Excellent Call, Ben

[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?

what are you afraid of??

Nothing to do with fear. But there is a shitload of money going out to candidates, and very little transparency. That can hardly be good for the system. On the state level - you have state candidates getting huge amounts of funding from outside groups that have little to do with the interests of the state's constants, but rather represent national interests. JMO. If you like dark money infesting our politics, then you probably don't have a problem with this, but you probably don't like the results of it when it's not your interests.

 

[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.

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.

Right, so what you want now is a continuation of a body of Congress who have not had an approval rating above 20% for decades to preach about wearing masks and shutting down hair dressers so we can have hypocrites like Nancy continue hypocritical elitist ass?

A rabid monkey would be better than Nancy.

 

[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??

Nothing to do with fear. But there is a shitload of money going out to candidates, and very little transparency. That can hardly be good for the system. On the state level - you have state candidates getting huge amounts of funding from outside groups that have little to do with the interests of the state's constants, but rather represent national interests. JMO. If you like dark money infesting our politics, then you probably don't have a problem with this, but you probably don't like the results of it when it's not your interests.

then a law limiting money to only those with a legal right to vote for the candidate to solve all the problems,,,

 

[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.

Right, so what you want now is a continuation of a body of Congress who have not had an approval rating above 20% for decades to preach about wearing masks and shutting down hair dressers so we can have hypocrites like Nancy continue hypocritical elitist ass?

I don't think an approval rating has much to do with it. Congress is a huge body, they've never had a good approval rating. You want to have a congress full of brash one-term AOC's and their rightwing equivalent that have no idea how things work or how to get things done?

 

[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?

what are you afraid of??

Nothing to do with fear. But there is a shitload of money going out to candidates, and very little transparency. That can hardly be good for the system. On the state level - you have state candidates getting huge amounts of funding from outside groups that have little to do with the interests of the state's constants, but rather represent national interests. JMO. If you like dark money infesting our politics, then you probably don't have a problem with this, but you probably don't like the results of it when it's not your interests.

This is were Democrats always go. Here's a problem. Solution, GOVERNMENT! Yahoo!

 

[Richard-H]

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....

Why do you think that the Founding Fathers set it up that way?

Naturally, democrats abhor Republics and want pure democracy at any price, because they are masters at propaganda for the clueless masses, by taking over education, the media, etc. and always dangling free stuff

Have you ever studied both chambers of Congress on how they were set up?. The House was elected directly by the people, who served only 2 terms and the numbers of them based upon population, as where the Senate has ONLY 2 people and serve 6 years. Now who was given more power? Was it not the Senate? So the Founding Fathers held a higher regard for those in the state legislature, in terms of what is really gone on verse the average voter who is clueless, by letting them appoint the most powerful chamber of Congress. The Founding Fathers were horrified at a pure democracy and mob rule, which means only one thing, they had a little thing called common sense, which is probably a racist term by now.

But as always, the Left abhors this sort of thinking, which is the same reason they want rid of the Electoral College. And if the Left gets their way with the Electoral College like they did with the Senate, then the states of New York and California will always decide who sits in the Oval Office for the other 48 states due to their larger population levels. Gee, I wonder which party would ALWAYS win?

As for the Senate, the moment they let them be elected directly was the moment having two different chambers became absurd.

Since the founding fathers originally only allowed landowning white men to vote, by your logic, they must have considered landowning white men to be "clueless" and who would have manifest "mob rule".

Wow, I never realized that the founding fathers had such a low opinion of landowning white men!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

They are groups of people, each of whom has 1A rights. That they choose to apply them as a group is no one's business.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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???

Combine that with banning political donations crossing state lines, and you have a winner.

 

[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???

Combine that with banning political donations crossing state lines, and you have a winner.

Sure. That means corporations and unions would be limited as well from donating.

 

[Indeependent]

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....

You mean like the media which is 99.999999999999999999999% Liberal?

 

[Ben Thomson]

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

One man one vote is the GOP's worst nightmare.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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

One man one vote is the GOP's worst nightmare.

Non sequitur.

 

[kaz]

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

One man one vote is the GOP's worst nightmare.

True. We think women should have the vote too. You only think Democrats should have the vote whether they are citizens or not, whether they are alive or not, and Democrats never be limited to voting once

 

[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???

Combine that with banning political donations crossing state lines, and you have a winner.

Sure. That means corporations and unions would be limited as well from donating.

Typical Democrat that you can always take a bad situation and make it worse. As bad as things are, the idea that government should have the power to control free speech is just such a stupid idea that would make things worse.

How did that work out for Stalin, Mao, Hussein, Fidel and all the other authoritarian governments that controlled speech? They loved it!

 

[Ben Thomson]

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....

Why do you think that the Founding Fathers set it up that way?

Naturally, democrats abhor Republics and want pure democracy at any price, because they are masters at propaganda for the clueless masses, by taking over education, the media, etc. and always dangling free stuff

Have you ever studied both chambers of Congress on how they were set up?. The House was elected directly by the people, who served only 2 terms and the numbers of them based upon population, as where the Senate has ONLY 2 people and serve 6 years. Now who was given more power? Was it not the Senate? So the Founding Fathers held a higher regard for those in the state legislature, in terms of what is really gone on verse the average voter who is clueless, by letting them appoint the most powerful chamber of Congress. The Founding Fathers were horrified at a pure democracy and mob rule, which means only one thing, they had a little thing called common sense, which is probably a racist term by now.

But as always, the Left abhors this sort of thinking, which is the same reason they want rid of the Electoral College. And if the Left gets their way with the Electoral College like they did with the Senate, then the states of New York and California will always decide who sits in the Oval Office for the other 48 states due to their larger population levels. Gee, I wonder which party would ALWAYS win?

As for the Senate, the moment they let them be elected directly was the moment having two different chambers became absurd.

And the way to defeat pure democracy is to establish an oligarchy, which the republican's favorite form of government.

 

[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....

Why do you think that the Founding Fathers set it up that way?

Naturally, democrats abhor Republics and want pure democracy at any price, because they are masters at propaganda for the clueless masses, by taking over education, the media, etc. and always dangling free stuff

Have you ever studied both chambers of Congress on how they were set up?. The House was elected directly by the people, who served only 2 terms and the numbers of them based upon population, as where the Senate has ONLY 2 people and serve 6 years. Now who was given more power? Was it not the Senate? So the Founding Fathers held a higher regard for those in the state legislature, in terms of what is really gone on verse the average voter who is clueless, by letting them appoint the most powerful chamber of Congress. The Founding Fathers were horrified at a pure democracy and mob rule, which means only one thing, they had a little thing called common sense, which is probably a racist term by now.

But as always, the Left abhors this sort of thinking, which is the same reason they want rid of the Electoral College. And if the Left gets their way with the Electoral College like they did with the Senate, then the states of New York and California will always decide who sits in the Oval Office for the other 48 states due to their larger population levels. Gee, I wonder which party would ALWAYS win?

As for the Senate, the moment they let them be elected directly was the moment having two different chambers became absurd.

And the way to defeat pure democracy is to establish an oligarchy, which the republican's favorite form of government.

No, I think their preference is a kleptocracy.