown to shove it through anyway.

And the 17th amendment is part of the subverting of power as states lose a vote for the Senate.

What if we just took the money out of it? Make all elections publically funded.

Take all the money out of what? My guess is that you would just take corporate money out of the elections cycle, in which case not even corporations would have a voice.

I'm sure you are not suggesting we put a cap on spending that Congress does, especially since passing the 16th amendment for a Federal income tax that was declared unconstitutional decades before by SCOTUS, essentially tilted the power towards total Federal domination of the states. No, people like you want even more spending like $100 trillion to fight the naturally occurring gas carbon dioxide and for free everything costing God only knows how much.

corperations are not people. Why should they have a voice? Same with unions.

OK, technically my car is a possession of mine like my corporation is a possession. But I have the free speech, not my car or my corporation. Government can restrict corporations in terms of deducting campaign contributions, but you can't limit it from my corporation any more than you can say I don't have free speech when I'm driving in a car

You, as an individual can donate what ever you want up to whatever the legal limit is...from your personal money. Just like anyone else.

even if you dont have a legal right to vote for them???

I don't think it matters. And it would be a logistical nightmare to track it. That means someone in another state couldn't donate to a candidate elsewhere (who they can't vote for). What do campaign laws say about individuals donating?

The limits you are referring to are only directly to the candidate. You have to know there are all sorts of PAC contributions without those limits. Why are you playing dumb on that?

Why shouldn't my energy company be able to advertise not to turn the United States into California, the most advanced technology of the world that can't keep their lights on because the heads of their politicians are shoved up their asses?

 

[Coyote]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

Senators are bound to represent the states, not a political party. That's how it was for the first 113 years.

Ya. But that is no longer the case. We are not the same now as we were then.

how are we not the same???

I have to agree with Coyote on that. When we were founded, Americans were loyal to their State first. If Virginia had stayed with the Union, Robert E. Lee would have been General of the Union army.

Now politics is all national. We are a central government controlled country, not a distributed country.

It's unfortunate but true.

Some of us want to go back to that. But it's not going to happen

it will never happen if we sit back and do nothing,,,and ben is doing something,,,

IMO anyone that speaks against a return to that is a POS that needs confronted everytime they open their mouth,,,

I agree and I'm in. I'm just expressing doubt that State rights will happen again. Democrats will fight to the death to prevent it. Their whole justification for power is mob rule and State rights are an anathema to mob rule

they seem to call for states rights when a republican is president,,,

Yes. Democrats call for State rights when they want to override legitimate Constitutional Federal powers, like immigration. Then they ignore State rights for things the Federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do. It's an f'd up party

someday the people will wake up and see its the partys themselves that are the problem dividing us,,,

Politics is the art of division. You pit one group against the other, and yes, both parties are experts at it because that is all they do all day. After all, if both parties said they would treat everyone the same, who would send them all their money and support? People give their time and money to these people to get a leg up on their fellow citizen.

As for what is wrong today, it has to do with centralized power. Power corrupts so the more power is centralized the more corrupt it becomes. So subverting Federalism and distribution of power into the model we have now where the President controls about everything from what doctor we see or who educates our children and how, is one of the main issues.

If so, then the party system has NOTHING to do with our problems. Decentralizing power is the key

Would it not be nice for states to get back to governing themselves, so that blue and red states can tend to their own affairs and half the country does not want to secede every Presidential election? It's like when Obama ran on Obamacare. Of all states that opposed it, Massachusetts voted for Scott Brown to stop it because they liked their Romneycare, but the democrats schemed and bypassed Scott Brown to shove it through anyway.

And the 17th amendment is part of the subverting of power as states lose a vote for the Senate.

What if we just took the money out of it? Make all elections publically funded.

Take all the money out of what? My guess is that you would just take corporate money out of the elections cycle, in which case not even corporations would have a voice.

I'm sure you are not suggesting we put a cap on spending that Congress does, especially since passing the 16th amendment for a Federal income tax that was declared unconstitutional decades before by SCOTUS, essentially tilted the power towards total Federal domination of the states. No, people like you want even more spending like $100 trillion to fight the naturally occurring gas carbon dioxide and for free everything costing God only knows how much.

corperations are not people. Why should they have a voice? Same with unions.

just a suggestion for a new vote finance law,,

if you dont have a legal right to vote for the candidate you cant give them money in any form either directly or indirectly,,,

what say you???

If all campaigns would be publically funded, then no. Maybe politiians can actually do some real work if they werent running around chading money.

And maybe if those in Congress were limited to one or two terms, they would not have to worry about re-election at all. In fact, they might be faced with having to govern a world that they soon will have to reenter rather than voting themselves a special health care plan as the rest of us are forced into other health care plans.

But I digress.

But I can see a downside to that. Lack of experience, institutional knowledge, and professional contacts needed to do the job. Politics is the only job where job experience seems unwanted.

 

[Coyote]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

Senators are bound to represent the states, not a political party. That's how it was for the first 113 years.

Ya. But that is no longer the case. We are not the same now as we were then.

how are we not the same???

I have to agree with Coyote on that. When we were founded, Americans were loyal to their State first. If Virginia had stayed with the Union, Robert E. Lee would have been General of the Union army.

Now politics is all national. We are a central government controlled country, not a distributed country.

It's unfortunate but true.

Some of us want to go back to that. But it's not going to happen

it will never happen if we sit back and do nothing,,,and ben is doing something,,,

IMO anyone that speaks against a return to that is a POS that needs confronted everytime they open their mouth,,,

I agree and I'm in. I'm just expressing doubt that State rights will happen again. Democrats will fight to the death to prevent it. Their whole justification for power is mob rule and State rights are an anathema to mob rule

they seem to call for states rights when a republican is president,,,

Yes. Democrats call for State rights when they want to override legitimate Constitutional Federal powers, like immigration. Then they ignore State rights for things the Federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do. It's an f'd up party

someday the people will wake up and see its the partys themselves that are the problem dividing us,,,

Politics is the art of division. You pit one group against the other, and yes, both parties are experts at it because that is all they do all day. After all, if both parties said they would treat everyone the same, who would send them all their money and support? People give their time and money to these people to get a leg up on their fellow citizen.

As for what is wrong today, it has to do with centralized power. Power corrupts so the more power is centralized the more corrupt it becomes. So subverting Federalism and distribution of power into the model we have now where the President controls about everything from what doctor we see or who educates our children and how, is one of the main issues.

If so, then the party system has NOTHING to do with our problems. Decentralizing power is the key

Would it not be nice for states to get back to governing themselves, so that blue and red states can tend to their own affairs and half the country does not want to secede every Presidential election? It's like when Obama ran on Obamacare. Of all states that opposed it, Massachusetts voted for Scott Brown to stop it because they liked their Romneycare, but the democrats schemed and bypassed Scott Brown to shove it through anyway.

And the 17th amendment is part of the subverting of power as states lose a vote for the Senate.

What if we just took the money out of it? Make all elections publically funded.

Take all the money out of what? My guess is that you would just take corporate money out of the elections cycle, in which case not even corporations would have a voice.

I'm sure you are not suggesting we put a cap on spending that Congress does, especially since passing the 16th amendment for a Federal income tax that was declared unconstitutional decades before by SCOTUS, essentially tilted the power towards total Federal domination of the states. No, people like you want even more spending like $100 trillion to fight the naturally occurring gas carbon dioxide and for free everything costing God only knows how much.

corperations are not people. Why should they have a voice? Same with unions.

OK, technically my car is a possession of mine like my corporation is a possession. But I have the free speech, not my car or my corporation. Government can restrict corporations in terms of deducting campaign contributions, but you can't limit it from my corporation any more than you can say I don't have free speech when I'm driving in a car

You, as an individual can donate what ever you want up to whatever the legal limit is...from your personal money. Just like anyone else.

even if you dont have a legal right to vote for them???

I don't think it matters. And it would be a logistical nightmare to track it. That means someone in another state couldn't donate to a candidate elsewhere (who they can't vote for). What do campaign laws say about individuals donating?

The limits you are referring to are only directly to the candidate. You have to know there are all sorts of PAC contributions without those limits. Why are you playing dumb on that?

Why not get rid of PACs?

 

[progressive hunter]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

Senators are bound to represent the states, not a political party. That's how it was for the first 113 years.

Ya. But that is no longer the case. We are not the same now as we were then.

how are we not the same???

I have to agree with Coyote on that. When we were founded, Americans were loyal to their State first. If Virginia had stayed with the Union, Robert E. Lee would have been General of the Union army.

Now politics is all national. We are a central government controlled country, not a distributed country.

It's unfortunate but true.

Some of us want to go back to that. But it's not going to happen

it will never happen if we sit back and do nothing,,,and ben is doing something,,,

IMO anyone that speaks against a return to that is a POS that needs confronted everytime they open their mouth,,,

I agree and I'm in. I'm just expressing doubt that State rights will happen again. Democrats will fight to the death to prevent it. Their whole justification for power is mob rule and State rights are an anathema to mob rule

they seem to call for states rights when a republican is president,,,

Yes. Democrats call for State rights when they want to override legitimate Constitutional Federal powers, like immigration. Then they ignore State rights for things the Federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do. It's an f'd up party

someday the people will wake up and see its the partys themselves that are the problem dividing us,,,

Politics is the art of division. You pit one group against the other, and yes, both parties are experts at it because that is all they do all day. After all, if both parties said they would treat everyone the same, who would send them all their money and support? People give their time and money to these people to get a leg up on their fellow citizen.

As for what is wrong today, it has to do with centralized power. Power corrupts so the more power is centralized the more corrupt it becomes. So subverting Federalism and distribution of power into the model we have now where the President controls about everything from what doctor we see or who educates our children and how, is one of the main issues.

If so, then the party system has NOTHING to do with our problems. Decentralizing power is the key

Would it not be nice for states to get back to governing themselves, so that blue and red states can tend to their own affairs and half the country does not want to secede every Presidential election? It's like when Obama ran on Obamacare. Of all states that opposed it, Massachusetts voted for Scott Brown to stop it because they liked their Romneycare, but the democrats schemed and bypassed Scott Brown to shove it through anyway.

And the 17th amendment is part of the subverting of power as states lose a vote for the Senate.

What if we just took the money out of it? Make all elections publically funded.

Take all the money out of what? My guess is that you would just take corporate money out of the elections cycle, in which case not even corporations would have a voice.

I'm sure you are not suggesting we put a cap on spending that Congress does, especially since passing the 16th amendment for a Federal income tax that was declared unconstitutional decades before by SCOTUS, essentially tilted the power towards total Federal domination of the states. No, people like you want even more spending like $100 trillion to fight the naturally occurring gas carbon dioxide and for free everything costing God only knows how much.

corperations are not people. Why should they have a voice? Same with unions.

OK, technically my car is a possession of mine like my corporation is a possession. But I have the free speech, not my car or my corporation. Government can restrict corporations in terms of deducting campaign contributions, but you can't limit it from my corporation any more than you can say I don't have free speech when I'm driving in a car

You, as an individual can donate what ever you want up to whatever the legal limit is...from your personal money. Just like anyone else.

even if you dont have a legal right to vote for them???

I don't think it matters. And it would be a logistical nightmare to track it. That means someone in another state couldn't donate to a candidate elsewhere (who they can't vote for). What do campaign laws say about individuals donating?

so youre OK with someone that doesnt have a right to vote for a candidate being able to fund their campaign???
such as hilary getting most of her money from california to get elected in new york???

 

[progressive hunter]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

Senators are bound to represent the states, not a political party. That's how it was for the first 113 years.

Ya. But that is no longer the case. We are not the same now as we were then.

how are we not the same???

I have to agree with Coyote on that. When we were founded, Americans were loyal to their State first. If Virginia had stayed with the Union, Robert E. Lee would have been General of the Union army.

Now politics is all national. We are a central government controlled country, not a distributed country.

It's unfortunate but true.

Some of us want to go back to that. But it's not going to happen

it will never happen if we sit back and do nothing,,,and ben is doing something,,,

IMO anyone that speaks against a return to that is a POS that needs confronted everytime they open their mouth,,,

I agree and I'm in. I'm just expressing doubt that State rights will happen again. Democrats will fight to the death to prevent it. Their whole justification for power is mob rule and State rights are an anathema to mob rule

they seem to call for states rights when a republican is president,,,

Yes. Democrats call for State rights when they want to override legitimate Constitutional Federal powers, like immigration. Then they ignore State rights for things the Federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do. It's an f'd up party

someday the people will wake up and see its the partys themselves that are the problem dividing us,,,

Politics is the art of division. You pit one group against the other, and yes, both parties are experts at it because that is all they do all day. After all, if both parties said they would treat everyone the same, who would send them all their money and support? People give their time and money to these people to get a leg up on their fellow citizen.

As for what is wrong today, it has to do with centralized power. Power corrupts so the more power is centralized the more corrupt it becomes. So subverting Federalism and distribution of power into the model we have now where the President controls about everything from what doctor we see or who educates our children and how, is one of the main issues.

If so, then the party system has NOTHING to do with our problems. Decentralizing power is the key

Would it not be nice for states to get back to governing themselves, so that blue and red states can tend to their own affairs and half the country does not want to secede every Presidential election? It's like when Obama ran on Obamacare. Of all states that opposed it, Massachusetts voted for Scott Brown to stop it because they liked their Romneycare, but the democrats schemed and bypassed Scott Brown to shove it through anyway.

And the 17th amendment is part of the subverting of power as states lose a vote for the Senate.

What if we just took the money out of it? Make all elections publically funded.

Take all the money out of what? My guess is that you would just take corporate money out of the elections cycle, in which case not even corporations would have a voice.

I'm sure you are not suggesting we put a cap on spending that Congress does, especially since passing the 16th amendment for a Federal income tax that was declared unconstitutional decades before by SCOTUS, essentially tilted the power towards total Federal domination of the states. No, people like you want even more spending like $100 trillion to fight the naturally occurring gas carbon dioxide and for free everything costing God only knows how much.

corperations are not people. Why should they have a voice? Same with unions.

OK, technically my car is a possession of mine like my corporation is a possession. But I have the free speech, not my car or my corporation. Government can restrict corporations in terms of deducting campaign contributions, but you can't limit it from my corporation any more than you can say I don't have free speech when I'm driving in a car

You, as an individual can donate what ever you want up to whatever the legal limit is...from your personal money. Just like anyone else.

even if you dont have a legal right to vote for them???

I don't think it matters. And it would be a logistical nightmare to track it. That means someone in another state couldn't donate to a candidate elsewhere (who they can't vote for). What do campaign laws say about individuals donating?

The limits you are referring to are only directly to the candidate. You have to know there are all sorts of PAC contributions without those limits. Why are you playing dumb on that?

Why not get rid of PACs?

what are you afraid of??

 

[kaz]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

Senators are bound to represent the states, not a political party. That's how it was for the first 113 years.

Ya. But that is no longer the case. We are not the same now as we were then.

how are we not the same???

I have to agree with Coyote on that. When we were founded, Americans were loyal to their State first. If Virginia had stayed with the Union, Robert E. Lee would have been General of the Union army.

Now politics is all national. We are a central government controlled country, not a distributed country.

It's unfortunate but true.

Some of us want to go back to that. But it's not going to happen

it will never happen if we sit back and do nothing,,,and ben is doing something,,,

IMO anyone that speaks against a return to that is a POS that needs confronted everytime they open their mouth,,,

I agree and I'm in. I'm just expressing doubt that State rights will happen again. Democrats will fight to the death to prevent it. Their whole justification for power is mob rule and State rights are an anathema to mob rule

they seem to call for states rights when a republican is president,,,

Yes. Democrats call for State rights when they want to override legitimate Constitutional Federal powers, like immigration. Then they ignore State rights for things the Federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do. It's an f'd up party

someday the people will wake up and see its the partys themselves that are the problem dividing us,,,

Politics is the art of division. You pit one group against the other, and yes, both parties are experts at it because that is all they do all day. After all, if both parties said they would treat everyone the same, who would send them all their money and support? People give their time and money to these people to get a leg up on their fellow citizen.

As for what is wrong today, it has to do with centralized power. Power corrupts so the more power is centralized the more corrupt it becomes. So subverting Federalism and distribution of power into the model we have now where the President controls about everything from what doctor we see or who educates our children and how, is one of the main issues.

If so, then the party system has NOTHING to do with our problems. Decentralizing power is the key

Would it not be nice for states to get back to governing themselves, so that blue and red states can tend to their own affairs and half the country does not want to secede every Presidential election? It's like when Obama ran on Obamacare. Of all states that opposed it, Massachusetts voted for Scott Brown to stop it because they liked their Romneycare, but the democrats schemed and bypassed Scott Brown to shove it through anyway.

And the 17th amendment is part of the subverting of power as states lose a vote for the Senate.

What if we just took the money out of it? Make all elections publically funded.

Take all the money out of what? My guess is that you would just take corporate money out of the elections cycle, in which case not even corporations would have a voice.

I'm sure you are not suggesting we put a cap on spending that Congress does, especially since passing the 16th amendment for a Federal income tax that was declared unconstitutional decades before by SCOTUS, essentially tilted the power towards total Federal domination of the states. No, people like you want even more spending like $100 trillion to fight the naturally occurring gas carbon dioxide and for free everything costing God only knows how much.

corperations are not people. Why should they have a voice? Same with unions.

just a suggestion for a new vote finance law,,

if you dont have a legal right to vote for the candidate you cant give them money in any form either directly or indirectly,,,

what say you???

If all campaigns would be publically funded, then no. Maybe politiians can actually do some real work if they werent running around chading money.

And maybe if those in Congress were limited to one or two terms, they would not have to worry about re-election at all. In fact, they might be faced with having to govern a world that they soon will have to reenter rather than voting themselves a special health care plan as the rest of us are forced into other health care plans.

But I digress.

But I can see a downside to that. Lack of experience, institutional knowledge, and professional contacts needed to do the job. Politics is the only job where job experience seems unwanted.

They couldn't possibly be worse than the lifetime hacks in congress are doing now. Biden has a 47 year history and has accomplished a fraction of what Trump did in 3 1/2 years. We need to get rid of the useless, corrupt lifers

 

[kaz]

Not seeing how that is a good thing. Given the extreme gerrymandering in state legislatures, that could potentially cement control of entire states under one party for representation. Could also open the door to more corruption and cronyism....

Senators are bound to represent the states, not a political party. That's how it was for the first 113 years.

Ya. But that is no longer the case. We are not the same now as we were then.

how are we not the same???

I have to agree with Coyote on that. When we were founded, Americans were loyal to their State first. If Virginia had stayed with the Union, Robert E. Lee would have been General of the Union army.

Now politics is all national. We are a central government controlled country, not a distributed country.

It's unfortunate but true.

Some of us want to go back to that. But it's not going to happen

it will never happen if we sit back and do nothing,,,and ben is doing something,,,

IMO anyone that speaks against a return to that is a POS that needs confronted everytime they open their mouth,,,

I agree and I'm in. I'm just expressing doubt that State rights will happen again. Democrats will fight to the death to prevent it. Their whole justification for power is mob rule and State rights are an anathema to mob rule

they seem to call for states rights when a republican is president,,,

Yes. Democrats call for State rights when they want to override legitimate Constitutional Federal powers, like immigration. Then they ignore State rights for things the Federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do. It's an f'd up party

someday the people will wake up and see its the partys themselves that are the problem dividing us,,,

Politics is the art of division. You pit one group against the other, and yes, both parties are experts at it because that is all they do all day. After all, if both parties said they would treat everyone the same, who would send them all their money and support? People give their time and money to these people to get a leg up on their fellow citizen.

As for what is wrong today, it has to do with centralized power. Power corrupts so the more power is centralized the more corrupt it becomes. So subverting Federalism and distribution of power into the model we have now where the President controls about everything from what doctor we see or who educates our children and how, is one of the main issues.

If so, then the party system has NOTHING to do with our problems. Decentralizing power is the key

Would it not be nice for states to get back to governing themselves, so that blue and red states can tend to their own affairs and half the country does not want to secede every Presidential election? It's like when Obama ran on Obamacare. Of all states that opposed it, Massachusetts voted for Scott Brown to stop it because they liked their Romneycare, but the democrats schemed and bypassed Scott Brown to shove it through anyway.

And the 17th amendment is part of the subverting of power as states lose a vote for the Senate.

What if we just took the money out of it? Make all elections publically funded.

Take all the money out of what? My guess is that you would just take corporate money out of the elections cycle, in which case not even corporations would have a voice.

I'm sure you are not suggesting we put a cap on spending that Congress does, especially since passing the 16th amendment for a Federal income tax that was declared unconstitutional decades before by SCOTUS, essentially tilted the power towards total Federal domination of the states. No, people like you want even more spending like $100 trillion to fight the naturally occurring gas carbon dioxide and for free everything costing God only knows how much.

corperations are not people. Why should they have a voice? Same with unions.

OK, technically my car is a possession of mine like my corporation is a possession. But I have the free speech, not my car or my corporation. Government can restrict corporations in terms of deducting campaign contributions, but you can't limit it from my corporation any more than you can say I don't have free speech when I'm driving in a car

You, as an individual can donate what ever you want up to whatever the legal limit is...from your personal money. Just like anyone else.

even if you dont have a legal right to vote for them???

I don't think it matters. And it would be a logistical nightmare to track it. That means someone in another state couldn't donate to a candidate elsewhere (who they can't vote for). What do campaign laws say about individuals donating?

The limits you are referring to are only directly to the candidate. You have to know there are all sorts of PAC contributions without those limits. Why are you playing dumb on that?

Why not get rid of PACs?

You mean besides that pesky first amendment? It's really a thorn in your side, huh?

That government should control all campaign money obviously appeals to you and scares the shit out of me, and for the same reason