Thanks for your honest discussion! If you don't think Sen. McConnell is the prime mover in all of the goings on of the Senate, well...I think you're assuming that I'm defending Trump here. I didn't vote for him in 2016 nor did I vote for him this year. I voted third party both times because neither earned my vote, in my personal opinion. But I do remember an old saying about not worrying about the speck in someone else's eye when there's a log in your own, and was pointing out the hypocrisy that I saw from many notable people on the left, primarily on social media, immediately following the election.
I was not going to be particularly pleased either way with the 2016 election, so there was no point in wallowing in my sorrows with either result. As such, I kept a clear mind and simply observed the goings on following the 2016 election and this year's election. I was not making a moral argument, I was questioning why people only question the morality only when it favors them. As someone who has mostly libertarian leanings, I tend to notice hypocrisy from both sides, and call it as such. And typically I get the same "revisionist history" or "you don't understand how the world works" accusations from whichever side I call out.
About the "50+1" deal; the founders pretty clearly designed the Constitution to avoid that issue. Unfortunately, that has been eroded over the years. A big hit was when the Constitution was amended to make the position of Senator chosen by direct election, rather than by the respective State legislatures. The individual States no longer have their own voice in the federal government, and they're now little more than extensions of the federal government at this point, in terms of real power. I've also heard many (primarily on the left, but occasionally on the right when it would enable them to ramrod something through by simple majority) advocate to do away with the few remaining checks on a simple 50+1 format. Senator Schumer being one of the more notable to do so recently when he openly advocated for doing away with the filibuster if the Democrats were to retain control of the Senate.
A tyranny by the majority is still a tyranny. And I'm not a fan of a simple majority, of either party, being able to ramrod anything down our throats.
Hmmm... I have literally never heard anyone argue against the 17th Amendment before. Go you! The direct election of Senators seems like a no-brainer to me. Why does electing Senators from the state representatives, instead of the people, produce a better outcome?
As per the filibuster... please show me where it exists in the Constitution. Obviously, you can not, because that doesn't exist. The filibuster ultimately tracecs it roots back to the early days of the Republic, when it was difficult to travel. It wasn't really used tactically until 2008, when Sen. McConnoll publicly declared that his top priority was to make Obama a single-term president. Never mind working to improve the lives of Americans--Obama was to be defeated at all costs. If that meant the country should suffer, so be it, so that the Republican candidate would be in a better position in 2012, 2016, 2020, etc...