• 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!

Who supports the 17th amendment

Do you support the 17th amendment

  • Total voters
    55
RationalPolicy said:
We have a representative system of governance, so I don't expect to have a voice in the day-to-day decisions of my federal representatives. We elect our representatives and senators to make decisions for us on a large scale. The way to change our representation if we decide that we don't like what they are doing is to vote them out of office; trying to influence our representatives is not really something that works nearly as well as just voting consistently. I also don't believe that the two-party system puts up the best possible candidates, as it leaves out many people who would likely be excellent representatives but who do not kowtow to every single party platform position.

Still, your thought that the "Deep State" chooses our candidates and decides our elections is foolhardy. Do you really think the so-called "Deep State" chose Donald J. Trump to be our 45th President? Seriously? And as for lacking freedom, there are very few nations that allow their citizenry to purchase powerful firearms with little in the way of regulations besides background checks. One would presume that an all-powerful "Deep State" would simply confiscate the arms that are floating around in the US, or wouldn't have allowed that proliferation to happen in the first place. Conspiratorial thinking like this falls apart under even slightly rigorous examination, as you have to keep doubling down on the conspiracy to have it continue to make any sort of logical sense. The fact that you have the freedom to post online that there is a "Deep State" belies the concept entirely. In places where there is an actual "Deep State" or government that is fundamentally anti-freedom (like China), you wouldn't even be able to post this online. This absurdist rhetoric just makes Americans look stupid, uninformed, and, frankly, like a bunch of rubes.
Click to expand...

The only rubes, are those who believe the bull**** the government and the media feed them.... Anyone who does not fear the government is an idiot.
 
jdog said:
Stupid questions.

The Deep State has existed in some form as long as the country has existed, but it did not become more powerful than the government until 1913. It has become increasingly more powerful as time has gone by.

Banking, Wall St., & Industrial, monopolies, along with the Military Industrial Complex.
Click to expand...

Since Trump is busy feeding and enabling everything you mentioned, there must be another Deep State in mind that the Trumpie's are worried over. The chief attribute they see in THAT deep state is opposition to Trump.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Since Trump is busy feeding and enabling everything you mentioned, there must be another Deep State in mind that the Trumpie's are worried over. The chief attribute they see in THAT deep state is opposition to Trump.
Click to expand...

What you fail to see is that Trump is working for American interests and against multinational interests. Seeing as the agenda the Deep State is to subjugate the American government and the American people to the One World Globalist agenda, his trade policies are a thumb in the eye of the Deep State and thus the consistent attacks.
 
jdog said:
What you fail to see is that Trump is working for specific American[s'] interests and against multinational interests. Seeing as the agenda the Deep State is to subjugate the American government and the American people to the One World Globalist agenda, his trade policies are a thumb in the eye of the Deep State and thus the consistent attacks.
Click to expand...

Fixed it for ya.
 
jdog said:
Stupid questions.

The Deep State has existed in some form as long as the country has existed, but it did not become more powerful than the government until 1913. It has become increasingly more powerful as time has gone by.

Banking, Wall St., & Industrial, monopolies, along with the Military Industrial Complex.
Click to expand...

Trump ran against the swamp, which is another name for the deep state. He was well aware of the swamp; insider deals. Trump did not take donations from the swamp donor class, who was the ruling class. This defiance has made Trump an all out target. Once in office, Trump realized he underestimated the reach and lawlessness of the deep state. It was not a small group but was a large organization of party loyalists and appointees. Much of the deep state tactic is based on foot dragging, leaks, defiance and propaganda at all levels.

For example, CNN and other propaganda arms of the deep state, will not report the real news of how the Democrats broke laws, using government resources to spy on an opposition candidate. This is way worse that anything Nixon did, with Nixon previously used as the Democrat benchmark for executive corruption. Obama is the new benchmark. Nixon had a couple of amateurs break in into the DNC headquarters. The Modern Democrats under Obama used the FBI and Justice Departments to do this to the Republicans and Trump campaign at Trump Towers. The DNC took Nixon tactics to new heights. The swamp has to keep this evidence unconscious, by focusing on fake news and gossip.

Typically the deep state works behind the scenes, but this cycle is different, with the deep state pulling out all the stops, in a public way. The reason is the deep state did a miscalculation and did not expect Trump to win. This made it impossible for the deep state to clean up all the loose ends, that resulted from spying. Trump has also proven to more durable than anyone calculated, which has emboldened swamp opposition. Many Republicans have been working to gather loose end evidence.

The only thing that is preventing the defeat of the current deep state, is Jeff Sessions. Sessions appear to be foot dragging, in terms of addressing the Democrat party swamp corruption. My guess is Sessions is fully aware of the deep state Democrat corruption, but he is not yet convinced that Trump is here to stay in the long term. Sessions is procrastinating, less he acts too soon and he becomes the target of the deep state. Session may be calculating the possibility of a Democrat win in the midterms. This would initiate plan C, which is a push for Trump impeachment, by the Democrats and the deep state. If Trump loses Sessions does not wish to be on the side against the swamp. However, if Trump wins, then Session can cover this butt. Sessions may calculate that he needs to help Trump create justice, soon than later. There is still time before the summer campaign season. Trump's approval rating has gone up and Russian collusion is the least important issue to American voters.

Another problem for Sessions is the current deep state corruption, goes back to the Clintons and Obamas. This creates a problem, for a government elite purist, of having to drag the office of the president through the mud. This is something bigger that party squabbles. This is normal swept under the rug since nobody ever campaigns against the swamp. Sessions is in new territory, for himself. Sessions may also be more loyal, in spirit, to a fellow good ole boy insider, like Bill Clinton; two southerners, than to a loud mouth uncouth outsider yankee like Trump. Session is paralyzed with indecision.

Trump can't fire Sessions, since that means Rosenstein takes over. Rosenstein is part of the deep state corruption, since he was the one who wrote off on the fake Clinton paid for dossier, used by the FBI, to get a FISA warrant. Trump would need to fire Rosenstein and may be without an AG, since the deep state will use this as an opportunity to undermine nomination of any new AG who is willing to take on and harm the deep state. The Democrats will not go along with any nominee, that could potentially put half the DNC leadership in jail on corruption charges. Trump may have to apply pressure on Sessions to do the right thing and not the selfish thing.

I would like to see Trump fire Session and Rosenstein and nominate Chris Christie as the new AG. He is ready to a fight against the Democrat corruption machine since he has a chip on his shoulder for the actions against him. The deep state may find it in their best interests to approach Sessions and tel him to proceed, but at 50% enthusiasm, to buy the swamp some extra time.
 
Last edited:
<alt>doxygen said:
Since Trump is busy feeding and enabling everything you mentioned, there must be another Deep State in mind that the Trumpie's are worried over. The chief attribute they see in THAT deep state is opposition to Trump.
Click to expand...

The Deep State is not of a single mindset or agenda. Trump is working for the interests of the United States, apparently you cannot comprehend that. Nations fail when the people become so ignorant that the people cannot understand any longer what is in their own interests...
 
jdog said:
The only rubes, are those who believe the bull**** the government and the media feed them.... Anyone who does not fear the government is an idiot.
Click to expand...

You can question media narratives and not go off the deep end with absurd conspiracy theories like the "Deep State" that is trying to work against the US. Do you seriously think that career civil servants are working against the very country they are spending their lives working on behalf of? The CIA isn't out to get you and there aren't monsters under your bed.
 
RationalPolicy said:
You can question media narratives and not go off the deep end with absurd conspiracy theories like the "Deep State" that is trying to work against the US. Do you seriously think that career civil servants are working against the very country they are spending their lives working on behalf of? The CIA isn't out to get you and there aren't monsters under your bed.
Click to expand...

So it wasn't the CIA behind MK Ultra, Mena Airport, the Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Northwoods, and the USS Liberty..... OK thanks.

And all those people resigning from the FBI are doing it for personal reasons, not because they were caught red handed trying to interfere with the elections. And the Tuskegee Experiments and the CIA spying on every American Citizens private phone conversations and internet use is not happening....And our ally, Saudi Arabia did not pay for 9-11....

Well I know I will sure sleep better tonight....
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
The text of the this particular amendment.



The direct election senators.... why is this so controversial now?
Click to expand...

Why do you think it's only controversial, to the extent that it is, "now"?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Not exactly. At large (statewide) elections prevent gerrymandering from altering reality. This allows for "purple" sets of Senators that would (very likely) not occur without the 17A.

One can certainly debate the merits of a state voting to cancel itself but the 17A (more) allows for that possibility.
Click to expand...

Seriously? Multiple states, including my own, are in big trouble for gerrymandering state elections.

NC gerrymandering case is worst in US history as courts fight | News & Observer
 
ttwtt78640 said:
How can gerrymandering effect a statewide US Senate race?
Click to expand...

If Senators would be once again elected by the state legislature, rather than the people of the whole state, then gerrymandering would indeed greatly affect the US Senate race. That is one of many reasons why I approve of the 17th Amendment. It prevents gerrymandering from affecting the election of Senators (since it would already potentially affect the election of Representatives).
 
roguenuke said:
If Senators would be once again elected by the state legislature, rather than the people of the whole state, then gerrymandering would indeed greatly affect the US Senate race. That is one of many reasons why I approve of the 17th Amendment. It prevents gerrymandering from affecting the election of Senators (since it would already potentially affect the election of Representatives).
Click to expand...

OK, now I see your point - if not for the 17A then current gerrymandering in NC could cause a problem.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
How can gerrymandering effect a statewide US Senate race?
Click to expand...

I will also say I think I misread your first post as saying that state legislature elections would not be subject to gerrymandering. I do apologize. I definitely think we agree that statewide elections (as in the citizens vote for the Senators, not the state legislators) is better to prevent/reduce gerrymandering when it comes to federal representatives.
 
The reason THE PEOPLE added the 17th Amendment to the Constitution -- was because they saw, quite vividly and through many decades --

It

didn't

work.
 
Ironic that the folks who support direct election because of its "populist" origins generally disapprove of the current president, perhaps the most populist president since Jackson.
 
eman623 said:
Ironic that the folks who support direct election because of its "populist" origins generally disapprove of the current president, perhaps the most populist president since Jackson.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure not a lot of people support it "because of its 'populist' origins". Where in the heck did you get that from? It is supported because it is seen as fair (at least more so than allowing state legislators to pick them) and a way to avoid gerrymandering. It isn't supported because some group from the late 1800s and early 1900s supported or came up with it.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
The text of the this particular amendment.



The direct election senators.... why is this so controversial now?
Click to expand...

Why is the earth being round controversial? Stupid people are everywhere, cuz. Everywhere.
 
lol...I bet all the 17th Amendment haters would be whistling a totally different tune if a vast majority of the state legislatures were dominated by Democrats.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Then why have a bicameral legislature at all?
Click to expand...

While I dont agree with having senators share election periods with reps, having them be voted in every 2 years wouldn't negate the purpose of the bicameral legislature at all so long as each state still has a fixed 2 senators with variable number of reps.
 
eman623 said:
Ironic that the folks who support direct election because of its "populist" origins generally disapprove of the current president, perhaps the most populist president since Jackson.
Click to expand...

Well sure if you ignore the existence of FDR.
 
calamity said:
lol...I bet all the 17th Amendment haters would be whistling a totally different tune if a vast majority of the state legislatures were dominated by Democrats.
Click to expand...

Yes--they wish to do away with the entire progress--ive era--the 16th along with the 17th;
and then there's those pesky national parks, forests and monuments;

Except when it comes to renaming a national scenic byway in Utah after trump;
and then along came the Stormy off-ramp ...
 
roguenuke said:
Pretty sure not a lot of people support it "because of its 'populist' origins". Where in the heck did you get that from? It is supported because it is seen as fair (at least more so than allowing state legislators to pick them) and a way to avoid gerrymandering. It isn't supported because some group from the late 1800s and early 1900s supported or came up with it.
Click to expand...
Populism in the US was not isolated to a ~30 year span in the late 19th/early 20th centuries. It's been with us since the founding. In any case the fact remains that the populists of the early 20th century first championed the idea of direct election of senators (in fact it was the self-named Populist Party that made it part of their platform!) Direct election is at its heart a very populist thing (in the sense that it increases the power of ordinary people over that of a privileged and self-interested elite.

Fast forward a century later and the most populist president in memory is revered by the same folks who denigrate the 17th as a disenfranchisement of the states (which it was). God I love politics!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom