Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Direct election of Senators is idiocy 77

Journal by smittyoneeach
In response to damn_regsitrars, who thinks that repealing the 17th Amendment would be a bad thing, I admonish him to step out of his Progressive shell and consider that there were 13 States, and they delegated certain limited powers to a Federal government for interstate and international reasons.
The question

How do you encourage [citizen engagement] while simultaneously taking away the ability for citizens to vote for representation in the senate?

is rooted in a non-grasp of what the Founders were out to achieve. See http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Constitution-Akhil-Reed-Amar-ebook/dp/B000SEPKIU/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1393979724&sr=1-1&keywords=akhil+reed+amar for some desperately needed understanding.
The Senate is to be a set of ambassadors from States, to DC. Much of our collapse is due to the States being diminished as political objects. The House, inevitably, is going to want to borrow and spend endlessly; the Senate is supposed to be the adults in the room. OOPS! The Senate's not going to pass a budget. Why? It's an election year! They'd rather protect their careers than do anything statesmanlike. Do. You. Fail. To. See. The. Problem, damn_registrars, you ignorant SNL reference?
By your degenerate, MOAR VOTES==BETTA logic, we should have the Supreme Court run for election, as well.
Federalism, pipsqueak.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Direct election of Senators is idiocy More

Direct election of Senators is idiocy

Comments Filter:

  • The end was intent to cripple state government, making them mere Federal administrative delegated regions. Necessary along with the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Income Tax amendment, to make the former "USA" defunct, and replace it with an American nation capable of completing its imprial advature beyond the boundaries of the continent.

    It is no mistake that these actions are taken, as the final southwestern states are joined to the Union, and US begins transgressing into Europe and Mexico, after testin

    • http://conventionofstates.com/ [conventionofstates.com]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

      Holy crap, a liberal who believes in the sovereignty of the states?

      • You always mistake me for a Liberal. If I defy some of your other biases, that does not locate me on the other end of a bi-polar axis.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

          I have never once mistaken you for a liberal.

          • And I have never mistaken you for anything than a liar and player of head games.

            Go fuck yourself.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

              Wow, are you a fucking moron.

              • Wow, I am so intimidated by the towering intellect of your response.

                90% of the stuff you post consists of the following:

                PUDGE: [Posts something that any reasonable person would see as implying X]
                OTHER: [something based on X]
                PUDGE: I didn't say X! [See, I'm so clever!]

                I expect such games from a 4-year-old. Coming from an alleged adult, they're just dishonest and tiresome.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

                  Wow, I am so intimidated by the towering intellect of your response.

                  I wanted to meet you at your level.

                  90% of the stuff you post consists of the following:

                  PUDGE: [Posts something that any reasonable person would see as implying X]
                  OTHER: [something based on X]
                  PUDGE: I didn't say X! [See, I'm so clever!]

                  I expect such games from a 4-year-old. Coming from an alleged adult, they're just dishonest and tiresome.

                  You're lying. In fact, you can't come up with a single example of this ever happening. You're completely full of shit.

                  Now, if you s/reasonable person would see as implying/troll or moron would claim implies/, then you might have the beginning of a point. But you didn't, so you don't.

          • HA! ZTM got you pegged. You just proved yourself to be a liar. Welcome to the club!

        • I've always considered you a libertarian, FWIW.

          • 'Cept I believe there's a real role for Government. And I think there are things often left as common interest, best achieved through pooling resources.

            Especially when it comes to defending the weak, the powerless and helpless. You need either divinely guided, benevolent philosopher kings and knights of chivalry...

            Or functioning institutions of an enlightened democratic society, in which government is but one functioning part, along with education and real money.

      • Jeremiah Cornelius is a liberal? [slashdot.org] News to me. I always took him to be an angry black conservative muslim Jihadist.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

          Jeremiah Cornelius is a liberal? [slashdot.org]

          By his words, yes, he's always seemed so to me. And I have seen no evidence -- well, except for the present exception, that he believes in the sovereignty of states, which while it does distinguish him from other liberals, is not actually a left/right issue on the merits -- that implies otherwise.

          • Wow, same mistake twice, in one JE no less. You're on a roll there ,buddy. Keep up the good work :-)

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

              mistake

              No evidence that I have made a mistake has been offered.

              • Yeah yeah, leave to you to evade the [slashdot.org] obvious [slashdot.org].

                You are a LIAR! Peace

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

                  Um. No one asserts that I didn't say he was a liberal. I said he was a liberal. I said it twice.

                  How is this evidence that I made a mistake?

                  You can't be this clueless, can you?

                  • I said he was a liberal. I said it twice.

                    And he said he isn't. I will believe him. You made a mistake. Now you are intentionally trying to deceive us that you didn't. That is a lie, and you are a LAIR! Love

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

                      And he said he isn't.

                      Correct.

                      You made a mistake.

                      Incorrect.

                      Now you are intentionally trying to deceive us that you didn't.

                      Shrug. Until you give any evidence that I made a mistake, you're lying by saying I am lying.

                    • You say he's a liberal. He says he's not (something which happens to be true, judging by his posts)

                      You are either mistaken, or you are lying. Those are your choices. Pick one.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

                      You say he's a liberal. He says he's not

                      True.

                      something which happens to be true, judging by his posts

                      False.

                      You are either mistaken, or you are lying.

                      False.

                    • Well cool, thanks for eliminating all doubt that you are full of it. Have a nice day :-)

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

                      It's odd that you say there's no doubt I am wrong, despite the fact that you still refuse to provide any evidence that I am wrong.

                      Well, by "odd," I mean "completely expected."

                    • ...you still refuse to provide any evidence...

                      Pearls to the swine! Seeds landing on stone. It never did any good before. I have no reason to expect any different now. Deny deny deny all you want. You're wasting your breath.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

                      It never did any good before.

                      When? Where's your evidence that ever happened? It didn't.

                      It's funny how most times when I ask you trolls for evidence, you pretend that you've done it before, and that I ignored it.

                      What's even funnier is when damn_registrars says I've responded to evidence provided, and links to a discussion where I responded to the evidence in precise detail ... and provided evidence of my own, that he didn't respond to.

                      If anything, it's well-known that I regularly engage presented evidence, in probably far too much det

                    • As is well known by all, you are lying. That's all there is to tell you anymore. You are a liar and a troll. Albeit a very successful one. You are a pile of poop and you attract flies. It must mean we all like poop.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

                      Predictable, and predicted: you supply no evidence, most likely because you have none.

                    • You are lying, and trolling

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

                      Hm.

                      I predicted you would not give evidence.

                      You did not give evidence.

                      Given that you do not provide evidence, it is likely you have none.

                      Which part do you incorrectly think is a lie?

                    • You're still lying.

        • Muslim?

          Pretty sure he said he was Zoroastrian at some point.

    • We started transgressing into Mexico about 65 years before Amendment XVII was passed. Where do you think those southwestern states came from, and why do you think the Chicanos refer to that region as Aztlán?

      BTW, I agree with repeal, although probably not for the same reasons that Jerry or Smitty does.

  • Much of our collapse is due to the States being diminished as political objects.

    Well, we did sort of fight a war over that, and your Confederate heroes lost.

    Let's be honest: ultimately, the States were diminished as political objects because they just didn't know how to behave like human beings.

    Slave patrols, segregation, Jim Crow, etc. And with recent efforts to disenfranchise poor and minority voters, discriminate against women and gays and continue to fly the symbol of treason and treachery in America

    • ...how can we get back in power?

      Gotta force white women to have more babies. This demographic threat is big stuff. I don't know why they insist on republicans. The democrats are doing their job for them. But, I still believe It's wag the dog. The republicans are playing crazy to scare people into voting for democrats to keep the system in place.

      And yeah, this "states rights" and "religious freedom" schtick is pretty transparent. Evidently they needed a black face in the white house to bring it to the surfac

      • Obama can be labeled the *most successful* president ever.

        Unless one happens to care about progressive issues, in which case he's a flaming wreck of a president.

        And Hillary is in the wings waiting to carry the flaming wreck torch. I almost wish there was a single viable Republican national candidate. Jack Kemp, even, but he'd just get primaried to hell for being a "french Republican". I wouldn't vote for him, but it might bring the debate back from the land of the surreal.

        • single viable Republican national candidate

          Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Ted Cruz, Kelly Ayotte, Bobby Jindal...

          Though I think that if he runs, the 2016 Nomination is Scott Walker's to lose. Rand Paul might have an edge due to the Ronulans and his father's campaign org...

          As for me, I'd vote for Rand Paul, whereas I'd never vote for Ron Paul.

        • Well, that's the thing, a person that votes for either a republican or democrat can't possibly care about progressive issues, or any other issue that doesn't feed the power/money trough. Everybody can keep on playing the "lesser evil" game, but 10,,000 years of history has convinced me it's a losing venture. Well maybe not.. It can go on indefinitely since it is nature's way. But if we really want to progress, we have to do things a little differently. Things that would appear "unnatural", like stop sucking

        • Unless one happens to care about progressive issues

          Oh no, Obama furthers deficit spending and vote buying like it won't nothin' but a thang. Or did you drink that Progressive kool-aid about caring? Exhibit A: ObamaCare.

          • Or did you drink that Progressive kool-aid about caring?

            What can I say? I'm a soft touch when it comes to human beings, like that Palestinian dude with the sandals from 2000 years ago.

            You know, the community organizer.

            • You blaspheme recreationally, there. But if you really do care, then why insist on doing it by government proxy?

              • I don't think we're talking about the same guy.

                • There were no "Palestinians" 2k years ago, but you did a fine job of roping me in. Kudos.

                  • Well, there was a place called "Palestine" and what do you think you would call someone from this place?

                    The Bible refers to it at least four times, as "Palestine" or "Palestina" depending upon your translation of choice.

                    I would think a believer would be more well-versed on the Good Book.

                    • If your argument included a more robust survey, and noted that the Bible spent a great deal more time talking about Canaan, you'd sound less a Philistine.
                      Nice try, though. I cannot commend the Good Book to you enough.
    • (a) I hold the Confederates 'heroes' roughly to the extent that Jeremiah Cornelius is a liberal (see discussion above)
      (b) I don't hold that the diminishing of the States really occurred until Wilson & the Progressives sodomized our Constitution in 1913.

      with recent efforts to disenfranchise poor and minority voters, discriminate against women and gays and continue to fly the symbol of treason and treachery in America as part of their state flags and license plates, it appears they still don't know how to behave.

      (c) You offer copious credit where undue. Are you quaffing what damn_registrars has been drinking, or what?

  • I asked you a question, and you danced all around it. Or does citizen disenfranchisement not matter if the citizens we are talking about are not voting correctly?

    Not that it matters. You were fine with direct election of senators when they were senators from the right party. Now that the senate is only marginally conservative, and the distribution of occupiers of governors' mansions in this country strongly favors your side, you advocate for changing the law.

    I'm willing to bet money that if the G

    • I asked you a question, and you danced all around it. Or does citizen disenfranchisement not matter if the citizens we are talking about are not voting correctly?

      Your question is based upon a flawed understanding of the purpose of the Senate, a deliberate idiocy sown by Progressives.
      The debt has ballooned since the 17th Amendment. You have Senators failing to act as a check on the House, due to an impending election, as I showed in the JE.

      You were fine with direct election of senators when they were senators from the right party.

      I mean, I learned (the Amar book linked in the JE, among other sources.) I do think that your "Past thought is constant, and your opinion cannot change" fallacy. I guess if I were evolving, like Obama, to think that gay marriage i

  • Without reading much of this, I will voice my ongoing objection to repealing the direct election provisions of the 17th Amendment. I trust my own vote more than I do that of those rascals in Nashville, that's why. If you really want cronyism, go that appointment route either by the executive or by committee.
    • If you think your Senators are representing much other than their party, I have sad, sad news for you, as evidenced by the JE's noting of a punt on a budget this, an election year.
      If you're casual with that kind of fiddling while the country burns, whine not about the smokey air, sir.
      • Somehow you think they would stop representing their various Parties if they were anointed/appointed by the Statehouse? Sorry, I cannot disagree more.
        • No, the real effect would be to have them appointed by the State, which means there would be higher turnover [blogspot.com].
          • Garbage. "More turnover" is a complete copout answer.

            I can see from a legislature map why the partisan Republicans are all for this idea. There is not argument for those who are for liberty to support it, and you certainly have not even attempted to make that argument.
            • It is not a complete cop-out. You see that the Democrats have more loyalty to their party than their sworn duty, in that they're no bringing a budget up to vote. I think that this is a direct effect of the 17th Amendment.

              • It is not a complete cop-out. You see that the Democrats have more loyalty to their party than their sworn duty, in that they're no bringing a budget up to vote. I think that this is a direct effect of the 17th Amendment.

                Yes, it is a complete cop-out and all of these Republicans pushing for this now will be squealing like stuck pigs when the Statehouses switch parties sometime in the future. If someone has as much power over your life as a US Senator, or the local dog catcher, they need to be subject to a direct election, not appointed by a bunch of people 200, or 2000 miles away, most of whom you never had any say in their election at all.

                • Of course the idea is a mixed bag. As long as you're happy with 90lbs of crap from a federal senator more inclined to the ear of DC and his party than his state, it will seem better than 10lbs of crap from the same senator when the state flips and the term is up under a new governor.
                  I'm still not confident you've understood the systemic argument here.

                • You will not reduce corruption through elections. This we already know. The voters are as corrupt as the people they elect, or this would not be an issue. I've already told Mr. Smith that the only way to mitigate the cronyism and so on, you have to throw it up to pure luck of the draw, literally. Every person will have his name thrown into a hat after he reaches any arbitrary age you want to set, and if it comes up, he has to serve, like jury duty. After one term, out he goes, back to the farm.

              • However, I am all for a term limit like that in the Articles of Confederation, where elected officials can only serve X years out of a block of X+Y years, but they are free for voters to evaluate at any time outside of that window.

Slashdot Top Deals

I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.

Close