Posted on 10/07/2018 7:29:48 PM PDT by vannrox
Hard to argue with that last sentence.
I vote for Uncle Frank as worst. If Wilson sexually assaulted Lady Liberty then Roosevelt kept her chained up in the his basement for 12 years.
Wilson was dog doo (Andrew Johnson was probably the most racist though, no?).
But he can’t be blamed for the 16th amendment for example as many seem to do, it passed Congress overwhelming long before he was President, and was supported by Taft and TR as well, sadly.
I like it. But that sounds like one choice, I would see no reason there would need to be 2 parties that agreed on policy. Ireland has that, it's silly.
If not for the race issue the Bourbons and GOP conservatives might have teamed and GOP and rat socialists likewise.
The biggy back then was trade, I guess I'd be a bourbon on that. Though who knows BACK IN THE DAY I might have been in favor of tariffs. Back in the day businessmen supported protectionism.
When thing I don't get is Bourbon foreign policy, how'd the dems go from manifest destiny to non-interventionist? That was a true "switch". The Whigs had been more dovish, opposing the Mexican War.
The States do not have representation in the Congress - you haven’t said why you support removing the check and balance set up by the Founders.
Um, I’m pretty sure I EXTENSIVELY said why I don’t think we should go back to having small numbers of politicians elect US Senators.
Article V was the one the wisest parts of the constitution.
Without the 12th amendment Mike Pence (305) would be President and Donald Trump (304) Vice President. Change is not always bad.
Repeal the 23rd, not the 17th.
BTW “The States” have 535 Representatives and Senators in Congress.
The US Senate is elected directly by the people of their respective states - they represent the people of their states.
Senators were the representatives of the States in out Constitution - representing the State legislatures.
What you have now are 2 extra super-representatives - and the State has no representation.
It seems to me that both of you would rather have politicians decide who to represent your state in the U.S. Senate rather than decide for yourselves. How cute. Do you similarly depend on politicians to tell you how to worship God or how to raise your family? Personally, I believe that citizens have the unalienable right to elect their representatives in government, but if you all want to delegate your sovereignty to politicians you are free to continue to communicate your meekness and subservience by advocating for the abrogation of your right to vote for your state’s representatives in the U.S. Senate.
Ping
I think one reason the Whigs weren’t hot on the Mexican War and getting Texas was because it was adding Democrat territory.
Most states are gerrymandered to elect a particular party member. It is actually quite hard to rid yourself of one who votes poorly. Although I'm in a Republican state, the district I'm in is heavily Democrat. Unless said member retires, there's no way to get rid of them, and they're merely replaced by someone as bad, and often worse. Same goes for my State Senator, as I'm in a Black Voting Rights Act-mandated seat. I also similarly have no say for Congressmember, which is Democrat and has been since U.S. Grant won his 2nd term in 1872. U.S. Senator is the only office I can have influence over because I am outvoted on all the other contests. It would be unthinkable to give up that right to my corrupt, ultraleftist state legislator and incoming State Senator, neither of which represents me whatsoever.
As soon as Senators realized they were under no legal obligation to resign early from their seats if they refused to follow state legislators instructions or if an opposite party won the majority, Senators ceased to be representatives of their states. That happened quite early in the 19th century. It’s why the experiment was a failure.
If you were to reimplement it today, you’d never have another Conservative Senator elected again except by accident. Their goal would be to loot the treasury for their respective states.
I think Ireland is a rather unique circumstance, there are two squishy right-of-center parties that agree on 90% of the issues but hate each others guts and refuse to work together or form any kind of government together because they are still butt hurt over something that happening during Irish Independence or whatever, and as a result they split the conservative vote and the leftists are able to form a government.
What fieldmarshaldj is talking about is something more akin to modern day Poland, where the two "major" parties in the country (the Law and Justice Party and the Civic Platform Party) are both conservative. They agree on 80%-90% of the issues, the main difference is the Law and Justice Party is anti-EU and Civic Platform Party is pro-EU. Voters basically get to choose between having a conservative government or having an even more conservative government (the more conservative, anti-EU party is currently in power) Left-wing parties exist in Poland as an alternative (the Democratic Left Alliance is an example) but they are minor third parties that win only a handful of seats at the local level. It's a win-win scenario for us.
I agree that would be pretty refreshing if the RATS were NEVER taken over by the William Jennings Bryan wing of the party and we had a Polish-style government from the 20th century onward. Just imagine no 1913 progressive era, no FDR court-packing scheme, no Earl Warren Supreme Court, and no "Great Society". If both parties were basically conservative, I imagine disgruntled lefties in this country would have done what they did in 1924 and formed a permanent left-wing third party in the U.S. (probably named the "Progressive Party) to oppose the Republicans and the Democrats in every election, but they wouldn't able to do much harm if they were like the Liberal Democrats in the UK and didn't have the ability to ever get in power. Most likely they'd try to push both of the "major" parties in the U.S. to the left.
>> Though who knows BACK IN THE DAY I might have been in favor of tariffs. Back in the day businessmen supported protectionism.When thing I don't get is Bourbon foreign policy, how'd the dems go from manifest destiny to non-interventionist? That was a true "switch". <<
The RATs are "non-interventionist" and "anti-war" on paper, but when they actually get in power in another story. Both Woodrow Wilson and FDR swore up and down that they'd keep us out of war, then got us into World War I and World War II, respectively. Bob Dole had a great line at a debate pointing out every major war of the 20th century was started by a Democrat. Even Obama continued AND EXPANDED every single Bush military effort and foreign policy initiative that he vehemently campaigned against and pledged to abolish.
On tariffs, however, that might indeed be a true example where "the two parties switched sides" from where they were in the 19th century. I've heard Pat Buchanan and others complain that back in the day, the Democrats were the ones pushing free trade and the GOP was the one promoting protectionism. Ironically in the late 19th century it was the ONLY major issue they fought over, since the whole civil war era stuff was old news and the Republicans couldn't get any more mileage out of "waving the bloody shirt" and reminding voters that the DemonRats were the party of slavery and treason. By the 1880s it was old news. That's one of the reasons I don't think both parties remaining right-of-center would have resulted in a situation like in Ireland where they squabble over something that happened a century ago.
So you are incapable of moving? Also, your General Assembly composition would send two Republican Senators regardless. And if you read further (Ignoring expanding voting “rights”), the reason why your are gerrymandered is because idiots who have no business voting put people in position to create a “power class”.
Why should I have to move ?
And I just told you I don’t want the legislature electing MY U.S. Senator. It didn’t work before the 17th, and it ain’t gonna magically work now.
BTW, I agree with gerrymandering to keep the parasites and loons corralled into the fewest number of districts so the non-nutter districts aren’t threatened. It’s why the Demonrats want “Independent” Redistricting Boards, which always manage to overdraw seats for the radical left.
Actually, the GOP Speaker of the House in TN didn’t gerrymander the districts here in Nashville nearly enough. Since she is also from here, she went easy on the Dems, allowing them to have more seats than they ought to have. Big mistake.
Since the E.C. is how we Constitutionally elect the President, the answer is self-evident.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.