Posted on 09/08/2020 3:37:45 PM PDT by maggief
I would agree with that, it's going to flow wherever it needs to in order to maintain and/or manipulate power.
"First, what would a Senator do with the time that is freed up from not having to fundraise for reelection campaigns?"
That wouldn't cease, because you'd merely being doing fundraisers for the people (legislators) electing you. Another version of bribery. I think it would dramatically raise the costs of running for the legislature so that only the rich or bribed puppets of special interests and the national party could make a serious run. I think this would even lessen local and state interests and nationalize EVERY race. Look at every time we have a special election for U.S. House seats. Decades ago, those tended to be run and won on issues of concern explicitly for a given district. In the Watergate era and after, virtually every race is a national referendum. So that would spread downwards to lesser offices (a direction its already in now).
"And third, if the money is just pushed down to the state legislatures, 1) is there enough to go around, 2) will that just be worse because these are smaller offices with fewer voter constituents, but who are smarter and who are watching, and 3) I've argued that it's easier to contain 50 independent state corruptions driven by diverse local specific issues than it is to drain a national swamp of embedded federal party bloc corruptions working towards a global agenda of leftism and elite supremacy."
Well, I think I addressed part of that above. My concern is that the state legislatures would merely become an extension of the swamp, in some states, that's already happened. The residents of those states, the FReepers that hail from some of them, are the most viscerally opposed to empowering those corrupt legislatures even more. Illinois is a premier example of that.
You had your “The Shining”-esque spam posts pulled last night, do you want that to happen again ? I suggest you knock it off.
Hey keep at you thin skinned one note. Your posts are proving to be very educational by showing you and your state-ist ilks true incompetence. The anti small 'r' republican cadre are showing us how dangerous and possessed they can be.
So like I said before if you are against repealing the 17th amendment then you lose all credibility on Free Republic. The irony of your ill conceived position and the forum you choose to express your opposition to returning to the original Constitution and repealing the 17th escapes you. It is both fascinating and sickening at the same time.
Try learning how to coherently argue a position instead of spamming and insults. You come off as unhinged.
Explain how having 60 Republican Senators now would be worse than the situation that we have in the Senate with less than 50 Republican Senators. Go ahead. If their was no 17th we would have 60 Republican Senators. Would some be RINOs? Of course. But that would be better than what we have now. You can't deny that FACT.
30 x 2 = 60.
Ok I made a mistake, of coarse Republicans have a slim majority of 53 to 47 in the Senate. So sue me . My point is still valid the 17th amendment is costing Republicans 7 Senate seats and doing enormous damage to the country..
You make some very solid points, and I appreciate your thoughtful response. And on reflection, I might add Peter Fitzgerald knocking off the loathsome Carol Moseley Braun as additional ammo for your side. For that matter, were it not for the treachery of the Chicago Tribune, the senatorial candidacy of Pat Ryan might have spared us the spectacle of a Barack Hussein Obama presidency.
If it was up to me, I’d still get rid of the 17th amendment, but I’m now perhaps less pessimistic about it’s consequences.
So true.
Peter Fitzgerald was a premier example against repeal. Were it up to the legislature, the last “Republican” to be elected would’ve been in 1997 (now that is assuming that the grand total membership of the legislature would’ve voted on party lines — and by ONE vote, the GOP had an overall majority. Boss Madigan, who was in charge then, and still in charge 23 years later, could’ve easily scared up a single GOP vote to keep whatever Democrat was running into being elected or reelected).
Now, if the GOP had prevailed by that one vote, who would they have sent to Washington ? Well, you might recall who was running for Paul Simon’s open seat that year. Dick Durbin, curiously, was supposed to be the designated loser for the Dem side of the Combine. It was flaky empty suit Lt. Governor Bob Kustra, a RINO, who was the Combine-designated winner, and would be “allowed” to serve at least one term in D.C. (a la Mark Kirk). But Kustra was so weak and so disinterested in fighting for the seat, that he was polished off by Al Salvi, a Conservative who DID want the office. Unlike Peter Fitzgerald 2 years later, Salvi didn’t have the $$ to fight off the wrath of the corrupt insiders who then had to shift to support Durbin instead, who was happy to serve as their corrupt puppet.
So, with a 17th repeal, the last Republican would’ve been a weak Bob Kustra, who would’ve been kicked out in 2003 after what would’ve been an unimpressive 6 years. No Fitzgerald and not even an impotent Mark Kirk would’ve sat in the Senate. Kustra would’ve been the last for decades and decades until Chicago collapses.
Some surmise Zero himself might not have gotten the nomination under a 17th repeal, which is possible - but he was a member of the IL Senate, and I think there would’ve been pressure to put a “viable” Black in the seat (whether Carol Mostly-Fraud would’ve been the first is up in the air, it would’ve been harder for her in 1992 to have ousted Alan Dixon without a legislative base of support). The money people and outside influencers (Soros, et al) probably would’ve pushed for Zero.
Some also say Hillary would not have been able to win in the NY legislature a race for the seat (well, at least not been the party nominee). In that instance, I think Hillary would’ve just returned to Chicago to get the seat from there in 2003 (from Bob Kustra), and then launched her Presidential candidacy from there instead.
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.