The Headline Says It All

[Tulsaaggieson]

I agree with this.

Again, I support placing power in the hands of people. I don't deny this.


Not true.

They were unconcerned about what the people thought. They still were concerned about getting elected. They had to be concerned about what the elite ruling class thought. They were beholden not to the people, but instead to other politicians.


The Senate still is a check on the House. Senators are accountable to all the people of a state while House members are only accountable to the people of a district. This is a check and balance.

I'm always amazed that those who claim to care about what the American people want are usually the first who desire to take political power out of the hands of the American people and place it back into the hands of a ruling class, of politicians.

You make absolutely no sense when you say this. They were concerned about being elected but they were beholden to the politicians who appointed them????? I think you have a huge problem here councilor. Two things in this statement do not match at all.

Now a Senator will never be accountable to the state when the people are the ones who voted for them. They will be accountable to who put them in office. The check of the People vs the State is gone. You essentially have two houses.

"I'm always amazed that those who claim to care about what the American people want are usually the first who desire to take political power out of the hands of the American people and place it back into the hands of a ruling class, of politicians." I would agree with this but I would say we would disagree about who it applies to. While I would recognize that repeal of the 17th would take away a vote from the people, it would also make their vote in their representative that much more important. It also gives importance to who they elect to state government. So I would say it enhances the people's vote and makes it more important all the way around.

 

[2012Bearcat]

You make absolutely no sense when you say this. They were concerned about being elected but they were beholden to the politicians who appointed them????? I think you have a huge problem here councilor. Two things in this statement do not match at all.

Now a Senator will never be accountable to the state when the people are the ones who voted for them. They will be accountable to who put them in office. The check of the People vs the State is gone. You essentially have two houses.

"I'm always amazed that those who claim to care about what the American people want are usually the first who desire to take political power out of the hands of the American people and place it back into the hands of a ruling class, of politicians." I would agree with this but I would say we would disagree about who it applies to. While I would recognize that repeal of the 17th would take away a vote from the people, it would also make their vote in their representative that much more important. It also gives importance to who they elect to state government. So I would say it enhances the people's vote and makes it more important all the way around.

He knows all of this but as he has admitted he is a socialist and in order to have a socialist government all power must be centralized. Hence the reason he supports Senators being elected largely on out of state dollars.

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

He knows all of this but as he has admitted he is a socialist and in order to have a socialist government all power must be centralized. Hence the reason he supports Senators being elected largely on out of state dollars.

I know I didn't write it for him.