I have not gone through the whole thread but, has anyone brought up gas chambers and ovens yet?
No, we’re still calling it “evacuation to the east”.
Well since the states have power and the states disagree it isn’t ever going to happen.
Again, this is exactly what the house of representatives is for. Represent the people proportionally. The Senators were designed to be elected by the state legislators, not directly by the people as today. Direct election of Senators makes no sense, the people are already represented by the House. Remember the whole point of the Constitution was to preclude Democracy, the framers knew their history and specifically wanted to avoid mob rule, and rule by elites and kings, oligarchs and asshats etc.
GulfTiger, it is specifically against the rules of the SDMB to wish harm or say that some person or group is deserving of harm. I think saying they deserve to be put to death in a manner similar to the Nazis meets that criteria.
Warning issued, please don’t do it again.
We now have had popularly elected senators for 100 years now, and I see no valid argument now that we need to change it back to letting state legislatures choosing them. It seems to me quite satisfactory to have both houses representing the people. So far as I am concerned the states don’t have any interest separate from the interests of the people in those states that need representation.
You could make good arguments that we should switch to a unicameral legislature, but you could just as well argue that having two houses—both elected by the people, but in different ways—does serve practical interests. Indeed I’m fine with that.
We have had two centuries of experience with the Constitution and democracy and history now that the authors of the Constitution didn’t have. We are not shackled by their experience, and we are certainly not shackled by their interests and views.
We have steadily increased the amount of democracy in our system, extending it to more and more people, and we have experienced with that an explosion in the increase of prosperity and knowledge and safety on every measurable level.
We have far more knowledge and experience now then they had back then, and our country and its people are exponentially better off now then they were back then. So, originalist arguments don’t impress me.
Shucks, you might even consider the possibility that they could be right about some things and you could be wrong.
However, formal education isn’t the same thing as actual education. There are many fools with PhD’s. Many of them belong to the professoriate.
You win the thread! 
I don’t suppose it occurred to you that the disruptive protestors went with the purpose of provoking violence in the first place?
Just because you can’t see something doesn’t make it OK. It’s been a disaster.
In what?
I should back up a bit to the earlier post, and point out the Federal government is a creation of the states, not the other way around. So it’s amusing to see someone advocate getting rid of the Electoral College and the United States Senate altogether. In a very real sense your arguments illustrate the wisdom of the system they pilut together. You’re advocating (I assume) for direct democracy.
Let’s take this to one extreme. What happens when 51% of the people vote to take the other 49% of the peoples stuff. Is that OK?
Never mind
Hybrid it - one senator elected by the citizens, one senator appointed by the legislature.
Actually, the first violence, (and that was supported by Trump), was against peaceful folks who went to see what Trump had to say, but just did not happen to support Trump. It was after the news had been reported for several weeks that peaceful observers were manhandled and forced out of Trump gatherings, (with Trump cheering on his supporters), that other opponents began showing up and being disruptive. The violence still began with Trump and the rowdier of his crowds.
Well get to work on that amendment then.
That’s good because being a Trump supporter myself I was sarcastically wondering how deep the hate levels were.
Apparently the mods thought I wished harm to come to myself and my fellow travelers. 
Why?
Purely policy.
They both have moral problems so, toss that stuff aside because you only get stalemate. If you want angels, go to church.
I only look at policy. I like his tax views. I like his 2nd Amendment views. I like his immigration views.
What are they? As best I can tell, they are, in order:
- Taxes are bad.
- Hillary will take away your guns the day she takes office.
- Build a wall.
No pressure, though. If taxes, guns and immigration are three especially important issues to you and you’re going with the candidate you believe more likely to align with your particular views, fine. I’m sure there are numerous American voters who have some combination of these and/or abortion in mind.
I think you should join them and get behind Ivanka in 2024 and Trump Jr in 2032.
Because America just proved it, WE ARE RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG!