Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[rightwinger]

Republicans have realized that their agenda no longer appeals to current voter demographics. Now, the logical solution would be to change your agenda. But the Republican solution is to keep your agenda and change the rules to allow you to either rule from a minority position or at least block the other guys agenda

Any party who does cater to the PARASITIC FACTION , which constitutes close to 50% of the electorate, will not "appeal to the current voter demographics"

.

Hey......I like that

Stay on message. Keep telling 50% of Americans that they are deadbeats and how disappointed you are with them

Sure path to victory in 2014

 

[rightwinger]

What do you think of the rage against providing a photo I.D. to vote from the left?

What was the opinion of the founding fathers on photo ID?

so now you're worried about what the founding fathers think? aside from being an idiotic post getdafugouttahere...

Good point

In 2013, why would anyone be concerned about what the founding fathers think?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What do you think of the rage against providing a photo I.D. to vote from the left?

What was the opinion of the founding fathers on photo ID?

so now you're worried about what the founding fathers think? aside from being an idiotic post getdafugouttahere...

I was brushing off a lame attempt to change the subject.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What do you think of the rage against providing a photo I.D. to vote from the left?

What was the opinion of the founding fathers on photo ID?

in 1789 Only 6% of the population can vote

Well, gee, no wonder conservatives deify the founding fathers and their particular set of ideas.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Everything you bitch about is true in the reverse...but we understand it's all about you.

Further, your state, if what you said is true, would still vote in Democrat Senators...yet you still bitch because only your vote matters. Good gawd you're self centered.

Your hypocrisy in supporting a system that caters to lobbyists and the big businesses that fund them, while bitching about those same entities, is clear for all to see. Good luck with that.

See the above? This is what conservatism is all about...attacking someone for wanting their right to vote,

and the right to have their vote count for something.

Look, they finally purged the board of TM. We really don't need a replacement. Quit lying.

What do you contest? That I was attacked for complaining about the idea of losing my right to vote?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Republicans haven't had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate since the 1920's.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that conservatives would try to blame that on the system.

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans haven't had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate since the 1920's.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that conservatives would try to blame that on the system.

1920s ???

When was the 17th amendment passed?

 

[eagle1462010]

I haven't read all the posts yet, will have to do that later.

However, I believe the reason for it's repeal is in essence the same reason that each state only gets 2 Senators irregardless of population.

aka New York has a very large population versus West Virginia having a much lower population still get 2 Senators. The founders did this so each state would have an equal voice in the matters of the country, and so the larger states could not impose their will on smaller states whose important issues are possibly completely different than the population centers. Thus giving the smaller population areas a voice.

This is basically the same principle within a state. Rural Areas versus Urban Areas. The Urban areas have the large populations and can drown out the voice of rural areas. Thus the Rural Areas may feel that their voices are not heard as they are so heavily outweighed by the Urban areas whose ideals or opinions aren't the same as the country farming areas.

That is my basic opinion of the Federalist opinion of the Founders. They were Extremely concerned on INSURING THAT EVERYONE HAS A VOICE in the Political Process. The Constitution ensured this via the 2 Senators from each state rule. While still giving the population centers more of a voice in the House.

Plain and simple. A way to maintain Checks and Balances on the Gov't. And ensure that everyone has a voice.

Which is why I'd support the repeal of the 17th Amendment. Because it ensures everyone has a voice in the matter. As far as the Population Centers from these states, they still get the numbers in the House of Reps.

So explain to us why preventing the People of Massachusetts from electing Scott Brown instead of a Democrat would have been a better way to ensure everyone in that state had a voice.

I don't remember a single conservative calling that election an injustice.

You are making an assumption. Do you have a crystal ball stating that the State Legislature would have voted that election differently?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Republicans have realized that their agenda no longer appeals to current voter demographics. Now, the logical solution would be to change your agenda. But the Republican solution is to keep your agenda and change the rules to allow you to either rule from a minority position or at least block the other guys agenda

Any party who does cater to the PARASITIC FACTION , which constitutes close to 50% of the electorate, will not "appeal to the current voter demographics"

.

Hey......I like that

Stay on message. Keep telling 50% of Americans that they are deadbeats and how disappointed you are with them

Sure path to victory in 2014

When 50% of the people are parasites and will vote for keeping themselves in that group does it really matter?

 

[eagle1462010]

Can anyone here, without rambling on for a thousand words, explain to me why my losing my right to vote directly for the candidate of my choice for senator from my state is going to make my life better,

from the standpoint of my ability to participate in the democratic process that creates the government under which I'm obliged to live?

(I suggest clear concise numbered points)

You would then be suggesting that before the 17th Amendment no one in this country had the right to elect their representatives. You elect your local Reps in your State Government. I highly doubt you would vote for a candidate that was against your principles or values. They in turn elect the State Senators. Since you voted them in, why would you think they'd turn on you?

You don't lose your voice or your vote.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I haven't read all the posts yet, will have to do that later.

However, I believe the reason for it's repeal is in essence the same reason that each state only gets 2 Senators irregardless of population.

aka New York has a very large population versus West Virginia having a much lower population still get 2 Senators. The founders did this so each state would have an equal voice in the matters of the country, and so the larger states could not impose their will on smaller states whose important issues are possibly completely different than the population centers. Thus giving the smaller population areas a voice.

This is basically the same principle within a state. Rural Areas versus Urban Areas. The Urban areas have the large populations and can drown out the voice of rural areas. Thus the Rural Areas may feel that their voices are not heard as they are so heavily outweighed by the Urban areas whose ideals or opinions aren't the same as the country farming areas.

That is my basic opinion of the Federalist opinion of the Founders. They were Extremely concerned on INSURING THAT EVERYONE HAS A VOICE in the Political Process. The Constitution ensured this via the 2 Senators from each state rule. While still giving the population centers more of a voice in the House.

Plain and simple. A way to maintain Checks and Balances on the Gov't. And ensure that everyone has a voice.

Which is why I'd support the repeal of the 17th Amendment. Because it ensures everyone has a voice in the matter. As far as the Population Centers from these states, they still get the numbers in the House of Reps.

So explain to us why preventing the People of Massachusetts from electing Scott Brown instead of a Democrat would have been a better way to ensure everyone in that state had a voice.

I don't remember a single conservative calling that election an injustice.

You are making an assumption. Do you have a crystal ball stating that the State Legislature would have voted that election differently?

No I have common sense.

 

[eagle1462010]

Why should urbanites be disenfranchised just because of where they live?

Yeah, it's better to disenfranchise the populations of rural areas, right?

Areas don't have rights. People do. The rural guy gets one vote, the city guy gets one vote...

...any other system is undemocratic. If you believe there is a greater good achieved when the system is made undemocratic, fine,

make that case. Just don't deny that it's undemocratic.

And by that statement you should want to eliminate the Senators completely. Why should a small state get the same number of Senators as a state that is 100 times it's poplulation???????????

Liberals and Dems are always fighting for MINORITY RIGHTS. When they agree with it........If they don't agree, aka Rural areas then get lost................

The very argument you are making is against the founders principles aka the election of the Senate.

I.e.......Rural areas near New York City who disagree with the city folks are so outweighed in the numbers game that they must believe their vote for a Senator is a waste of time.

Compare it to the current electoral college for the POTUS. 4 States carry the Lions share of the votes.

 

[eagle1462010]

So explain to us why preventing the People of Massachusetts from electing Scott Brown instead of a Democrat would have been a better way to ensure everyone in that state had a voice.

I don't remember a single conservative calling that election an injustice.

You are making an assumption. Do you have a crystal ball stating that the State Legislature would have voted that election differently?

No I have common sense.

No, you have a Liberal Agenda. You still vote for your state reps, who in turn represent you in the process. You haven't lost your voice or your vote. Perhaps you live in a small area that doesn't agree with your views and they outweigh your vote locally.........I don't know that, but is that your basic problem with it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yeah, it's better to disenfranchise the populations of rural areas, right?

Areas don't have rights. People do. The rural guy gets one vote, the city guy gets one vote...

...any other system is undemocratic. If you believe there is a greater good achieved when the system is made undemocratic, fine,

make that case. Just don't deny that it's undemocratic.

And by that statement you should want to eliminate the Senators completely. Why should a small state get the same number of Senators as a state that is 100 times it's poplulation???????????

Liberals and Dems are always fighting for MINORITY RIGHTS. When they agree with it........If they don't agree, aka Rural areas then get lost................

The very argument you are making is against the founders principles aka the election of the Senate.

I.e.......Rural areas near New York City who disagree with the city folks are so outweighed in the numbers game that they must believe their vote for a Senator is a waste of time.

Compare it to the current electoral college for the POTUS. 4 States carry the Lions share of the votes.

One person one vote is democratic. Anything else is undemocratic. Admit that it's undemocratic,

then make your case for why something undemocratic should be allowed in a democratic system.

 

[rightwinger]

Any party who does cater to the PARASITIC FACTION , which constitutes close to 50% of the electorate, will not "appeal to the current voter demographics"

.

Hey......I like that

Stay on message. Keep telling 50% of Americans that they are deadbeats and how disappointed you are with them

Sure path to victory in 2014

When 50% of the people are parasites and will vote for keeping themselves in that group does it really matter?

Two for two
I love you guys

You are the reason your party is doomed to fail

 

[JimBowie1958]

So explain to us why preventing the People of Massachusetts from electing Scott Brown instead of a Democrat would have been a better way to ensure everyone in that state had a voice.

I don't remember a single conservative calling that election an injustice.

You are making an assumption. Do you have a crystal ball stating that the State Legislature would have voted that election differently?

No I have common sense.

lol, no but you are deluded enough to think you do, ass hat.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Hey......I like that

Stay on message. Keep telling 50% of Americans that they are deadbeats and how disappointed you are with them

Sure path to victory in 2014

When 50% of the people are parasites and will vote for keeping themselves in that group does it really matter?

Two for two
I love you guys

You are the reason your party is doomed to fail

Spoken like a true parasite, you little bitch.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Hey......I like that

Stay on message. Keep telling 50% of Americans that they are deadbeats and how disappointed you are with them

Sure path to victory in 2014

When 50% of the people are parasites and will vote for keeping themselves in that group does it really matter?

Two for two
I love you guys

You are the reason your party is doomed to fail

Well you're a little slow actually. Once the paul's can only survive by making the peter's pay their way and have the ability to vote for that outcome we are pretty much f*cked as a nation.

The party may be doomed to fail but the demise of the US is the result of that failure. When you wake up to living in a communist system you have nobody to blame for it than you. No more individual success, no more individual decisions the government will decide for you. As if they have your best interest at heart.

I'm guessing you're too stupid to follow this logic.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Areas don't have rights. People do. The rural guy gets one vote, the city guy gets one vote...

...any other system is undemocratic. If you believe there is a greater good achieved when the system is made undemocratic, fine,

make that case. Just don't deny that it's undemocratic.

And by that statement you should want to eliminate the Senators completely. Why should a small state get the same number of Senators as a state that is 100 times it's poplulation???????????

Liberals and Dems are always fighting for MINORITY RIGHTS. When they agree with it........If they don't agree, aka Rural areas then get lost................

The very argument you are making is against the founders principles aka the election of the Senate.

I.e.......Rural areas near New York City who disagree with the city folks are so outweighed in the numbers game that they must believe their vote for a Senator is a waste of time.

Compare it to the current electoral college for the POTUS. 4 States carry the Lions share of the votes.

One person one vote is democratic. Anything else is undemocratic. Admit that it's undemocratic,

then make your case for why something undemocratic should be allowed in a democratic system.

And hallelujah it is NOT democratic, dumbshit.

ITS A FUCKING REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY.

When are you butt-licking morons going to get that?

 

[P@triot]

Kudos to G5000 for starting this thread.

(Can't believe I just wrote that....)

Like you, I rarely agree with g5000. And like you, I think he started a good thread here. Partly because of the topic, and partly because it taught me a lot about why 75% of the time I think g5000 needs therapy.

With the exception of Ron Paul, there is no bigger unhinged loon than Mark Levin. As pretty much everyone on this board knows, I am a die-hard constitutional conservative. Levin is not a conservative - he is a lunatic and a quasi-anarchist. He's actually gone on rants that Ron Paul is a "fake Republican". Dude, when Ron fucking Paul isn't far enough off the political scale to the right for you, you've got serious fucking issues.

When you go beyond the Constitution to the right, you are every bit as disturbed and dangerous as progressives who go beyond the Constitution to the left. I can handle less than 3 minutes off Levin before I have to turn the channel - and I'm genuinely concerned about anyone who listens to him.