Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well it's pretty understood you don't particularly care for Mormons or right wingers so you've pretty much written off 99 pct of the State of Utah.Yup, it is corrupt. It does not represent the will of the people on so many matters, not the least electoral reform, the which required legislative votes then the courts to force the GOP to comply to what it agreed.2 Thumbs just hand your butt to ya.Utah's state senate is one of the most corrupt in the US, barring Louisiana and New Jersey.
The state GOP is afraid Lee will get beaten this fall.
Care to comment?????
What the far right says about is immaterial, for criminals like them always lie.
Jokestinky turns a non top forty state in corruption to number 1 on the hit parade with one broad swipe of his brush.Yup, it is corrupt. It does not represent the will of the people on so many matters, not the least electoral reform, the which required legislative votes then the courts to force the GOP to comply to what it agreed.2 Thumbs just hand your butt to ya.Utah's state senate is one of the most corrupt in the US, barring Louisiana and New Jersey.
The state GOP is afraid Lee will get beaten this fall.
Care to comment?????
What the far right says about is immaterial, for criminals like them always lie.
You were corrected. I made it very clear that the state "does not represent the will of the people on so many matters, not the least electoral reform, the which required legislative votes then the courts to force the GOP to comply to what it agreed." That you disagree, TT, does not change the truth of it. I imagine the people close to me pity the likes of you.I proved your assumption to be wrong, by a wide margin, but instead of reading up and learning that you are ignorant of the facts, you keep lying, further proving you're nothing but a poser. I pity the people nearest to you.
No I wasn't, that's a lieYou were corrected. I made it very clear that the state "does not represent the will of the people on so many matters, not the least electoral reform, the which required legislative votes then the courts to force the GOP to comply to what it agreed." That you disagree, TT, does not change the truth of it. I imagine the people close to me pity the likes of you.I proved your assumption to be wrong, by a wide margin, but instead of reading up and learning that you are ignorant of the facts, you keep lying, further proving you're nothing but a poser. I pity the people nearest to you.
It is about returning power to the states, which IMO is a good thing...but it will never happen. The central government is much too powerful now.The Utah Senate Asks Congress to Repeal the 17th Amendment
“The framers of the Constitution created the United States Senate to protect the rights of individual states and safeguard minority opinion in a system of government designed to give greater power to the national government. They modeled the Senate on governors’ councils of the colonial era and on the state senates that had evolved since independence. The framers intended the Senate to be an independent body of responsible citizens who would share power with the president and the House of Representatives. James Madison, paraphrasing Edmund Randolph, explained in his notes that the Senate’s role was “first to protect the people against their rulers [and] secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.”
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.[1]
17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Direct Election of U.S. Senators. Americans did not directly vote for senators for the first 125 years of the Federal Government. The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, stated that senators would be elected by state legislatures.
I can understand why they would want that, but the idea that it would end corruption is silly, you're just spreading it around.
how is switching from one person one vote, at the state level, v we vote a legislature in and they vote up reps.It is about returning power to the states, which IMO is a good thing...but it will never happen. The central government is much too powerful now.The Utah Senate Asks Congress to Repeal the 17th Amendment
“The framers of the Constitution created the United States Senate to protect the rights of individual states and safeguard minority opinion in a system of government designed to give greater power to the national government. They modeled the Senate on governors’ councils of the colonial era and on the state senates that had evolved since independence. The framers intended the Senate to be an independent body of responsible citizens who would share power with the president and the House of Representatives. James Madison, paraphrasing Edmund Randolph, explained in his notes that the Senate’s role was “first to protect the people against their rulers [and] secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.”
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.[1]
17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Direct Election of U.S. Senators. Americans did not directly vote for senators for the first 125 years of the Federal Government. The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, stated that senators would be elected by state legislatures.
I can understand why they would want that, but the idea that it would end corruption is silly, you're just spreading it around.
A senator who is elected by the state legislature, owes his allegiance to that legislature. The thinking being the state legislature can't be bamboozled like voters can.how is switching from one person one vote, at the state level, v we vote a legislature in and they vote up reps.It is about returning power to the states, which IMO is a good thing...but it will never happen. The central government is much too powerful now.The Utah Senate Asks Congress to Repeal the 17th Amendment
“The framers of the Constitution created the United States Senate to protect the rights of individual states and safeguard minority opinion in a system of government designed to give greater power to the national government. They modeled the Senate on governors’ councils of the colonial era and on the state senates that had evolved since independence. The framers intended the Senate to be an independent body of responsible citizens who would share power with the president and the House of Representatives. James Madison, paraphrasing Edmund Randolph, explained in his notes that the Senate’s role was “first to protect the people against their rulers [and] secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.”
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.[1]
17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Direct Election of U.S. Senators. Americans did not directly vote for senators for the first 125 years of the Federal Government. The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, stated that senators would be elected by state legislatures.
I can understand why they would want that, but the idea that it would end corruption is silly, you're just spreading it around.
returning power?
I explained clearly what I meant. Your concern means nothing to me. Whether you agree is immaterial. TN's nonsense above is why the 17th in part was ratified.No I wasn't, that's a lieYou were corrected. I made it very clear that the state "does not represent the will of the people on so many matters, not the least electoral reform, the which required legislative votes then the courts to force the GOP to comply to what it agreed." That you disagree, TT, does not change the truth of it. I imagine the people close to me pity the likes of you.I proved your assumption to be wrong, by a wide margin, but instead of reading up and learning that you are ignorant of the facts, you keep lying, further proving you're nothing but a poser. I pity the people nearest to you.
no you didn't, you have yet to provide anything other then you're opinion, no links, not even when requested.
anytime you want to provide proof with links, plz do so, until then you're just a liar, and nothing more.
So you are up for slavery and female oppression and destruction of native cultures OK.Grow up, OK. Your mind was made up before this.you lack communication skills, so that's on you.I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I said the majority of 50 State legislatures, that would be several hundred individuals. Also legislators would be less likely to fall for the spin than the individual voters. As it is now the incumbent has a 80+% chance of reelection. If they're not looking out for the State the legislature would be in the best position to know that, they have to deal with all the federal BS.
also you have a hard time with reality
megacorps are in all 50 states and around the world, making it easy for them to bribe the locals.
and by spin, I meant spin coming from the politicians, that's where spin comes from.
Well thanks for letting me know that your mind is made up, and you're not looking for a discussion unless it comport with you. BYE
Only because I think the founders got it right the first time. You regressive sodomite enablers can fuck off as far as I'm concerned.
I hadn't made up my mind, I didn't think you were an asshole until you insulted me w/o reason.you lack communication skills, so that's on you.Wal-mart, Verizon, Sony, AT&T are multi billion dollar companies.If a senator isn't attending to the State interests the legislature can replace him at the end of his term, there's no reason to have a reelection war chest, just doing a good job for the State would determine if they are returned to DC. And when it comes to bribes, 60 senators would be much easier to bribe than the majority of 50 State legislatures.
how much harder do you think it would be to bribe 50 locals that make less than the 60 senators?
keep in mind how easily people fall for the spin
I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I said the majority of 50 State legislatures, that would be several hundred individuals. Also legislators would be less likely to fall for the spin than the individual voters. As it is now the incumbent has a 80+% chance of reelection. If they're not looking out for the State the legislature would be in the best position to know that, they have to deal with all the federal BS.
also you have a hard time with reality
megacorps are in all 50 states and around the world, making it easy for them to bribe the locals.
and by spin, I meant spin coming from the politicians, that's where spin comes from.
Well thanks for letting me know that your mind is made up, and you're not looking for a discussion unless it comports with you. BYE
so please go fuck yourself you thin skinned pussy.
The Utah Senate Asks Congress to Repeal the 17th Amendment
“The framers of the Constitution created the United States Senate to protect the rights of individual states and safeguard minority opinion in a system of government designed to give greater power to the national government. They modeled the Senate on governors’ councils of the colonial era and on the state senates that had evolved since independence. The framers intended the Senate to be an independent body of responsible citizens who would share power with the president and the House of Representatives. James Madison, paraphrasing Edmund Randolph, explained in his notes that the Senate’s role was “first to protect the people against their rulers [and] secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.”
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.[1]
17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Direct Election of U.S. Senators. Americans did not directly vote for senators for the first 125 years of the Federal Government. The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, stated that senators would be elected by state legislatures.
I can understand why they would want that, but the idea that it would end corruption is silly, you're just spreading it around.
Actually it would bring the loyalty of senators back to the State instead of large donors, the Senate was intended to be the States house, the House of Reps was intended to be the peoples house. That all went to shit with the 17th.
The Utah Senate Asks Congress to Repeal the 17th Amendment
“The framers of the Constitution created the United States Senate to protect the rights of individual states and safeguard minority opinion in a system of government designed to give greater power to the national government. They modeled the Senate on governors’ councils of the colonial era and on the state senates that had evolved since independence. The framers intended the Senate to be an independent body of responsible citizens who would share power with the president and the House of Representatives. James Madison, paraphrasing Edmund Randolph, explained in his notes that the Senate’s role was “first to protect the people against their rulers [and] secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.”
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.[1]
17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Direct Election of U.S. Senators. Americans did not directly vote for senators for the first 125 years of the Federal Government. The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, stated that senators would be elected by state legislatures.
I can understand why they would want that, but the idea that it would end corruption is silly, you're just spreading it around.
Actually it would bring the loyalty of senators back to the State instead of large donors, the Senate was intended to be the States house, the House of Reps was intended to be the peoples house. That all went to shit with the 17th.
The large donors would just control the vote at the state level.
Like they used to.
Duh.
you didn't explain or prove anythingI explained clearly what I meant. Your concern means nothing to me. Whether you agree is immaterial. TN's nonsense above is why the 17th in part was ratified.No I wasn't, that's a lieYou were corrected. I made it very clear that the state "does not represent the will of the people on so many matters, not the least electoral reform, the which required legislative votes then the courts to force the GOP to comply to what it agreed." That you disagree, TT, does not change the truth of it. I imagine the people close to me pity the likes of you.I proved your assumption to be wrong, by a wide margin, but instead of reading up and learning that you are ignorant of the facts, you keep lying, further proving you're nothing but a poser. I pity the people nearest to you.
no you didn't, you have yet to provide anything other then you're opinion, no links, not even when requested.
anytime you want to provide proof with links, plz do so, until then you're just a liar, and nothing more.
an incorrect assumptionI hadn't made up my mind, I didn't think you were an asshole until you insulted me w/o reason.you lack communication skills, so that's on you.Wal-mart, Verizon, Sony, AT&T are multi billion dollar companies.
how much harder do you think it would be to bribe 50 locals that make less than the 60 senators?
keep in mind how easily people fall for the spin
I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I said the majority of 50 State legislatures, that would be several hundred individuals. Also legislators would be less likely to fall for the spin than the individual voters. As it is now the incumbent has a 80+% chance of reelection. If they're not looking out for the State the legislature would be in the best position to know that, they have to deal with all the federal BS.
also you have a hard time with reality
megacorps are in all 50 states and around the world, making it easy for them to bribe the locals.
and by spin, I meant spin coming from the politicians, that's where spin comes from.
Well thanks for letting me know that your mind is made up, and you're not looking for a discussion unless it comports with you. BYE
so please go fuck yourself you thin skinned pussy.
No you already decided that no matter what mega-corporations will corrupt the system and you're unwilling to consider any other view. Carry on.
The conservative wing of the Republican Party of today hates democracy.
I do not know if "conservatives" do or not. I doubt it.
But the Founding Fathers and the Libertarians do. Tyranny by the majority is tyranny nevertheless.
Libertarians' are lunatics; the founders were pragmatic, hence we have a democratic republic. As for the current conservative iteration, they echo the phrase constitutional republic in an effort to mislead others into believing we the people are an afterthought.
You try to take the discussion back to the Founders and I backhanded you and your argument.So you are up for slavery and female oppression and destruction of native cultures OK.Grow up, OK. Your mind was made up before this.you lack communication skills, so that's on you.
also you have a hard time with reality
megacorps are in all 50 states and around the world, making it easy for them to bribe the locals.
and by spin, I meant spin coming from the politicians, that's where spin comes from.
Well thanks for letting me know that your mind is made up, and you're not looking for a discussion unless it comport with you. BYE
Only because I think the founders got it right the first time. You regressive sodomite enablers can fuck off as far as I'm concerned.
Deflecting to subjects that have nothing to do with this thread, so typical of a regressive sodomite enabler.
Contumacious is only an expert on one thing, and it is not government.
Tell people what you are really expert about, Conty. Don't be shy.
I am not too worried since your limited understanding of the OP means nothing to it at all. Don't agree if you wish. Utah wants the 17th appealed so that the GOP senatorial candidates are not subject to primaries instead of party caucuses. A GOP legislature makes sure that the right kind -- a corporatist neo-con -- of Republican senator is voted to the Senate.you didn't explain or prove anything I proved you wrong, it's up to me to agree with you, it's up to you to be honest, but like every other leftist, you are not capable. no surprise, now run along, you're boring.I explained clearly what I meant. Your concern means nothing to me. Whether you agree is immaterial. TN's nonsense above is why the 17th in part was ratified.
You try to take the discussion back to the Founders and I backhanded you and your argument.So you are up for slavery and female oppression and destruction of native cultures OK.Grow up, OK. Your mind was made up before this.Well thanks for letting me know that your mind is made up, and you're not looking for a discussion unless it comport with you. BYE
Only because I think the founders got it right the first time. You regressive sodomite enablers can fuck off as far as I'm concerned.
Deflecting to subjects that have nothing to do with this thread, so typical of a regressive sodomite enabler.
