• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Liberals want to abolish the senate now.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
10,099
1,376
126
Do you know enough about this subject to know why your article is a bad choice to back up your argument? You cant just Google random shit you don't know about and pretend you have an understanding.
I doubt he read the article, only the headline.
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
6,425
1,861
136
I don't see it as a good idea, just like I don't see getting rid of the electoral college as such. I think both serve an important purpose. Having a house and senate gives us the best of both worlds and gives value to having a larger population as well as protects small states from effectively having no say.
What it does is give disproportionate power to white, rural and elderly conservative people. I guess that's why you like it? The Senate appears particularly absurd. Apparently within 20 years 2/3 of it's members will be chosen by less than 1/3 of the population.

Most 'democratic' systems of government, globally, are not all that democratic, because they were designed (and are maintained) by people with power who want to keep that power.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
13,591
4,066
136
I cannot post a link to any Democrats in the House or the Senate that are for this. You know what? Just a few years ago I couldn't point to any Democrats that were calling for reparations on a national stage either. Or for convicted terrorists and child rapers to have the right to vote from prison. Or for socialism. The Democrats are leaping to the left, this could be a thing with them on a broader scale soon enough. They're already making noise about the electoral college.
So .. if you cant post a link to it, it must be true. Thats not even Slow, that is in Reverse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

DarthKyrie

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2016
1,350
975
146
Also float the house seat count with population since I sincerely doubt that 750K per rep is a good level of representation for the "people's house". No other developed country has anything close to our ratio for a lower house.
Amendment the 1st needs to be passed badly, it should have been passed at the same time as the rest of The Bill of Rights but alas that didn't take place, I'm looking at you New York because you should have passed that shit ages ago.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
100,531
3,809
126
Amendment the 1st needs to be passed badly, it should have been passed at the same time as the rest of The Bill of Rights but alas that didn't take place, I'm looking at you New York because you should have passed that shit ages ago.
what?
 

DarthKyrie

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2016
1,350
975
146
What we know as the 1st Amendment was originally the 2nd Amendment, the original 1st Amendment was known as Amendment the 1st and it had to do with Representation and population size. New York would have put it over the top to become the 1st Amendment if they had actually voted on it, which they never did.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,241
3,036
126
Given that our constitutional government was created by men who feared soverign dictatorship above all else, and at a time when the pace of history and the rate of change needed to evolve according to adaptive needs proceded rather slowly by modern standards, they structured our government in a way that would make it difficult to fall back into a dictatorship. In other words they made change difficult. Having just gone through one revolution to free themselves from a lack of say in how they were governed, they didn't want to have another revolution taking them back. They created a house where the voice of the people could be heard and a senate where they hoped wisdom and sophisticated undertstanding would prevent retrograde change from happening.

The pace of change happening in the world today, and the longstanding inculcation of a democratic government tradition, in my opinion, makes that previously wise caution in the modern day world an impediment. Rapid evolutionary adaption won't happen for turtles. They like the rest of us are probably on our way to extinction. The only brains adapted to handle change belong to liberals. This is why conservatives are not just fools but dangerous, again, in my opinion.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
997
126
Given that our constitutional government was created by men who feared soverign dictatorship above all else, and at a time when the pace of history and the rate of change needed to evolve according to adaptive needs proceded rather slowly by modern standards, they structured our government in a way that would make it difficult to fall back into a dictatorship. In other words they made change difficult. Having just gone through one revolution to free themselves from a lack of say in how they were governed, they didn't want to have another revolution taking them back. They created a house where the voice of the people could be heard and a senate where they hoped wisdom and sophisticated undertstanding would prevent retrograde change from happening.

The pace of change happening in the world today, and the longstanding inculcation of a democratic government tradition, in my opinion, makes that previously wise caution in the modern day world an impediment. Rapid evolutionary adaption won't happen for turtles. They like the rest of us are probably on our way to extinction. The only brains adapted to handle change belong to liberals. This is why conservatives are not just fools but dangerous, again, in my opinion.

When liberals were progressive and not regressive I would have somewhat agreed with you. Now they're progressive in name only. Remember, the conservative religious are fools because of the illogical god they're sure exists due to nothing more than sheer belief. But, progressive liberals know what's up, a girl can be a boy if only she just believes. Same idiocy, just different target fixation. Today the "progressives" are the regressives.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,162
2,933
126
When liberals were progressive and not regressive I would have somewhat agreed with you. Now they're progressive in name only. Remember, the conservative religious are fools because of the illogical god they're sure exists due to nothing more than sheer belief. But, progressive liberals know what's up, a girl can be a boy if only she just believes. Same idiocy, just different target fixation. Today the "progressives" are the regressives.
More of your incessant rambling...….
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
997
126
More of your incessant rambling...….

Incessant rambling, eh?

This is one of your latest threads:

She had her 15 minutes of fame!! Pulling a gun on 4 black fundraising teens who were doing nothing more than raising funds!! They were not a thread to anybody!!
I am totally supreised the headline did not read White woman kills for black teens in self defense?
You say self defense, huh??
Well perhaps she feared for her life...…….
Anyways it looks as if she screwed the pooch one to many times!!
Don`t put guns in the hands of stupid people!!

Complaining about people rambling might not be your best card to play. Just sayin
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
100,531
3,809
126
What we know as the 1st Amendment was originally the 2nd Amendment, the original 1st Amendment was known as Amendment the 1st and it had to do with Representation and population size. New York would have put it over the top to become the 1st Amendment if they had actually voted on it, which they never did.
looks like it was connecticut, massachusetts, and delaware that didn't ratify it.

nevertheless, the only thing preventing the addition of seats in the HoR is statute. you don't need an amendment to increase the number.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,241
3,036
126
When liberals were progressive and not regressive I would have somewhat agreed with you. Now they're progressive in name only. Remember, the conservative religious are fools because of the illogical god they're sure exists due to nothing more than sheer belief. But, progressive liberals know what's up, a girl can be a boy if only she just believes. Same idiocy, just different target fixation. Today the "progressives" are the regressives.
Well, I define progressives as people who can integrate opposites at a higher level of understanding and that is probably not how most would use the word. I would say the qualities you attribute to progressives apply not to progressives but to authoritarians on the left. I have no use for them.

But never mind that. The way I would challenge what you have posted here is to say that to be a boy or a girl and and think you're your the opposite and to accept there are those who feel that way represents a profound capacity to tolerate change and to evolve socially. Belief is a God that doesn't exist is old school and rote by thousands of years.

Imagine the scientific data that must be amassed to counter such an obvious conclusion that a boy is a boy and a girl is a girl. In order to understand that you need the statistics of math and an understanding of psychology and medicine. Again, these are skills open to the liberal brain and that develop via higher education and not well suited to conservatives who protect themselves from fear, the fear of change, of new ideas, reason, by the use of low level thinking. If everybody were conservative we would all still be in caves.

Also, I reject your liberal thinking regarding God, that logic and the lack of proof suggest he doesn't exist. Every progressive of the kind I describe knows that he does. He is a projection of human potential, of what we can become and were born to be and as such has great aspirational value. As above, so below, the mystics say.
 

DarthKyrie

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2016
1,350
975
146
looks like it was connecticut, massachusetts, and delaware that didn't ratify it.

nevertheless, the only thing preventing the addition of seats in the HoR is statute. you don't need an amendment to increase the number.
I know that about the HoR seats but the Amendment would have guaranteed the increase. Instead, we have been stuck at 435 since 1911 and the population has tripled since then.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,101
11,715
136
When liberals were progressive and not regressive I would have somewhat agreed with you. Now they're progressive in name only. Remember, the conservative religious are fools because of the illogical god they're sure exists due to nothing more than sheer belief. But, progressive liberals know what's up, a girl can be a boy if only she just believes. Same idiocy, just different target fixation. Today the "progressives" are the regressives.
#fuckofftroll
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
13,591
4,066
136
When liberals were progressive and not regressive I would have somewhat agreed with you. Now they're progressive in name only. Remember, the conservative religious are fools because of the illogical god they're sure exists due to nothing more than sheer belief. But, progressive liberals know what's up, a girl can be a boy if only she just believes. Same idiocy, just different target fixation. Today the "progressives" are the regressives.
Its like white noise to coherence, non of those sentences connect in any kind of meaningful way. Maybe Slow IS a chat bot? Like that nasty nazi thing microsoft pulled?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,462
4,198
126
When liberals were progressive and not regressive I would have somewhat agreed with you. Now they're progressive in name only. Remember, the conservative religious are fools because of the illogical god they're sure exists due to nothing more than sheer belief. But, progressive liberals know what's up, a girl can be a boy if only she just believes. Same idiocy, just different target fixation. Today the "progressives" are the regressives.
Gender issues seem like a sore subject for you. Most adequate people simply don't care how others live their lives if they aren't impacted by it.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
60,319
12,307
136
Gender issues seem like a sore subject for you. Most adequate people simply don't care how others live their lives if they aren't impacted by it.
He's just weirded out that one of his happy ending massage therapists might be a guy...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,162
2,933
126
Incessant rambling, eh?

This is one of your latest threads:




Complaining about people rambling might not be your best card to play. Just sayin
Every bit of commentary was true!! No Spuideyshit or Spidey deflection!! You couldn`t have asked for a better example.......
An aging fat white woman with a gun held on 4 children of color because they were our raising funds.
That woman should be the next poster child for gun control!! See how easy I made you look like an idiot??
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
27,593
7,361
136
Gender issues seem like a sore subject for you. Most adequate people simply don't care how others live their lives if they aren't impacted by it.
You can't blame slow though, he's already having a tough time figuring out his identity and now with these other ways for people to identify themselves he's even more conflicted about who he is.

Let me help you slow, you are...

































A fucking idiot!



Now you no longer need to be confused about what you are. You are welcome.
 

GodisanAtheist

Platinum Member
Nov 16, 2006
2,324
700
136
I do think some rules of the house and sentate need to be codified rather than remain gentleman's agreements that can be thrown away by the majority leader whenever.

I also think the "pocket veto" power of the Senate majority leader needs to be severly curtailed. If a bill is not brought to vote on the house floor within X days, it bypasses the Senate and goes straight to the President. If Veto'd,it goes back to the house for the override. (Granted, that would be a major overhaul).

I have no problem with bills being brought up for vote and defeated in the Senate, but the ability to simply not bring things up for vote seems to run counter to this whole functional government thing as a whole.

The Senate tends to be less extreme in its partisanship than the house. Sentators need all the votes in their state,so urban centers are as important as rural areas and lead to more moderation. It's exactly why Moscow Mitch is holding bills from being voted on. If people folks in their home states saw how Pub senators were actually voting on bills they supported Senate seats might actually become vulnerable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

ASK THE COMMUNITY