- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why aren't these conservative geniuses talking about repealing the 17th?
Posted on 8/2/17 at 10:32 am to Centinel
Posted on 8/2/17 at 10:32 am to Centinel
You want something that can't and won't ever exist. You want to avoid all the negative aspects, while embracing what you perceive to be positive.
The, "no it will actually work the way i want", crowd.
The, "no it will actually work the way i want", crowd.
3
Posted on 8/2/17 at 10:34 am to Eurocat
quote:
5th Tiger is absolutely right.
The people who get appointed would be the biggest arse kissers and schmoozers of their respective parties or, perhaps in some cases, "elder statesmen" getting one last gig in.
Again 5th Tiger nails it. No more Rand Paul. Tea Party? Forget it. Mike Lee of Utah who defeated GOP senator Bennet? Forget it.
You guys know that Ted Cruz was almost completely opposed by the Texas GOP, right? The GOP establishment wanted a "don't rock the boat" guy.
they have no idea what they want. They just see a lot of states controlled by republican state houses and GO - shite, we could do anything if we had more republican senators.
The senate would have no reason to cut spending or lower taxes, as they are accountable to state represenatives who are elected not on their federal positions.
In addition, it would mean that every state race would suddenly be about social issues like abortion. Well are you going to appoint a senator that is pro-choice? Or anti-choice? Gay marriage would dominate.
It would be an epic clusterfrick.
Posted on 8/2/17 at 10:34 am to 5thTiger
Honestly, I think almost all of the stated "problems" related to the 17th are actually symptoms of what has happened with the American electorate.
I prefer no 17th, but, I really don't think that it's repeal would do the things the proponents think it would do.
The reality is, almost 100% of Americans political problems are in the bathroom mirrors around the nation.
I prefer no 17th, but, I really don't think that it's repeal would do the things the proponents think it would do.
The reality is, almost 100% of Americans political problems are in the bathroom mirrors around the nation.
Posted on 8/2/17 at 10:35 am to 5thTiger
quote:
You want something that can't and won't ever exist.
Oh, it very well can exist. It's called an Article V convention. Current Senators couldn't do shite about it.
Which is why Article V exists of course.
quote:
You want to avoid all the negative aspects, while embracing what you perceive to be positive.
No I don't. I just understand the positives outweigh the negatives. Congress was set up the way it was for a reason. The 17th damaged that setup.
Posted on 8/2/17 at 10:36 am to Centinel
quote:
I wonder why that is? It's almost like it was designed that way for a reason...
they absolutely were designed differently. And even with direct election of senators, they are still radically different.
Posted on 8/2/17 at 10:36 am to ShortyRob
quote:
TODAY, their vote for governor or state reps really has no bearing on the Senate so, it is a complete non issue in state elections. It would be pretty naïve to assume that if the states chose their senators, WHOM they chose would remain a non-issue in state level elections.
This is how I see it as well. It would be an immediate gain for Republicans, but long-term it would likely balance out. I think more interest in state level elections would be beneficial for all parties involved.
That said, the R's political clout right now started at that local level, prioritizing those elections while the DNC largely ignored them. Putting more value on state level elections would potentially motivate a the D base and level the playing field relatively quickly.
Regardless, it would probably have more chance at success if it weren't being touted on the heels of healthcare failure. It gives it the appearance that it is a means to an end.
Posted on 8/2/17 at 10:37 am to 5thTiger
No.
The 17th converted the Senate into a group of glorified representatives.
Don't assign them elite status they don't deserve.
The 17th converted the Senate into a group of glorified representatives.
Don't assign them elite status they don't deserve.
Posted on 8/2/17 at 10:40 am to 9th life
quote:
This is how I see it as well. It would be an immediate gain for Republicans, but long-term it would likely balance out. I think more interest in state level elections would be beneficial for all parties involved.
That said, the R's political clout right now started at that local level, prioritizing those elections while the DNC largely ignored them. Putting more value on state level elections would potentially motivate a the D base and level the playing field relatively quickly.
Very well said. I think some people here think I'm for it because I want Republicans to have more power, which is incorrect seeing as how I'm not even a Republican or conservative. I simply want Congress to run the way it was intended by the framers.
Posted on 8/2/17 at 10:42 am to 9th life
quote:
That said, the R's political clout right now started at that local level, prioritizing those elections while the DNC largely ignored them. Putting more value on state level elections would potentially motivate a the D base and level the playing field relatively quickly.
Absolutely valid points. You're doing the right thing in not just assuming politics tomorrow would be similar absent the 17th.
That's actually why I support repealing the 17th.
Some of those supporting in this thread are making absolutely valid points. But, for most of my adult life, I've felt we have one overriding problem in American politics.
Namely. The level of importance people place upon their politicians is completely inverse of what it should be.
I think people should worry MOST about their local politicians, then state, then Federal.
Today, I think if you grabbed 100 people at random anywhere in America, they couldn't even begin to tell you who their state Rep or Senator is. Probably can tell you their Federal Rep/Senator, and they all think we elect a King for President.
You're right. Liberals ran around doing victory laps after electing Obama and got smeared EVERYWHERE else.
That shite would NOT have happened absent the 17th. I don't see liberals having the "we have the Presidency, no big deal" attitude then.
Posted on 8/2/17 at 10:43 am to Centinel
quote:
. I simply want Congress to run the way it was intended by the framers.
Either this or go unicameral.
What we have now is half-assed.
Posted on 8/2/17 at 10:44 am to 9th life
quote:
Regardless, it would probably have more chance at success if it weren't being touted on the heels of healthcare failure. It gives it the appearance that it is a means to an end.
Well, unfortunately, that's probably not even false.
It's like the Democrats bemoaning the electoral college.
shite, it really wasn't THAT long ago when the repealing the EC would have fricked Democrats.
I was pro-EC 30 years ago. I'm pro-EC now. God willing, I'll be pro-EC in 30 years.(Yeah, the atheist used the colloquial phrase God Willing LOL)
Posted on 8/2/17 at 10:46 am to ShortyRob
quote:
I think people should worry MOST about their local politicians, then state, then Federal.
Today, I think if you grabbed 100 people at random anywhere in America, they couldn't even begin to tell you who their state Rep or Senator is. Probably can tell you their Federal Rep/Senator, and they all think we elect a King for President.
You're right. Liberals ran around doing victory laps after electing Obama and got smeared EVERYWHERE else.
That shite would NOT have happened absent the 17th. I don't see liberals having the "we have the Presidency, no big deal" attitude then.
I completely agree with you, but sadly this is the result of when power shifts from the States to the central government, which is what the framers were trying to avoid.
State elections don't matter, because in large part states don't matter. The national government is almost universally all-powerful. That's why the Democrats cared more about the Presidency than getting hammered in state and local elections.
Posted on 8/2/17 at 10:57 am to ShortyRob
I agree shorty this is a good thread. Wish there were more like them. Our own fault of course for not starting more.
And then, not to belabor my point, there is this.
We want to end the 17th and complain about this? - congnitive dissonance!
LINK /
Oh well, there is always football to argue about.
And then, not to belabor my point, there is this.
We want to end the 17th and complain about this? - congnitive dissonance!
LINK /
Oh well, there is always football to argue about.
Posted on 8/2/17 at 11:01 am to Eurocat
quote:
And then, not to belabor my point, there is this. We want to end the 17th and complain about this? - congnitive dissonance! LINK /
I wonder though.
It seems that the strongest deviations from party on both sides are more local.
They may still use the party moniker, but, it's fair to say there are some places where the liberals or conservatives dominate that barely meet the definition of "Republican or Democrat" on a national level.
Like I said, that's why I prefer repeal of the 17th. Not for the short term, "Oh good, 60+ in the Senate" but for what I believe would be a shift in the focus of Americans in terms of politics.
Today, we are almost exclusively focused on the Presidency.
Hell. I'm convinced you could hold a theoretical election where a party won the Presidency while losing 10 Senate seats and losing control of the house and the people of the President's party would be cheering and the other party would be all gloomy.
That's just busted.
And yes. For the love of Pete, can football get here already!
This post was edited on 8/2/17 at 11:02 am
Posted on 8/2/17 at 11:04 am to Centinel
quote:
Oh, it very well can exist. It's called an Article V convention. Current Senators couldn't do shite about it. Which is why Article V exists of course.
Right. We must be bored being the biggest superpower by a mile on earth.
Call a constitutional convention and watch what happens when Black Lives Matter and the Transgenders show up. And the Social Justice Warriors.
Posted on 8/2/17 at 11:08 am to ShortyRob
Gimme some football! Go Cats! (Good luck to LSU too of course, maybe meet in a bowl game).
Posted on 8/2/17 at 11:19 am to 5thTiger
That's false.
Posted on 8/2/17 at 11:39 am to DarthRebel
Let's populate the Senate using that map.
Rep-60
Dem-22
Mixed-18
The main point of a repeal of the 17th would be to remove the authority to ratify treaties from career politicians.
Rep-60
Dem-22
Mixed-18
The main point of a repeal of the 17th would be to remove the authority to ratify treaties from career politicians.
This post was edited on 8/2/17 at 11:43 am
Posted on 8/2/17 at 3:51 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
The 17th converted the Senate into a group of glorified representatives.
This exactly.
We effectively had 2 Houses of Representatives right now.
Who represents the interests of the State governments in DC in modern America?
Posted on 8/2/17 at 4:39 pm to 5thTiger
quote:
You all have an incredibly warped sense of history that you attempt to fit to your ideals. But its cool that you regurgitate the Allen Wests and Mike Huckabees of the world who have no fricking idea what they are talking about, but have the skill to talk and convince some that they do.
You all should study Congress prior to 1912. It is obvious that you have little to no understanding of how they actually operated.
Your post says nothing.
How did Congress operate prior to 1912?
And why or why not is it a good idea to repeal the 17th?
This post was edited on 8/2/17 at 4:43 pm
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News