Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[OnePercenter]

Keep in mind that the one percenters with something to sell are keeping you busy while the guys they work for are committing economic terrorism on you.

Unrelated post. If you want to discuss your class warfare agenda, start a thread on that subject.
Stay on point.

My post IS ON POINT. Your not being able to see that is the problem.

 

[OnePercenter]

Levin's premise is that the FEDERAL GUBMINT is out of control...It's all around us.

WE live in a soft tyranny.

LEVIN is correct.

Levin doesn't want a smaller government he wants to redirect the funds to the DHS for the police state, and more wars, and the border fences, and the war on drugs, and and and cause he can't get enough of tyranny that kills people and limits everyone's liberty in those ways.

Levin wants to sell more books and increase his followers to pad his wallet. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The basic assumption in repealing the 17th amendment is that the state legislature is more representative of the state than the state’s citizens which is bizarre at best for a nation that expounds democracy throughout the world.

Not at all bizarre since we have now got a huge percentage of the public that falls into the category of 'Obama phone, low info' voters. These cretins are easily persuaded by even the most simplistic advertising if seen frequently enough.

Hell, the simpler the better it works on them.

Which is why this was never and shall never be a democracy.

Why is the US not a true democracy

Putting Senate seats in the hands of lawmakers wouldn't empower states so much as it would resurrect the old-fashioned American political machine — a condition voters in the Internet age would tolerate for about 10 minutes, maybe less. As your post clearly indicates, the drive to repeal the 17th amendment is not about the way to best representation the people, rather it's about Republicans fight to capture the Senate. If Democrats controlled a majority of state legislatures, Republicans would certainly reverse their position.

Exactly.

This is about partisan politics, not a concern for the liberty of the people.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The basic assumption in repealing the 17th amendment is that the state legislature is more representative of the state than the state’s citizens which is bizarre at best for a nation that expounds democracy throughout the world.

Not at all bizarre since we have now got a huge percentage of the public that falls into the category of 'Obama phone, low info' voters. These cretins are easily persuaded by even the most simplistic advertising if seen frequently enough.

Hell, the simpler the better it works on them.

Which is why this was never and shall never be a democracy.

Why is the US not a true democracy

And an equally huge percentage of the public falls into the category of ‘voter “fraud,” low info' voters. These cretins on the right are also easily persuaded by even the most simplistic advertising if seen frequently enough.

But disenfranchisement is not a ‘solution’ for such voters.

Although not a democracy, the Republic still needs knowledgeable, informed voters and citizens to remain viable and flourish.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Keep in mind that the one percenters with something to sell are keeping you busy while the guys they work for are committing economic terrorism on you.

Unrelated post. If you want to discuss your class warfare agenda, start a thread on that subject.
Stay on point.

My post IS ON POINT. Your not being able to see that is the problem.

Thomas Sowell wrote about these.

These ivory tower intelligentsias have the arrogance to believe that everything they write is True until proven False, or each point they make is Relevant until proven Irrelevant.

And even if you prove them false, or expose that which is irrelevant, they make 10 more assertions to "support" their claim, that must also be assumed true until proven false, or relevant until proven irrelevant.

Let not the Big Government histories of Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pott, Hilter, Mussolini, Castro or the bankruptcies of Cyrus, Greece and Detroit worry you, or the rampant violence, rape and murder in "gun-free" Chicago, Camden or California trouble you, Libtards don't go by facts, but pure emotion.

For the kids!

 

[FA_Q2]

Not at all bizarre since we have now got a huge percentage of the public that falls into the category of 'Obama phone, low info' voters. These cretins are easily persuaded by even the most simplistic advertising if seen frequently enough.

Hell, the simpler the better it works on them.

Which is why this was never and shall never be a democracy.

Why is the US not a true democracy

Putting Senate seats in the hands of lawmakers wouldn't empower states so much as it would resurrect the old-fashioned American political machine — a condition voters in the Internet age would tolerate for about 10 minutes, maybe less. As your post clearly indicates, the drive to repeal the 17th amendment is not about the way to best representation the people, rather it's about Republicans fight to capture the Senate. If Democrats controlled a majority of state legislatures, Republicans would certainly reverse their position.

Exactly.

This is about partisan politics, not a concern for the liberty of the people.

I, and many others here, have supported repealing the 17th for a while now including when the dems had control over the house and nothing indicating that the change would somehow benefit the republicans.

When you can’t argue the merits of keeping the 17th then I guess you thing reverting to partisan rants works.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If legislatures had been electing Senators, and if those elections had followed party lines,

in 2009 the Democrats would have had at least 62 Senators, safely over the filibuster.

lol, is that how it's supposed to work???

lolol

 

[FA_Q2]

If legislatures had been electing Senators, and if those elections had followed party lines,

in 2009 the Democrats would have had at least 62 Senators, safely over the filibuster.

lol, is that how it's supposed to work???

lolol

Yes. So far you and Clay are the only idiots in the room that cant see a situation without bullshit partisan glasses.

It’s like the pot trying to tell the chair it’s a kettle.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If legislatures had been electing Senators, and if those elections had followed party lines,

in 2009 the Democrats would have had at least 62 Senators, safely over the filibuster.

lol, is that how it's supposed to work???

lolol

Yes. So far you and Clay are the only idiots in the room that cant see a situation without bullshit partisan glasses.

It’s like the pot trying to tell the chair it’s a kettle.

Are you retarded? Every conservative in this thread who is for this is arguing for it because they think it will get more Republican/conservative Senators elected.

I'm one of the few here that's showing you the truth on a non-partisan basis.

If you want to stop being retarded, the first step for you is to acknowledge that the repeal of this amendment is never going to happen.

 

[Flopper]

Not at all bizarre since we have now got a huge percentage of the public that falls into the category of 'Obama phone, low info' voters. These cretins are easily persuaded by even the most simplistic advertising if seen frequently enough.

Hell, the simpler the better it works on them.

Which is why this was never and shall never be a democracy.

Why is the US not a true democracy

Putting Senate seats in the hands of lawmakers wouldn't empower states so much as it would resurrect the old-fashioned American political machine — a condition voters in the Internet age would tolerate for about 10 minutes, maybe less.

Resurrect? Are you serious?

Apparently you are no student of today political system where the old machines have just about put a lock on winning enough elections to keep a thug in power from here on out.

So you would like to return to the days before the 17th amendment when senatorial elections were "bought and sold", changing hands for favors and money behind closed doors. In spite of the PACS, and political machines that influence elections, I trust the American voter a lot more than I trust self serving politicians.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So you would like to return to the days before the 17th amendment when senatorial elections were "bought and sold", changing hands for favors and money behind closed doors.

You mean they are not bought and sold now?

Do you think a Chicago born woman, who lived in New York for a very short amount of time, could have become the Senator of New York if the State Legislature had a say in it (Hillary Clinton).

Hillary ran on a "national" agenda, not a New York agenda.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So you would like to return to the days before the 17th amendment when senatorial elections were "bought and sold", changing hands for favors and money behind closed doors.

Senate seats today are bought and sold by the the national parties to well connected looters such as Kaiser and Blue Cross. The national parties determine exactly who will be in the Senate - the state has zero impact on the process. Dianne Feinstein has 30 + years in the Senate because she serves Bank of America. BofA shopped for a Senator from the DNC in the 80's, as were sold the rights to Feinstein. The state of California has shit to say about it - Senators are appointed at the national level and represent ONLY the national interests of their respective parties.

In spite of the PACS, and political machines that influence elections, I trust the American voter a lot more than I trust self serving politicians.

PACs are the offset to the machines. You simply don't grasp this because you are a partisan hack who bleats whatever your shameful party tells you to.

 

[PrometheusBound]

It's interesting the kind of amendments to the Constitution conservatives support, while out of the other side of their mouths they're talking about rights:


I'm just curious, are there any amendments to the Constitution that conservatives support that would expand individual rights,

as opposed to taking them away?

A Free Market Amendment, where the individual who controls a market is free to do whatever he wants to the mob (= the 99%) of his workers and customers.

 

[PrometheusBound]

The Right wingers want to make Constitutionalism the established, exclusive, and infallible religion. We, the people, must worship at their anti-democratic altar, venerate plaster statues of their plastic 1% saints, and bless ourselves with trickledown holy water.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Rights have to be earned.

YOU ARE POISON
BEWARE
PROMETHEUS IS A GOVERNMENT DISINFORMATION AGENT
HE HAS BEEN EXPOSED​

[/QUOTE]



"I have here in my hands a list of all the Commie Gubmint agents on the Internet."
"Senator McCarthy, have you no shame?"

 

[PrometheusBound]

The Constitution was DESIGNED to avoid the evil of the prospect of a majority tyrannizing a minority.

But in his infantile "analysis," he imagines that the way to protect the right of the majority to have "democracy" is to forbid the very checks and balances that were put into place to protect the minority from arbitrary and capricious actions of the majority.

Carby still hasn't figured out that America is NOT a "democracy." In his childish ignorance, not only does he think America is a "democracy," he actually thinks it should be a "democracy."

The Founding Fathers were totally opposed to implementing a Democracy.

Of course they were. They were the flunkie lawyers of that time's 1%. They wouldn't have been doing their job if the 1% only got 1% of the power in the new government. They would have been fired and be stuck with the poorly paid job of representing the majority.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Right wingers want to make Constitutionalism the established, exclusive, and infallible religion.

The Constitution is the law of the land. You Communists don't like this fact, so over the last century, you've engaged in no end of ways to thwart our laws. Your attacks on individual liberty - crushing freedom of speech, religion, self-defense, the freedom to be secure in your person and papers (violated by the 1040 reporting requirements), etc. continue unfettered. You wage war against the Constitution and in doing so, against those who support the notion of government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

You seek authoritarian dictatorship which you claim will provide comfort, peace, and prosperity - to which I say, "just like it did with your predecessor, the Khmer Rouge."

We, the people, must worship at their anti-democratic altar, venerate plaster statues of their plastic 1% saints, and bless ourselves with trickledown holy water.

You seek to concentrate all assets in the hands of the state, to be distributed by bureaucrats as they see fit.

What could go wrong with that?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

* * * *

The Founding Fathers were totally opposed to implementing a Democracy.

Of course they were. They were the flunkie lawyers of that time's 1%. They wouldn't have been doing their job if the 1% only got 1% of the power in the new government. They would have been fired and be stuck with the poorly paid job of representing the majority.

DumbytheidiotBounded:

You are such a mindless hack troll.

The Founders and the Framers were not all lawyers, first of all. You hollow twit.

Get some education.

And the cheese-dick rhetoric of simpleton OWS crap (bullshit like 99%-ers vs 1%-ers) is not just unpersuasive and tiresome, it is a tell. It tells intelligent people that you are a void, unable to think for yourself.

In reality (a place you couldn't find on a map) the DESIRE of the Founders and the Framers for a government OF the People was certainly a component part of their democratic spirit. But yes. They DID also harbor some fear of the likely consequences of unbridled "democracy." For, as simpletons like you always underscore, it is easily corrupted into a mere mob-ocracy.

The brilliance of imposing limits on the power and authority of government, the brilliance of imposing checks and balances on the Federal government, its branches etc., the wisdom of deliberately setting the system up in a competitive fashion where the States would seek to jealously guard against the expansion of the federal government's powers, all those things and many others were inspired works.

Morons like you would tear it down for expediency. And you are too vastly stupid to even appreciate the probable negative consequences that would flow from your handiwork.

The Republic needs to guard against encroachments. You are one of the encroachers. YOU are a symbol of the kind of problems inherent in any viable form of self-government, no matter how well crafted it may have originally been.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Putting Senate seats in the hands of lawmakers wouldn't empower states so much as it would resurrect the old-fashioned American political machine — a condition voters in the Internet age would tolerate for about 10 minutes, maybe less.

.

So you would like to return to the days before the 17th amendment when senatorial elections were "bought and sold", changing hands for favors and money behind closed doors. In spite of the PACS, and political machines that influence elections, I trust the American voter a lot more than I trust self serving politicians.

But back in the glittered Gilded Age, the Robber Barons used their own money!!! to buy the Senate. Are you trying to tell people what they can do or cannot do with their own money? They stole in fair and square and again, they used their own money to buy the laws that made looting legal!

 

[PrometheusBound]

Putting Senate seats in the hands of lawmakers wouldn't empower states so much as it would resurrect the old-fashioned American political machine — a condition voters in the Internet age would tolerate for about 10 minutes, maybe less.

.

And ALL the while ignoring the Constitution, much less the people that put them there.

WE know what last resort is...HOPE it never comes to it.

For the extremists on the other side, the last resort is Virginia Tech. Since you people are Chickenhawk lovers, you are all bull and no bullets. If things go crazy, you followers of that drafdodging slimeball, Teddy "I Wasn't Ready" Nugent, will wind up with bullets in your back as you run away from a fight.