Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 391: My Son is Also Named Abort

(+) Yeah! (+)

Were gonna need more Abort license plates

Okay America heres what you do:

-Remove almost all power from the Presidency, making it largely a ceremonial role with some powers like confirming the cabinet. They are elected by ranked choice voting.

-Abolish the senate entirely.

-The house is now the main lawmaking power and selects the cabinet, and shall be elected via single transferrable vote (ranked choice in multi-member districts, both proportional and locally representative).

-Have constitutional amendments be decided by nationwide referendums and require 50%+1 of the votes overall and in at least 20 states to pass.

-Make the Supreme Court now independently appointed by a non-political body made up of legal experts based on ability rather than politics.

-Sit back, relax, and enjoy a country that is actually democratic with significantly better welfare, lower inequality, an ability to actually change things, and no political appointees from earlier administrations acting as unchecked dictators.

This will never happen but I just wrote a better system of government in a message board post than the US actually has. The reason being other countries already work this way.

Nah, that makes way too much sense. I say we fix America by creating a bunch of new blue states so the Democrats can actually wield power in the Senate.

The house of representatives is not the savior you think it is

creating blue states is actually hard. Even chopping up blue states wouldn't necessarily do it. Our population has too many centralized points. We'd be better off merging a bunch of shitty red states.

As bad as Senate Rs are, House Rs are even worse tbqh

Paratroopa1 posted...

The house of representatives is not the savior you think it is

Counterpoint: almost the entirety of Western Europe, except for the UK which uses FPTP. For instance, did you know that theres a significant relationship between proportional representation and lower income inequality? My point is that Americas troubles (and the UKs, and Indias, and coming soon Canadas) ultimately stem from an incomplete democracy. Not that PR solves every problem, but it does make them a lot less severe as it encourages coalition building and promotes policies that people actually want while keeping the hands out of a minority of extremists who happen to hijack a big party with a block vote.

Edit: STV also eliminates extremists winning elections by getting through primaries by just pandering to a racist base then getting elected by just having die-hard party voters vote for them because they have the correct letter next to their name. Instead youd have multiple candidates per party and those that can generate consensus get elected.

.red13n posted...

creating blue states is actually hard. Even chopping up blue states wouldn't necessarily do it. Our population has too many centralized points. We'd be better off merging a bunch of shitty red states.

Taking the idea seriously, and assuming we don't want to do anything too silly: DC is right there begging for statehood. That's one. Leaving California aside for now... that might be about it? You could split the NYC area off from the rest of New York, but the other part wouldn't be all that safe for Democrats. It's still way better in that regard than any of the other blue states dominated by one city. Plenty of other states in the Northeast (MD, NJ, CT, MA all come to mind) could be split into two blue states easily enough, but their small geographic areas would make that a hard sell. And of course you could technically split blue areas out of GOP-run states in theory, but good luck getting them to agree to that.

Luckily, California exists and can be split into as just about as many blue states as you could want. So yeah, DC statehood plus make California into like 6 new states.

Xeybozn posted...

Luckily, California exists and can be split into as just about as many blue states as you could want. So yeah, DC statehood plus make California into like 6 new states.

You could really only make two. If you tried to make more you'd make some really weird looking states or create a red state.

There is a reason Ive questioned why the hell DC statehood hasnt been a huge talking point

If we are wielding dictatorial power, you also could easily split Florida into a red state and a blue state

DC statehood is one of those things which is obviously the morally correct thing to do (even beyond the lack of representation, Congress being able to directly control how the city runs itself is ridiculous) but it'll probably never happen without a paired super safe R state's creation because it would happen to benefit Dems.

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1540852015693037568

They're not even hiding it.

The Republic is working exactly as designed, and there is no desire to copy systems that have done worse over the last 200+ years. FPTP forever.

HeroicCrono posted...

The Republic is working exactly as designed, and there is no desire to copy systems that have done worse over the last 200+ years. FPTP forever.

Sure, designed by slave owners who were all white, christian Cis-males for white, christian cis-males. I can understand why you wouldn't want to change that. Equality feels like oppression when you're used to privilege.

StealThisSheen posted...

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1540852015693037568

They're not even hiding it.

Mask off, hood on.

DC Statehood isn't even an easy sell to Democrats, and I think the main culprit is legitimately the fact that the whole 50 States thing is an ingrained part of American culture. We'd have to change songs, we'd have to change the flag, and 50 is such a nice, round number.

Is that a valid reason for denying statehood? No, but since when has logic trumped emotions?

StealThisSheen posted...

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1540852015693037568

They're not even hiding it.

ffs not the "Hitler was right about one thing" lady.

Lightning Strikes posted...

Have constitutional amendments be decided by nationwide referendums and require 50%+1 of the votes overall and in at least 20 states to pass.

What

its a perfect excuse to merge the dakotas then

or donate Alaska to Canada

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

ffs not the "Hitler was right about one thing" lady.

The fact they keep bringing her back says volumes.

The easiest state to get rid of would unironically be Texas. They're on the border, threaten to secede every few years, and have even replaced some federal infrastructure systems with state equivalents (that don't work).

Ive lived in Illinois my entire life and Ive never heard of the place Trumps having his rally

wikipedia says the town is 99.66% white lol

KamikazePotato posted...

The easiest state to get rid of would unironically be Texas. They're on the border, threaten to secede every few years, and have even replaced some federal infrastructure systems with state equivalents (that don't work).

Couldn't you just have bugs bunny cut off florida?

https://twitter.com/stoolpresidente/status/1540356814579146753?s=21&t=zD8padl9mL2FZwmUFG5G6w

Dave fuckin Portnoy literally on the right side of history, you know shit is fucked up.

No idea who that guy is

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://twitter.com/stoolpresidente/status/1540356814579146753?s=21&t=zD8padl9mL2FZwmUFG5G6w

Dave fuckin Portnoy literally on the right side of history, you know shit is fucked up.

Lol the arrogance to think that 95% of people think like me

But yes please more mainstream acceptance of the idea that the Constitution needs to be completely scrapped, because its failure as a holy document is the source of so many of our problems.

The constitution is fine if you take it as a base document that can be changed with the times. But since people have gotten stupid and view it as an infallible piece of paper we should burn it to the ground.

Especially now that the Supreme Court has set precedent that if it wasn't foreseen in the early 1800s it can never matter.

https://twitter.com/conselfowns/status/1540898030832046081?s=21&t=-XXOebInxBRXjhfX-qBdWg

PFFFFFFFT

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/conselfowns/status/1540898030832046081?s=21&t=-XXOebInxBRXjhfX-qBdWg

PFFFFFFFT

Is this a joke from South Park or something? It's gotta be.

The Constitution literally says it can be changed and how that is to be done. It's not the Constitution's fault that Democrats want it to say something else but refuse to take any steps toward amending it.

Especially now that the Supreme Court has set precedent that if it wasn't foreseen in the early 1800s it can never matter.

The dissent interprets the majority as saying the opposite - that if something was unforeseeable in the late 1700s, then the existing constitutional provisions may apply - but if something already existed in the late 1700s, how that thing is treated will not change by itself just because society's opinions on it change. I believe the dissent is understanding the majority correctly.

Is this the part where we blame Democrats for being unable to get Republican heads out of their own asses, like with climate change and covid?

So these judges essentially care more about fetuses than the people giving birth to them, all because of religion? Yikes.

Another thing that gets me is the actual logistics of enforcing these laws

Are states going to form special Miscarriage Examination Units to look through a woman's discharge and determine if it had a soul? Whether it was an abortion instead of an accident? It's going to make the most depressing event of someone's life ten times worse

Are there going to be trials? Are men going to be on the juries, or just women? We're promised a jury of our peers, after all

I just get the impression nobody in power thought these trigger laws through. But the messed up part is that they actually did- they just don't care

My friend has been trying to get pregnant with her husband in one of these states. They've been having troubles due to the quirks of their own biology, and now have to seriously think about navigating the law if something goes wrong. For now they're putting everything in hold. It's just complete ass

Lightning Strikes posted...

-Make the Supreme Court now independently appointed by a non-political body made up of legal experts based on ability rather than politics.

-Sit back, relax, and enjoy a country that is actually democratic with significantly better welfare, lower inequality, an ability to actually change things, and no political appointees from earlier administrations acting as unchecked dictators.

Also, this is the part where you drift into idealistic fantasy.

Okay, we'll put an unelected, unaccountable, and by necessity incorruptible group of people in charge of our government. That's the opposite of democratic and not possible!

Fptp does need to go, though.

banananor posted...

Okay, we'll put an unelected, unaccountable, and by necessity incorruptible group of people in charge of our government.

all we really have to do is find just one person like this and then crown them king

Leafeon13N posted...

Especially now that the Supreme Court has set precedent that if it wasn't foreseen in the early 1800s it can never matter.

To be fair, they've also said that precedent doesn't matter and they'll just follow whatever their personal beliefs are at any given time. Which means that our laws are bound to 6 unelected judges appointed by the Heritage Foundation.

Dancedreamer posted...

To be fair, they've also said that precedent doesn't matter and they'll just follow whatever their personal beliefs are at any given time. Which means that our laws are bound to 6 unelected judges appointed by the Heritage Foundation.

I really like how this article described it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/roe-overturned-supreme-court-samuel-alito-opinion/661386/

Undead constitutionalism, where the current conservative grievance takes priority over codified constitutional words

It begins

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2022/06/25/walz-issues-executive-order-on-reproductive-health-following-supreme-court-ruling

States not extraditing to each other. 3 states currently don't extradite for misdemeanors, this will be the first time a state refuses to extradite for a felony.

So this accomplishes absolutely nothing besides causing a whole lot of headaches. Great court!

LinkMarioSamus posted...

So this accomplishes absolutely nothing besides causing a whole lot of headaches. Great court!

Worse, it does absolutely nothing for people smart and/or rich enough to work around it.

It still punishes the poor

How much does this ruling increase the chance of Civil War 2 in the next 5-10 years?

I'd imagine it's still pretty low overall, but even a 2-3% chance seems not great.

Seanchan posted...

How much does this ruling increase the chance of Civil War 2 in the next 5-10 years?

I'd imagine it's still pretty low overall, but even a 2-3% chance seems not great.

I think for civil war 2 to happen in 5 years, it has to take Republicans taking the white house and congress and enforcing abortion bans in blue states who refuse, setting up clashes between state and federal forces.

So yeah, I think this is step 1 towards this, but it's probably not a 5 year thing. 20 year thing I think we are up to 25-30% chance

masterplum posted...

I think for civil war 2 to happen in 5 years, it has to take Republicans taking the white house and congress and enforcing abortion bans in blue states who refuse, setting up clashes between state and federal forces.

So yeah, I think this is step 1 towards this, but it's probably not a 5 year thing. 20 year thing I think we are up to 25-30% chance

That really depends on if Thomas gets his wish to overturn a bunch of other civil rights laws.

Seanchan posted...

How much does this ruling increase the chance of Civil War 2 in the next 5-10 years?

I think we're more likely to have a political revolution than a second civil war. It's probably time for it. We've been a nation led by the dead for far too long. Conservatives have deified the founding fathers to an extend they, perhaps ironically, never intended.

Yeah, we're definitely not getting a civil war. lol That's silly talk. We're definitely inching towards a revolution though.

With the direction that conservatives want to take the country, what type of revolution are you envisioning that doesn't eventually lead to bloodshed? We are hurtling towards an even worse stratification between "red" and "blue" states.

Do you actually think a genuinely progressive party will form and win enough support to take elected control of the government? That Congress will get off their asses and protect rights that don't involve guns? That we could pass Constitutional amendments?

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Yeah, we're definitely not getting a civil war. lol That's silly talk. We're definitely inching towards a revolution though.

Civil wars are just contested revolutions

Seanchan posted...

With the direction that conservatives want to take the country, what type of revolution are you envisioning that doesn't eventually lead to bloodshed? We are hurtling towards an even worse stratification between "red" and "blue" states.

Do you actually think a genuinely progressive party will form and win enough support to take elected control of the government? That Congress will get off their asses and protect rights that don't involve guns? That we could pass Constitutional amendments?

"Oh you're right. I do actually want socialism" - Idaho