who's ready boyz?

I know I'm ready because I'm using an MVMT watch 😉

did you buy it with Birch Gold??

I put it as a decoration on my BlueApron meal

don't get any of the sauce on your Boll and Branch Sheets

don't want anyone to try and steal them, so I had to close my Blinds.com

BLONDE IS HERE!!!

YA BOI CHAR IS in watching the call-in show for once

How do you call in

roll call

https://www.kansascity.com/entertainment/article214948550.html

FIGHT ME

Hi, I'm a patreon subscriber but it isn't showing me

In the Patreon list - Any idea why?

Do you guys think the 17th Amendment should be repealed?

Eh, not really...

What do you suggest to replace it??

I'm at a hard no, but I'm willing to hear the argument

My thought is that the states should decide how representatives are chosen. I think having state legislators pick a representative would encourage people to pay more attention to and maybe participate in their state elections.

You don't think that'd lead to cronyism?

It could. But states governments work like the federal, right? So couldn't the houses hold a vote or something, so that it's not one person picking?

The problem is that you'd have to hold states to account.

@CrystalWhiteMustang is absolutely right, if New York State decided to just appoint, there's no federal statute to prevent that

as pointed out, that would be cronyism

the 17th streamlines the process and protects more authoritarian states like New York and California from just picking who they want and to hell with the will of the people

it also makes freshman politicians viable. While I don't agree with her policies, and I know she represents a different chamber, let's use Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as an example

AOC just primaried a sure thing representative. In New York. Which is almost unheard of. Think about some upstart in the same boat that would make an attempt to do the same to an open senate seat

While I don't think that superceding Article 1, or 10A is a good idea....both of which the 17th is technically in violation of, I do see the merit, especially considering that it's a federal seat

and it also prevents the states from changing the rules in order to suit a particular agenda, much like the DNC did in 2016, and after as well

My thought is if the politicians in the state practice this kind of cronyism or change the rules to fit their agenda, wouldn't it be an unpopular move with the citizens of the state? Wouldn't it hurt their election changes when elections come up? Or am I giving the population too much credit?

*changes = chances

On a lot of occasions, you're giving populations too much credit, unfortunately. Los Angeles is still going to be a magnet for aspiring actors, Seattle for Hipsters, New York for yuppy businessmen, Massachusetts for historians, and all of them for heritage reasons. You'll chase off a few more rigid people, but for the most part the populations will be complicit

That's a part of the reason there has been so much push for federal overreach from the left, so people don't have to vote with their feet

Also, do you think it would still be as much of an issue today considering that information is much more readily available than it was when the amendment was passed?

I have an inherent distrust of any politician who has served more than three terms...so yes

Trust me, you think that we have a problem with term limits now, repeal the 17th and see what happens

What if we repeal the 17th AND implement term limits.

🆙 | **TheSuperShoe leveled up!**

that would be an ideal situation, but you'd have to get term limit legislation passed through people who are reaping a rich government salary off the fact that there are no term limits

that's the age old question of congress though

Sounds like we just fixed all the world's problems.