Extremist tea partiers want to overturn 17th amendment so rich white men can rule america

So, how did you watch the last 2-3 weeks, and still refuse to believe that uh, the Tea Party is perfectly capable of pulling all sorts of crap? They're basically a 3rd party. Sure, they represent a minority of Americans, something like 10-15%....

but it's like that in those parliamentary systems which people like you look fondly towards when you talk about "3rd parties" as well. Or would you care to tell me what the "viable 3rd parties" are in say, Britain? Or France? Or Germany? The ones you know, that will go around appointing prime ministers and such.

 

It seems like this thread has turned into gripes about the two party system rather than how Senators are elected. If people don't like the two parties we don't need to change the constitution we just need to elect other people. Angus King Senator from Maine isn't a Democrat or a Republican and I live in a state that not that long ago had an independent governor.

And before people start saying "Will my vote is wasted so what point is there in voting for someone else." That is precisely the attitude why major change doesn't happen. Democracy works for those who participate and that means doing all the stuff that people don't seem to be bothered enough to do, go to caucuses, campaign, and yes even help raise money.

As much as I think the Tea Party is destroying the country the only reason they are in that position is because they did the stuff above and got their candidates elected.

 

Exactly. If we've learned anything from the Tea Party, it's that if you work hard enough at the grassroots level, you can get anyone elected, no matter how crazy they are.

 

Not sure a lot of Tea Partyism is grassroots. Seems more astroturfeeish to me.

 

I'm leaning more towards grassroots that come from a blend of Kentucky bluegrass and sensemilla.

Whatever ya want to call that.

 

Oh look, the race card again.

 

I prefer to refer to it as the last, dying primal scream of the white majority.

 

Here's why the 17th Amendment should be repealed:
The state legislatures have three election cycles in six years (in most states); therefore, the state legislature electing the Senator six years ago would not be the same during that election. The people tend not to vote out the Senator after six years - I believe the retention rating of Senators through popular vote is ~80% or higher. Voting through the state legislatures rather than popular vote does a better job at keeping out establishment politicians.

 

Stupid thread is stupid.

 

Really can't believe there is a group of Americans clamoring to have their direct input in democracy diminished. Y'all are out there, man. Damn.

 

I love how you guys hide your racial and class warfare under the guise of some stupid principle. In this case, it's well known that the lower voter turnouts favor Republican candidates and that the older and whiter you are the more likely you are to participate in mid term elections. I'm SHOCKED that you guys would favor a policy to further diminish the political power of the young, the poor, and minorities (otherwise known as the people who vote overwhelmingly Democratic).

 

Term. Limits.

 

Definitely a far more equitable and sensible solution. Two terms and you're out. Let's do it.

 

That sort of racial rhetoric is counterproductive.

 

Sign me up as well. Definitely.

Don't take my ****ing vote away. Just limit the buttholes from making a whole career out of a Congressional position. *That* was not the intent of the founding fathers.

 

Agreed.

 

Ever wonder how a handful of right wingers can paralyze the House and the whole government. Instructive to see in more detail the results of unlimited money in politics.

Bill Moyers describes in detail many of the folks and tremendous money from
wing nut organizations that fund Cruz, Gohmert and gang, that makes them so confident and makes normal Republicans so afraid of them.

Very interesting. Now you know why Boehner and gang are so afraid to take these freaks on .

We haven't had this much outright corruption and influence peddling since the scandals that led to the Progressive movement.
*******

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/19426-the-ten-hardline-conservatives-pulling-the-strings-of-the-gop-shutdown

 

Tea Party is not grassroot. It's been backed by big big money from the very beginning and its roots go back to the 80's. It was formed by Tobacco companies to fight against regulation, taxes, and anti-smoking laws, and expanded into other areas. It's first website went up in 2002, owned by FreedomWorks.

Such a big myth about them being grassroots. The only reason they are in the position they are in is because they are nothing but astroturfing

 

The origin of the name and the organizers are not really relevant. Grassroots means that they successfully get everyday people involved. Tea partiers have rallies. They have meetings. They talk politics and issues and how evil Obama is. They go and get people to vote in large numbers relative to their population. *That* is what makes them effective - not whatever money is behind them. All the money is in the world isn't going to get people out to political rallies and out to the ballot box. They may be severely delusional - but they are extraordinarily committed to their delusional causes.

Moderates and anti-tea-parties simply don't make that same kind of effort; thus, the tea partiers kick ass during the smaller elections where they can organize so well.

 

I think that regulation of anonymous, big money - the reversal of Citizens United - would be far more productive to the general interest than the implementation of term limits. I don't see how the mandatory exclusion of however few capable legislators there may be in Washington helps anyone.