http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7701984Oh my.
Here the primitives go, thinking about things again.
yurbud (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-12-10 06:03 PM
Original message
Poll question: Should the Senate be ABOLISHED?
and it's constitution functions (but not constipated procedures) be ceded to the House?
Hell, we could even add 100 more seats to the house so every rep has a smaller district and money plays less of a role than actual face time with voters. We could also extend their terms to four years instead of two so they have to spend less time campaigning.
It became apparent in the the health care ''reform'' debate that while corruption and corporate toadying are a problem in the House, they are the unquestioned rule in the Senate.
Likewise, when Bush put up two Supreme Court nominees, the second of whom didn't even disguise his fascist inclinations in his confirmation, it took extraordinary public pressure to get Senate Democrats to even threaten a filibuster or put up any resistance at all. Why? Because most of them serve the same handful of moneyed interests the GOP does, and they will continue to do so regardless of the harm it does the rest of us.
The Brits did away with the House of Lords. Maybe we should follow their example and do away with the house of Corporate Lords.
What do you think?
Poll result (85 votes)
YES--Abolish the Senate and flush their corrupt corporate asses down the toilet of history (47 votes, 55%)
NO--the Senate serves a valuable purpose. (38 votes, 45%)
Warpy (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-12-10 06:11 PM
HAS NOT YET DONATED TO SKINS'S ISLAND!
FUND-RAISER'S ENDING SOON! TIME MARCHES ON!
Response to Original message
1. The Senate serves a valuable purpose in deciding foreign policy issues. Where they get constipated is when they have to decide domestic policy from the viewpoint of a state instead of the people.
Perhaps it's time to redefine their position since they obviously can't get anything done and are unwilling to change their archaic and unworkable procedural rules.
Mike 03 (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-12-10 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
2. I don't see how abolishing the senate could help us at all.
There are honorable, great Dems in the Senate. The problem is not the senate, is the education of the American public that would elect the very mentally challenged senators who by and large serve on that other side of the aisle.
dysfunctional press (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-12-10 06:15 PM
HAS NOT YET DONATED TO SKINS'S ISLAND!
FUND-RAISER'S ENDING SOON! TIME FLIES!
Response to Original message
3. nope.
but there should be a two-term limit, just like the president.
Term limits would've taken dead ted out in 1977, though.
As usual, the primitives aren't thinking things all the way through.
damntexdem (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-12-10 06:16 PM
HAS NOT YET DONATED TO SKINS'S ISLAND!
FUND-RAISER'S ENDING SOON! TIME RUNNING OUT!
Response to Original message
4. No, it's the fillibuster that should be abolished.
As should senatorial holds.
Moreover, it might not even be constitutionally possible to abolish the Senate:
Article V of the U.S. Constitution, dealing with amending the Constitution: ". . . no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
