• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tea Partiers want to repeal the 17th amendment

DrunkenAsparagus said:
No, we just believe that it furthers states rights, and is therefore more beneficial to individual liberty and the nation as a whole.
Click to expand...

But that isn't what happens.

What happens is that the state political parties in the state legislatures use procedure to hamstring Senator appointments to stick it to the other party, and for no other reason. So just because the political parties refuse to compromise, the states don't get represented in the Senate. Which hurts the people of those states. Which was why they lobbied for the 17th amendment in the first place.

In theory, it works. However, practical politics have proven that, in reality, it doesn't.
 
​
Bassman said:
Yeah, they're all called LIBERALS!!
Click to expand...

They are called tea partiers. Incidentally - ones that like Reagan, the president who raised taxes 11 times and tripled the national debt with deficit spending.

All hail Reagan!
 
samsmart said:
But that isn't what happens.

What happens is that the state political parties in the state legislatures use procedure to hamstring Senator appointments to stick it to the other party, and for no other reason. So just because the political parties refuse to compromise, the states don't get represented in the Senate. Which hurts the people of those states. Which was why they lobbied for the 17th amendment in the first place.

In theory, it works. However, practical politics have proven that, in reality, it doesn't.
Click to expand...

And since the state legislatures were deadlocked which left empty Senate seats due to inaction by State legislatures, they created this amendment.

What do the people who want to give up their vote think would solve that problem?
 
Queen said:
An ugly man like you with such a male chauvinist attitude. Oh wait, that makes sense.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Stop the personal attacks or there will be further consequences.
 
Queen said:
And since the state legislatures were deadlocked which left empty Senate seats due to inaction by State legislatures, they created this amendment.

What do the people who want to give up their vote think would solve that problem?
Click to expand...

Making Senate Seats a "Public" vote just opened that great big can of "Here we'll bribe you for votes!". It was a horrible idea that gave a false belief that the people would "have a say". They shouldn't, the system wasn't set up for the "PEOPLE" to have a say in the Senate. That's what the HOUSE is for.

But let's not discuss what Progressive Ideology has done to this nation, let's flame everyone that doesn't agree with us!!!
:roll:
 
Queen said:
Completely ridiculous. How can anyone think giving up your vote for your Senator is a good idea? How in the hell would appointing instead of electing Senators make states stronger? All it would do (and has done) would be to bring more corruption and back room dealings into government.
Click to expand...

I know this might be hard to understand, but there are perfectly rational arguments (from both sides of the political spectrum!) for repealing the 17th Amendment.

Also, you don't appear to understand how senators were elected before the 17th Amendment was enacted. You realize that you still get an indirect vote, right?
 
MrVicchio said:
Making Senate Seats a "Public" vote just opened that great big can of "Here we'll bribe you for votes!". It was a horrible idea that gave a false belief that the people would "have a say". They shouldn't, the system wasn't set up for the "PEOPLE" to have a say in the Senate. That's what the HOUSE is for.

But let's not discuss what Progressive Ideology has done to this nation, let's flame everyone that doesn't agree with us!!!
:roll:
Click to expand...

Way to not answer the question there.
 
Queen said:
LOL!!! Sure....

You totally followed along because you thought it was a good idea with his explanation. Then when you found out he doesn't agree with it, you backed down, just like the Republican candidates who are suddenly backing down now.

What a bunch of idiots these tea baggers are.
Click to expand...

If the choice was agree with that other guy or agree with you, I'd probably pick him whatever his position was. No one likes a loud mouth know-it-all missy.
 
Alvin T. Grey said:
One term limit on all ellections?
Click to expand...

No way. We are a better country because we have professional politicians who understand the complexities of what our nation deals with, such as the economy, commerce, foreign diplomacy, and the military. Because our Congressmen can be re-elected, they are allowed to gain experience in those areas and make better decisions for the federal government.

If we use term limits, especially for one term, we'll lose the ability for our politicians to gain experience and thus make better political decisions.

Personally, I'd rather we had age limits than term limits. In the military, general officers must retire by the age of 64. Based on that, I think it's a good idea for states to put age limits on who can run for the House and Senate in their state by having an age limit that nobody older than 64 can run for office. That allows us to retain professional politicians who understand how the multitudinous interests in our nation work but provides a limit on who can get elected. That way, we don't have these Congressmen who are so out of touch with modern America. That's what I'd prefer.
 
Goshin said:
Ah, yes. We were desperately in need of another hyperpartisan hack whose idea of intellectual debate is flinging epithets at all who disagree. You have arrived in the nick of time to save us from a fate worse than death: a dire shortage of shallow and frivolous posters.

Whew. What a relief. :roll:
Click to expand...


Sorry I have been getting slack.

I'll get right on that.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Yeah, that never happens in electoral politics.:roll:
Click to expand...


What does happen in electoral politics is 'we the people' decide to vote for idiots who are going to shell out money so 'we the people' dont have to work or pay their mortgage that they shouldnt have got in the first place.
 
Gina said:
But you are ignoring the potential for greater corruption and deal making. Politicians need only court a few hundred state legislator rather than a state wide electorate. If the power to elect a senator is returned to the state legislature, senators need only answer to them, not us.

Contrary to the claims made by the Tea Party sponsor of the bill, in the linked OP, my senators have always traveled the state to meet their constituents.
Click to expand...


And who do the state legislature answer to???????
 
Queen said:
HAHA!!! Voting does all that?

You guys are amazing.
Click to expand...

You're the only one talking about voting... I've already identified what I'd do and what I'd be for.

Queen said:
You can't convince me that giving up my right to vote is a good thing so now you're going to make up all this stuff about how voting keeps people on welfare and causes abortions?
Click to expand...

First why would I try to convince a card carrying Progressive like yourself of anything? You fail at my motivations - I'm not here to convince someone like yourself - I'm here to resist against the oppression you're world view espouses. And again, you're the one carrying on the conversation with... yourself... about welfare, abortions and voting. I stated nothing of the sort. How many of there are you talking in your head at one time? I see at least 2 maybe 3.

Queen said:
That's awesome.
Click to expand...
Self reliance, small government, less entitlements plus freedom and liberty are indeed, awesome things.

Queen said:
Can you do another trick?
Click to expand...
Sure, ask me what I'd like to see happen to say, the Dept of Education, or Social Security, or Medicare, or Welfare programs... unlike you, I like traditional rabbits out of hats instead of nonsense out of one's ass.
 
Queen said:
We still have a vote.

Why would you want to give it up?
Click to expand...

First, you should stop lying about what Rev said.

Go find his post where he claimed he would want to give it up.

You can't because you're lying about him saying that.

OK now you can apologize for lying about what he said.

I ****ing hate it when people lie about him.

wow, deja vu....
 
Last edited:
Queen said:
And most of these Tea Party wackos ARE RICH ELITE assholes who'd LOVE to buy a Senate seat instead of having to run for election.
Click to expand...

Wait....I thought most of the Tea Partiers were racist rednecks....
 
Ockham said:
Self reliance, small government, less entitlements plus freedom and liberty are indeed, awesome things.
Click to expand...

Repealing the 17th amendment won't lead to smaller government - instead, it'll mean larger government controlled by state legislators or governors instead of the people.

Repealing the 17th amendment won't lead to less entitlements - instead, it'll mean the state legislators will decide who will receive entitlements from the federal government.

Repealing the 17th amendment won't lead to more liberty - instead, it'll give state legislators more power in oppressing Americans through the use of federal law.
 
samsmart said:
Repealing the 17th amendment won't lead to smaller government - instead, it'll mean larger government controlled by state legislators or governors instead of the people.

Repealing the 17th amendment won't lead to less entitlements - instead, it'll mean the state legislators will decide who will receive entitlements from the federal government.

Repealing the 17th amendment won't lead to more liberty - instead, it'll give state legislators more power in oppressing Americans through the use of federal law.
Click to expand...

See my post #25
 
webrockk said:
Wait....I thought most of the Tea Partiers were racist rednecks....
Click to expand...

Don't forget "gun toting"!! And well, they're racist rednecks AND rich elitist assholes ... depends on what day and time and what liberal television show one is watching - or which personality is discussing the issue. I'm sure there's a very complicated chart / matrix that'll explain the whole thing. :lol:
 
Last edited:
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Because appointing senators tempers the rule of the federal government. It keeps federalism alive by giving states a say in Washington. When the states have more power, they can dictate what policies work best for them instead of dealing with a top down federal approach.
Click to expand...
i don't understand. appointed or elected, how would their role in washington chage?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom