View Full Version : Tea Party's latest weirdness...
ChuckD
11-24-2010, 10:19 PM
If you didn't already know rich people were funding this shit, this would be your wake up call...
Tea Party wants to repeal 17th amendment and end direct voting for US Senate (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2032910,00.html)
Wild Cobra
11-25-2010, 03:13 PM
The 17th amendment should be repealed. Just that simple. It was a mistake.
boutons_deux
11-25-2010, 07:20 PM
A bigger mistake is the non-representational Senate.
About 28% of the population elects 43 Senators. Then consider that 28% is total population, not voters. So only a few % of population elects 43 Senators.
A single Senator can block the entire country, eg Kyl blocking START.
Majority rule? GMAFB
America is simply incapable of fixing mistakes, or even making progress.
The country is in decline and doomed.
Nobody can say how to stop the decline.
Gutter92
11-26-2010, 03:22 AM
The 17th amendment should be repealed. Just that simple. It was a mistake.
No thanks, I like my freedom of speach.
edit:
wrong amendment...I mean, I like my right to bear arms.
ChuckD
11-26-2010, 11:02 AM
The 17th amendment should be repealed. Just that simple. It was a mistake.
Going back to having corrupt state politicians electing our Senators is much worse than having stupid people, yes even teabaggers, voting for their representation.
George Gervin's Afro
11-26-2010, 11:10 AM
Going back to having corrupt state politicians electing our Senators is much worse than having stupid people, yes even teabaggers, voting for their representation.
he agrees with them...should tell you everything about him.
CosmicCowboy
11-26-2010, 12:11 PM
I'm OK with leaving the 17th amendment alone. The election still turns into a beauty/money contest but in this age of information we at least know what we are getting. I don't want our senators getting selected in a back room in Austin.
Oh, Gee!!
11-26-2010, 05:04 PM
tea party: vote out congress; replace them with partisan political apointees. Short-sighted imo
ChuckD
11-26-2010, 05:42 PM
he agrees with them...should tell you everything about him.
It's funny because tea-baggers constantly harp on Liberals for being "elitist". What's more elitist than saying people shouldn't vote for their own Senators?
xrayzebra
11-27-2010, 02:19 PM
Oh, well, D.C. has got representation. So no sweat!
Wild Cobra
11-27-2010, 04:35 PM
It's funny because tea-baggers constantly harp on Liberals for being "elitist". What's more elitist than saying people shouldn't vote for their own Senators?
There is a purpose to having the delegation of a state vote for them. Both methods have pros and cons.
boutons_deux
11-27-2010, 06:12 PM
"Both methods have pros and cons."
but the pro's of indirect election outweigh the con's of changing the Constitution, right?
ain't never gonna happen. 17th Amendment bullshit is just another rabble rousing vote getter, duping the rabble who fall for it.
But keep on bitching about the 17th. It's much more important than anything else facing America.
ChuckD
11-28-2010, 10:03 AM
There is a purpose to having the delegation of a state vote for them. Both methods have pros and cons.
Repealing the 17th IN NO WAY benefits the people. It does, however, benefit large monied corporate interests. Instead of having to pay tens of millions of dollars for television ads, they'll only have to buy and flip a few key legislators to get their man in DC.
Did it ever occur to you that had this been in place, Tea Party would have been stillborn? The GOP establishment had their candidates all picked out. If there are no voters, their back room machinations would have Charlie Crist in DC right now. There would BE no Senate primaries for TP to overwhelm.
Yonivore
11-28-2010, 10:54 AM
Going back to having corrupt state politicians electing our Senators is much worse than having stupid people, yes even teabaggers, voting for their representation.
Maybe you'll pay more attention to the Representative you send to the House.
The Senate was never intended to be the "People's" representative. They were originally intended to be the "State's" representative -- corrupt or otherwise. The House of Representatives is the place where your money is collected and spent, anyway.
The Senate is primarily responsible for keeping the federal government in check.
ChuckD
11-28-2010, 12:36 PM
Maybe you'll pay more attention to the Representative you send to the House.
The Senate was never intended to be the "People's" representative. They were originally intended to be the "State's" representative -- corrupt or otherwise. The House of Representatives is the place where your money is collected and spent, anyway.
The Senate is primarily responsible for keeping the federal government in check.
Did it ever occur to you that had this been in place, Tea Party would have been stillborn? The GOP establishment had their candidates all picked out. If there are no voters, their back room machinations would have Charlie Crist in DC right now. There would BE no Senate primaries for TP to overwhelm.
Yonivore
11-28-2010, 12:57 PM
Nope, never occurred to me.
Tea Party was most effective in the House and, besides, repealing the 17th might make the Tea Party less necessary.
But, thanks for playing.
Wild Cobra
11-28-2010, 06:02 PM
Repealing the 17th IN NO WAY benefits the people. It does, however, benefit large monied corporate interests. Instead of having to pay tens of millions of dollars for television ads, they'll only have to buy and flip a few key legislators to get their man in DC.
Did it ever occur to you that had this been in place, Tea Party would have been stillborn? The GOP establishment had their candidates all picked out. If there are no voters, their back room machinations would have Charlie Crist in DC right now. There would BE no Senate primaries for TP to overwhelm.
We are talking only of the senate which was meant to represent the states. The representatives represent the people. What they did wrong here was limit the representatives to 435 total, when they used to be apportioned at one representative for every 30,000 to 50,000 people. We need to go back to that also, and probably more important than repealing the 17th.
Wild Cobra
11-28-2010, 06:03 PM
The Senate is primarily responsible for keeping the federal government in check.
Yes, to help maintain states rights.
Man, it's hard to believe the propaganda and false ideas they teach kids in school these days.
George Gervin's Afro
11-28-2010, 07:00 PM
Yes, to help maintain states rights.
Man, it's hard to believe the propaganda and false ideas they teach kids in school these days.
do you have access to lesson plans that back up your stupid claim?
Tea Baggers have really brainwashed you, Wild Cobra. It's sad. I feel sorry for you. :(
RandomGuy
11-29-2010, 08:32 AM
There is a purpose to having the delegation of a state vote for them. Both methods have pros and cons.
Why don't you outline them for us?
Do tell.
Spurminator
11-29-2010, 12:04 PM
How does the popular election of Senators limit states' rights? It's not like I can vote for Senate candidates in other states...
Wild Cobra
11-29-2010, 03:57 PM
do you have access to lesson plans that back up your stupid claim?
No, but I really wish i saved everything from my school daze now.
Wild Cobra
11-29-2010, 03:58 PM
Tea Baggers have really brainwashed you, Wild Cobra. It's sad. I feel sorry for you. :(
Well, if I am brainwashed, what term applies to you? Are you liberally lobotobomaized?
Wild Cobra
11-29-2010, 04:00 PM
Why don't you outline them for us?
Do tell.
I haven't been able to take the time for some time to put together a good response. It's more important for me to spend time finding a rare gift for my soon to be ex wife.
Joking... about the soon to be, but I'm not roaming any more. I have this wonderful woman, 15 years younger, who really lights up my life.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.