CaughtInThe
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2017
- Messages
- 108,796
- Reaction score
- 108,766
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Sasse proposes ending direct election of U.S. senators | Politics | omaha.com
He wants to take away people's ability to vote for their Senators and have the gerrymandered State Legislators do it for them.
He actually does have a few good ideas. This isn't one of them though.
And he told the truth about a few things including “So we’re going to need to tell the truth about the fact that the Senate is a dysfunctional institution..."
Sasse proposes ending direct election of U.S. senators | Politics | omaha.com
He wants to take away people's ability to vote for their Senators and have the gerrymandered State Legislators do it for them.
He actually does have a few good ideas. This isn't one of them though.
And he told the truth about a few things including “So we’re going to need to tell the truth about the fact that the Senate is a dysfunctional institution..."
Sasse proposes ending direct election of U.S. senators | Politics | omaha.com
He wants to take away people's ability to vote for their Senators and have the gerrymandered State Legislators do it for them.
He actually does have a few good ideas. This isn't one of them though.
And he told the truth about a few things including “So we’re going to need to tell the truth about the fact that the Senate is a dysfunctional institution..."
That I bolded, gave me a chuckle. But, we here at DP wouldn't know anything about that! :lamo“The old saying used to be that all politics is local, but today — thanks to the internet, 24/7 cable news and a cottage industry dedicated to political addiction — politics is polarized and national,”
That strikes me as a bit scary, but that is exactly how our founders saw it. But then again they also held archaic notions, like a black man is 3/5th of a person, and only Caucasian landowners (not Black, nor Native American, nor female, of course) could vote!I agree with him actually. The Senators should be chosen by the state government to represent state governmental interests which are NOT the state populations interests necessarily.
That strikes me as a bit scary, but that is exactly how our founders saw it. But then again they also held archaic notions, like a black man is 3/5th of a person, and only Caucasian landowners (not Black, nor Native American, nor female, of course) could vote!
So with that, I think I'd prefer the Senate remain in the hands of People. And ditto for the expanded power to vote.
Sasse proposes ending direct election of U.S. senators | Politics | omaha.com
He wants to take away people's ability to vote for their Senators and have the gerrymandered State Legislators do it for them.
He actually does have a few good ideas. This isn't one of them though.
And he told the truth about a few things including “So we’re going to need to tell the truth about the fact that the Senate is a dysfunctional institution..."
It said slaves not black men were considered 3/5ths of a vote. Black men back then owned slaves. In fact the first official slave owner was a black man who had an indentured servant that he sued in court to make permanently indentured. That servant was white. It was also male land owners making no distinction on whether one was white or not. A black man could indeed vote if they had land and they most certainly owned slaves. In Missouri at the time of the Civil War the majority of slave owners were black. There were also such a things as white slaves. There were slaves of all sorts. The reason they were mostly black had to do with market accessibility. The black slaves were originally enslaved by blacks in Africa in great numbers do in large part to availability from deliberate capture for market or capture from war and market demand. History is much more complicated nuanced and interesting than what is portrayed in school.
I agree with him actually. The Senators should be chosen by the state government to represent state governmental interests which are NOT the state populations interests necessarily.
The Senators should be chosen by the state government to represent state governmental interests which are NOT the state populations interests necessarily.
So Black people were considered full citizens with full rights, just not “slaves?”
If they were not slaves and owned land and or slaves, they were equal to the white man in the same position for the most part same as now. That does not mean there was no racism. There was. It was just practiced on the poor. Similar to the way it is practiced now in many respects except more overt. Money tends to make people color blind to all but one color, in the case of the US that color be green. It also means that things were not nearly as simple as most people believe. Black men with money back then like today were in no way oppressed. Find me a black man with money who says he is oppressed, and I will find you a liar. Money more than anything else determines how "oppressed" one is in our country. Thats not saying there are no other factors, but money is the root of oppression generally speaking.
Generally, I can agree with that. The House is for the People, the Senate is for the States. That is how it was supposed to be done. However, there were considerable problems with the State Legislatures seating Senators that led up to the 17th Amendment. And if you want to go back to State Legislature selection of Senators, we'd need some rules and oversight such that those issues could be addressed.
Sasse proposes ending direct election of U.S. senators | Politics | omaha.com
He wants to take away people's ability to vote for their Senators and have the gerrymandered State Legislators do it for them.
He actually does have a few good ideas. This isn't one of them though.
And he told the truth about a few things including “So we’re going to need to tell the truth about the fact that the Senate is a dysfunctional institution..."
The think tanks will just start creating a politician grooming outfit. It won't solve anything.There should be a two term limit (12 years is enough) on Senators. Though anyone can be corrupted in that time, there would be a limit to it. New blood and ideas every 12 years would be a good thing. Some of these old, long-timers have looked way out of touch when questioning witnesses in hearings, it's embarrassing for the country.
There should be a two term limit (12 years is enough) on Senators. Though anyone can be corrupted in that time, there would be a limit to it. New blood and ideas every 12 years would be a good thing. Some of these old, long-timers have looked way out of touch when questioning witnesses in hearings, it's embarrassing for the country.
The think tanks will just start creating a politician grooming outfit. It won't solve anything.
It'll get rid of the dinosaurs.
And replace them with people who are just as corrupt.
Sasse proposes ending direct election of U.S. senators | Politics | omaha.com
He wants to take away people's ability to vote for their Senators and have the gerrymandered State Legislators do it for them.
He actually does have a few good ideas. This isn't one of them though.
And he told the truth about a few things including “So we’re going to need to tell the truth about the fact that the Senate is a dysfunctional institution..."
I can relate to your cynicism.
Unfortunately, there is a bug in the design in the first amendment where money can be considered speech. That has just created an escalation situation where people try to outdo each other with money and the voice of the people is not heard
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?