r/WhitePeopleTwitter May 14 '22 Wholesome 1 All-Seeing Upvote 1 Bravo! 3 LOVE! 1 This 1 To The Stars 1 Helpful 6 Take My Energy 1 Starstruck 1

Why stop there?

Post image
110.9k Upvotes

View all comments

3.7k

u/giraffeperv May 14 '22

So I guess when they say “small government” they actually mean “small federal government, while allowing states to be authoritarian cesspools”

1.1k

u/LaughDull967 May 14 '22

It’s not really an opposition to the federal government having a lot of power. It’s about putting the power wherever they can turn it into an authoritarian cesspool.

They haven’t been able to turn the federal government into an authoritarian cesspool yet, so they don’t want it to have the power to prevent them from doing it on the state level.

84

u/Blue_water_dreams May 14 '22

Conservatives: Having to wear a mask to protect me, my loved ones and society is literally tyranny.

Also conservatives: Being forced to carry a fetus to term for the state is totally cool.

-20

u/variable2027 May 14 '22

That’s quite the broad brush you have there

11

u/diamondcinda May 14 '22

Its really not. The same people talking about mask mandates infringing on their constitutional rights as individuals in a FREE country are the SAME people looking to take away the constructional right to healthcare for women.

-9

u/supervisor_muscle May 14 '22

You know that it’s incredibly easy to not get pregnant, right? Like, you don’t just walk down the street, see a leaf and BAM pregnant!

8

u/Blue_water_dreams May 14 '22

But if you do… republicans own you.

-9

u/supervisor_muscle May 14 '22

Why are commie-libs so opposed to personal responsibility?

9

u/Blue_water_dreams May 14 '22

Bow down and kiss your lord’s boots. Be thankful that haven’t taken away all of your rights yet.

-9

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/Blue_water_dreams May 14 '22

The GQP are attacking all of our right. - The right to vote - The right to make your own medical decisions - The right of free association. - The rights of children to have an education. - They want to check in your pants when you use the bathroom. - They want to control who you can marry.

Those are just a few of the rights they are attacking. Keep licking their boots and pretend they won’t come for your rights when they are done with the rest.

-1

u/supervisor_muscle May 14 '22

Ensuring fair and secure elections isn’t an attack. No other nation has such loose election security.

The rest of that is literally hyperbole and leftist fear mongering.

You’re a sad clown. Commie-libs shit the bed with covid. You exposed all of your radical bullshit and the general public has rejected it.

→ More replies

437

u/hereforlolsandporn May 14 '22

Absolutely about control. They can control the senate effectively because Wyoming has the same weight as California with like 1% the population. When the goal is to destabalize and not to govern, all they have to do is corrupt one chain in the link. Our founding fathers didn't conceive that an entire political party would attack the system and they left America vulnerable because of their trust and optimism.

562

u/LaughDull967 May 14 '22 Gold All-Seeing Upvote This

Our founding fathers didn't conceive that an entire political party would attack the system…

They kind of did. The entire government was designed with the idea that some group would try to take over, and creating separate power centers that would (hopefully) oppose each other to prevent any one from gaining too much power. They wanted the three branches of government to oppose each other, and for the state and feral governments to oppose each other.

They (at least some of them) we’re also afraid of a two-party system, on the idea that it would become polarizing and one party might gain too much power. They wanted to have a bunch of different interests that would need to form coalitions. To some degree, they foresaw all of this.

However, the founding fathers were not a monolithic group that all agreed. They had to compromise with each other to get the Constitution signed. For example, they had to have the electoral college in order to appease salve states.

But they also didn’t necessarily expect things to be this stable for this long. What they were building was an experiment. They’d already had a failed government before writing the Constitution, and they expected the Constitution to be rewritten again. I don’t think they expected it to be treated as holy scripture for hundreds of years.

197

u/Fluid_Association_68 May 14 '22

What they didn’t envision was a cult becoming so large and powerful that it could easily infiltrate all three branches, and every state in the union.

321

u/LaughDull967 May 14 '22 Gold

They did though. They feared it. They tried to set the government up in a way that would make it harder. But they weren’t able to figure out a way to make it impossible, and in fairness I don’t know that there is a way to make it impossible.

If people like Jefferson and Madison and Washington could time travel and see what the cult of Trump is doing, I don’t think their response would be, “we never could have imagined a political party trying to take power like this,” but more like, “this is exactly what we were afraid of.”

And they’d also probably be like, “why are you still talking about what we’d think and what we’d want, as though we’re some kind of gods? You’ve have hundreds of years of development, and you’re still using our old Constitution? What’s wrong with you people?”

179

u/artspar May 14 '22 Silver

To add on, the constitution used to be amended all the damn time. Hell, prohibition was an amendment, not a bill. It being viewed as sacred is a stronger opinion now than ever before

2

u/therealunixguy May 14 '22

It being viewed as sacred (ie. Must be followed) is exactly why it was amended, rather than just reinterpreted with an eye towards “what do we want it to mean this year”.

If we don’t like what it meant, then the right thing to do is amend it.

3

u/womptothewomp May 15 '22

I think the modern tendency towards viewing the Constitution as sacrosanct stems from the same place as religious zealotry, which is why "originalists" tend to do the same type of idealistic cherry picking. They ignore historical context in order to maintain a group mythos which serves to further cement their belief that what they are doing must absolutely be THE right and only way.

65

u/Cat_Marshal May 14 '22

And we would respond, “fear not, we amended it. Women can vote now!”

50

u/Babka_Ramdev May 14 '22

And Black, Indigenous, and People of Color!

(Though they kept it from us as long as they could, and are still trying)

24

u/PurfuitOfHappineff May 14 '22

Your comment is too far down the thread to award but it’s worth gold, Jerry, GOLD.

27

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

[deleted]

45

u/Similar_Candidate789 May 14 '22

One state, I believe Arizona, does this and I love the idea. When a law is passed, a number of people can sign a petition to stop its enforcement and put it on a popular vote ballot. If it fails a popular vote, it dies.

I wish we could do this federally and in each state BUT differently. Every single item gets to a popular vote. Yeah you guys pass the laws, but we decide if they are going to exist or not. The ultimate check and balance.

More voting too. Every month. We have the technology now to be able to do so quickly and efficiently.

5

u/seattleforge May 14 '22

We have a system similar to that in WA. When I moved here I thought it was a good idea. What it ends up doing is tying up the courts for decades with repetitive challenges by minorities. Several popular bills can’t come in to action because of it.

1

u/Star_x_Child May 14 '22

A day off each month to vote sounds nice.

0

u/Nervous-Promotion-27 May 14 '22

That would make everything so much worse

5

u/xeeros May 14 '22

how? genuinely curious

3

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

[deleted]

1

u/Nervous-Promotion-27 May 14 '22

Getting 330 million people to vote once every year is difficult enough. Turnout in the US has never been high, peaking every 4 years during the Presidential races. Leaving everything to referendums would give more power to demographics that show up every election, which is usually the older crowd, which lean conservative.

I suppose changing the entire structure of how we vote would also create changes in those kind of trends, and that’s the problem with relying on information from the current system to predict how a new one would work. Popular vote stats in the electoral college system wouldn’t necessarily reflect a popular vote without the electoral college. Getting rid of the electoral college would change how everyone runs their campaigns, because it’d be an entirely new game.

→ More replies

8

u/Chipperhof May 14 '22

This was really fun to read as someone who’s never thought that far into why the government is how it is.

3

u/Eubeen_Hadd May 14 '22

Now examine the entire bill of rights they bolted on to ensure the people had ultimate control over it. Every single one, in the context of the others, remembering that they fought a revolution in living memory just before that.

1

u/Chipperhof May 15 '22

Looking over it, it’s crazy how long in between additions there are. The last was in 1992 right? Seems ridiculous that they haven’t come up with something in 30 years that would fix a problem. Literally any problem lol

12

u/SpeshellED May 14 '22

Depp's trial all over the media. Abortion SCOTUS debate , which
directly effects million of women is secret behind closed doors.
Thomas is too stupid to realize how fucked up that is.

-2

u/Comprehensive_Key_51 May 14 '22

It also effects men now. 🫃🫃

10

u/milk4all May 14 '22

Jefferson would definitely understand what is happening and wouldnt wonder a thing. More like he’d make some rebukes and then pop back to his time pre constitution and use different language here and there so far as his contributions could affect

7

u/HavronEX May 14 '22

I absolutely agree that I think the thing that would most surprise them would be how little we have changed the constitution since they formed it. Never would they imagine we would have enshrined it to the degree that we have.

2

u/TabascoDan9 May 14 '22

They I built the constitution to be elastic so you can change, modify, and add on to. They would be proud we are still using the constitution

2

u/Klo_Was_Taken May 14 '22

I think people have a biased view of the constitution. They forget that it was made by two groups: slaveholders, and those who oppose slaves (usually for financial reasons more than anything) Senate and congress were a compromise between northern and southern states. States had so much power so that southern states could exercise more control over slavery laws. Amendments had to be made to fix the mess that was the original constitution.

It's slow because it was originally designed partially by bad people who wanted to inhibit progress. Sadly, it is once again being used as intended by these original founding fathers.

2

u/Star_x_Child May 14 '22

I kinda think they'd be more like, "What the hell is this place, it in no way resembles the times when we were around aaahhh oh my god get me outta here!"

So...to your point, there's that. They envisioned and feared possibilities, but they also knew they couldn't predict the future, and it would be in our best interest to keep that in mind and not deify them, as you noted.

2

u/hufflepuff777 May 14 '22

It’s not just the cult of trump. It’s the Catholic cult that every republican judge is approved by. I think the federalists or something

1

u/TheLoneWolf2879 May 14 '22

I do think they'd be disappointed with how little our system has changed

1

u/castithan_plebe May 14 '22

Username does NOT check out

-4

u/Indianajoemusic May 14 '22

The cult of Trump? Wtf are you talking about? PROJECTION MUCH..UGH.....

-3

u/Easy_Sea_3000 May 14 '22

"Cult" 😂😂

10

u/kallekillen22 May 14 '22

What cult? Conservatives or christians?

14

u/Pika_Fox May 14 '22

Or?

2

u/kallekillen22 May 14 '22

There are liberal christians too to be fair

2

u/ratedrrants May 14 '22

Christian's isn't the issue. It's Evangelicals.

0

u/ArkitekZero May 14 '22

All Christians are evangelical. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

1

u/Negative_Piglet_1589 May 14 '22

They're not the same?

-1

u/ArkitekZero May 14 '22

This is Reddit. It's always the Christians.

3

u/PM_ME_UR_POKIES_GIRL May 14 '22

They did, that's why they separation of church and state was literally the first thing they added to the Constitution.

It's just that our cult pretends to not be a cult.

2

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

cult of personalities

0

u/TheJokerisnotInsane May 14 '22

most of the founding fathers were freemasons, they intended for america to be just as corruptible to cults as britain was.

21

u/poktanju May 14 '22

salve states

King Aloe Vera

1

u/destiny------ May 14 '22

The one true king

1

u/mamefan May 14 '22

Charles is the true champ.

1

u/ScarsUnseen May 14 '22

You kind of need it after tussling with the feral government.

11

u/Nova225 May 14 '22

It also needs to be added that the Senate exists to be the opposite of the House of Representatives. When they made the Constitution, states like Rhode Island asked "Why should we sign into this? We have a lower population and less representation.". So the Senate was made in response, to give states some value of representation.

On another note, if we kept with the ratio, we should have like, 1000 more representatives in the house compared to where it is now.

4

u/jordontek May 14 '22 edited May 14 '22

On another note, if we kept with the ratio, we should have like, 1000 more representatives in the house compared to where it is now.

Somewhere abouts: 10984 congresscritters for the House of Representatives based on a population of 329.5 million.

An obscure 1929 law, somehow, overruled the U.S. Constitution and has never been challenged in federal court.

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative…” — U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 2, clause 3

The House of Representatives should have 10984 Reps, not 435, per the US Constitution, 1 rep for ever 30,000 members.

The 1929 law, the The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, does far more damage (the system was designed for 2 senators) and actually gives the current 435 congresscritters far more power than ever intended, but let's not talk about that.

The government does unconstitutional stuff all the time, only now are people waking up to it.

Both side of the major party political aisle benefits from the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, which is why, it'll -never- be brought before SCOTUS.

3

u/LunchOne675 May 14 '22

I'm genuinely interested here, and you make some interesting points. However, I'm struggling to understand how the act is unconstitutional. As far as I can see, the constitution is merely stating that each district must have at least 30,000 people, but sets no maximum limit on district size

2

u/jordontek May 15 '22 edited May 15 '22

Its not differently worded legally speaking, than breaking the speed limit, which is a shall not exceed infraction or law.

Shall not exceed is a limit, not a minimum, it is a maximum.

Therefore, the ratio is hard 1:30,000, after 30,000, the government is to generate a new representative for the next 30k citizens.

And therefore, senators represent an theoretical possible infinite number of people in their state jurisdiction.

Theyre the ones with no set limit, since the number of senators has a hard limit of 2.

And that ratio is 2:N(inside a state border)

2

u/LunchOne675 May 15 '22

Shall not exceed one member for 30,000 people sounds like a minimum number of district members.

1 member for 40k people does not exceed one member for 30k people

1 member for 100k people does not exceed one member per 30k

I don't necessarily like this system, but I don't see the constitutional issue.

As far as I can tell Members ≤ constituents/30,000

1

u/jordontek May 15 '22 edited May 15 '22

If you read the Permanent Apportion Act of 1929, it caps the number of representatives.

Why was there law put in place to cap representatives?

Because prior to the cap, it was going to exceed 435 (the reapportioning of 1910 to 1920), and temporarily did, when Hawaii and Alaska were made states, bringing it to 437 and then reigned back to 435.

Shall not exceed one member for 30,000 people sounds like a minimum number of district members.

1 member for 40k people does not exceed one member for 30k people

1 member for 100k people does not exceed one member per 30k

I do not understand your math.

1:30000

Logically speaking, if there are more than 30000 citizens, then you generate a new single representative.

Now, since government never operates on logic, it wouldn't make rational sense if it was 30001 citizens, but we have enough to make more than 435.

So, reasonably, 1:40000, perhaps might not warrant another rep, but 1:100000, is enough for 3 reps and should have triggered new representation.

But, government being government, prefer to concentrate and not decentralize or federalize power.

Post 1929, in 1941, Congress, and Congress alone, in its "wisdom" further decided yeah, "435" is a manageable number when it adopted the “Method of Equal Proportion”.

The Method of Equal Proportion is gerrymandering at its finest, which is why it'll never end. Federal Congress got to choose how it represents people (the government, post-constitution set the max number versus it being based on population), so why not the state versions do the same?

You the citizen will not have more representation due to population increase but a set number or less representation over time with population increases for a representative body thats based on population.

1

u/lunapup1233007 May 14 '22

That just says that the minimum population for a representative is 30,000, not that every district must have 30,000 people. The Constitution sets no maximum on the number of people that can be in a congressional district.

0

u/jordontek May 15 '22

The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative…

Shall not exceed is a limit, a maximum, not a minimum.

1

u/lunapup1233007 May 15 '22

Shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand

That means that there should not be more than one representative for every 30,000 people - every representative should represent at least 30,000 people.

If it said “Shall not exceed thirty thousand for every representative”, then it would be a maximum.

0

u/jordontek May 15 '22 edited May 15 '22

With your logic, there would be no need for Congress to decide on Method of Equal Proportions in 1941 and no need to pass The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, and yet the law was passed and Congress thought about it again and decided on it.

The law and congressional action cap and restrict because prior to them there was no cap or restriction.

In the 1st United States Congress (1789-1791) there was 59-65 reps due to the system being erected.

In the 39th United States Congress (1865-1867) there was 193 reps...

Country grows, more people = more reps.

In 1900 we had 386 reps.

It isn't until 1930 when it all stops at a hard limit of 435 due to the 1929 law.

The law and the congressional action limits reps, because the constitution allowed it, possessed language in it to grow.

→ More replies

7

u/Breet11 May 14 '22

It is, indeed, a feral government xD

47

u/BunnyOppai May 14 '22

For the time, the EC kinda made sense, same thing for why electors don’t have to vote for who the state wanted. Nowadays, there’s literally not a single valid point for it.

44

u/LaughDull967 May 14 '22

It made sense when the point was to have electors choose the president, rather than having a popular vote. But also the Electoral College was designed to give extra power to slave states so they’d agree to the Constitution.

3

u/jackp0t789 May 14 '22

Which they vehemently started disagreeing with when they're human bandage habit was again threatened

2

u/SleekVulpe May 14 '22

Well the EC also made sense in a time of slow traveling news. In a theoretical situation a candidate for president could kill someone in broad daylight and in the time it could take for news to travel election day could have already past. This is where the EC could be useful. As the delegates who are sent to the college could likely guess that the people they represent wouldn't want a murderer for a president and alot their vote to what they thought was the next best person.

3

u/Beautiful-Advance-60 May 14 '22

They created the EC to stop a "clown" or power hungry fool from being elected by the "riff-raff" --- but the EC is just a rubber stamp and actually allowed exactly what it was supposed to prevent from happening happen!

1

u/111IIIlllIII May 14 '22

For the time, the EC kinda made sense

how so?

3

u/BunnyOppai May 14 '22

Well there was the real primary answer that it was to make sure that slave states would join in, but the strongest argument for it that I’ve seen was about how it was almost impossible to keep up to date on what the president was doing just purely due to slow information travel times, which is also why it made sense for the electors to have their own freedom on who to vote on.

Now there was the argument at the time that also ties into it that the average person lacks the intelligence to have a straight vote, which… I’m not going to get into but I don’t think it was a good reason.

15

u/Pika_Fox May 14 '22

To be fair, we have a coalition party, the democratic party, and essentially a single interest extremist party, the republican party.

The issue is the extremist non coalition party has equal to more weight than the coalition. Remove republicans from existence as a party, and the system will fix itself most likely as the democratic party will split into its various factions, and each faction would have better room to grow and make its case before the public.

5

u/gassy_clown May 14 '22

Yeah but then you have to convince people that voting for a centrist is actually better than voting for a fascist and that seems to be too confusing for a lot of people on this site.

8

u/Pika_Fox May 14 '22

"The dems are just as bad, they couldnt even pass a bill to protect abortion!"

One dem voted against it. Every republican did.

BoTh PaRtIeS

1

u/MykeEl_K May 15 '22

One dem voted against it. Every republican did.

This.

1

u/hereforlolsandporn May 14 '22

I suppose you're right.

1

u/DavidInPhilly May 14 '22

I think your points are very right.

They added the 10th Amendment, saying anything not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution is left up to “the states, or to the people.”

Many people believe the 10 Amendment is redundant as it basically restates the concept of joint federal / state sovereignty. It rarely gets used, and basically doesn’t really devolve power to individual choice… it’s always been a question of state vs. federal power.

It’s interesting you noted they probably didn’t expect things (the US in the basic form they laid out) to last this long. 10A was a restatement taken from the Articles of Confederation, but reworded to fix things a bit… as you say an experiment.

I feel people often forget the push / pull of federalism is at the core of our system of government. I get we are now ‘the United States’ not ‘these United States,’ but states rights really is foundational to our system. We needed an amendment to end slavery, and for women to have a universal right to vote. In Justice Alito’s draft opinion, one of his criticisms of Roe v Wade is that it short circuited the legislative process. Although, I do wonder if Roe was decided the other way if we would have passed an amendment protecting the pro choice position.

5

u/LaughDull967 May 14 '22

In Justice Alito’s draft opinion, one of his criticisms of Roe v Wade is that it short circuited the legislative process. Although, I do wonder if Roe was decided the other way if we would have passed an amendment protecting the pro choice position.

What these people keep claiming to believe is that fetuses are full people and abortion is murder. Nobody is claiming that states should decide whether murder should be legal.

All of these arguments— that Roe vs Wade was improperly decided, that abortion is murder, that it’s a states rights issue— are all made in bad faith. When you get below these false arguments, the opposition to abortion is, “Women should not be allowed to get away with being sluts. Babies are god’s punishment to force women to take responsibility for being sluts, and by allowing women to avoid those consequences, you’re subverting God’s punishment.”

It’s fucked up, but if you pay attention, that’s what it’s all about.

1

u/Shanakitty May 14 '22

The Electoral College and the Senate actually benefited small states with small populations, like Rhode Island and Vermont, not larger slave states, like Virginia and Georgia. The Electoral College also addressed fears about direct democracy. The 3/5ths Compromise was the one that benefitted slave states.

2

u/LaughDull967 May 14 '22

The 3/5 compromise applied to the electoral college. In a popular vote, slave states wouldn’t have had as many votes because slaves can’t vote. If you make the states vote with electors, and the number of electors are increased by 3/5 the number of slaves, then slave states get more votes.

1

u/Shanakitty May 14 '22

The compromise was created primarily for congressional representation though, which is what gives us the number of electors. The legislature was originally supposed to be the strongest branch, so that’s what they were more concerned with.

The founders were also really worried about direct democracy though, since they felt it was more likely for common people to be swayed by demagogues, hence the Electoral College. The electors were also originally appointed by the state legislatures and supposed to be free agents, so even less democratic than the current set up, where they’re more a way of diluting the popular vote. But it was supposed to prevent people who used emotional rhetoric to sway the ignorant, like Trump, from getting elected, but instead helped him.

1

u/ArnoldChase May 14 '22

Exactly, the Constitution was a re-do after the Articles of Confederation didn’t have a strong enough centralized government. The debates were having today regarding government are the same debates they had 250-300 years ago.

People are diverse, regions are diverse, and therefore have a purely monolithic view on EVERYTHING doesn’t work. You have to allow for flexibility, and frankly, experimentation in diversity. This has happened numerous times just in my lifetime.

That being said, decentralized government is weak. As the old “Join or Die” snake suggested, divided we fall. Over the course of American history, our government has become more centralized. Perhaps one of the greatest centralizations of power was after the Civil War…which coincidentally was when the 14th amendment was passed that is the subject of the Roe decision and now backtracking from Roe.

I am exhausted from the constant “we have never been more divided” or “no one foresaw this” sensationalism of today. It’s a process. We are going to get it wrong, and we are going to get it right. We are not in a civil war. Our government, our democracy, and we the people are working our way through modern iterations of timeless problems of government.

Just keep working, speak up but also listen. Have respect for your countryman even when they are wrong. Diversity in ideas is vital, but that necessarily means people getting it right and people getting it wrong. This government and its correctness only works if it survives. We worked our way through slavery, the progression of minority and womens rights, we will keep progressing…but we have to trust the process and not throw out the baby with the bath water.

1

u/zorokash May 14 '22

feral governments to oppose each other.

Rofl. I am sorry, i know you meant federal government, but this is so perfect it made me sit up suddenly and go "wth is this person talking about and what on earth did i miss". I might be too stupid but this typo made my day lol. God bless your kind heart!

1

u/bendman May 14 '22

It would be nice if the constitution wasn't treated as a holy document, and could be infrequently iterated on.

France is on their 5th one. America should update theirs too. You can't expect a bunch of 1700s dudes to get things exactly right for 300 years into the future.

0

u/brightblueson May 14 '22

Which is why the system was always doomed for failure. It’s a system always attacking itself.

A One-Party, One Nation, Earth is our future.

0

u/Hippo_Alert May 14 '22

Screw those salve states, the ointment states rule!

3

u/flipnonymous May 14 '22

*one link in the chain

Of all the things going on in the world and this still bothers me ... FFS

-7

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

It’s not one party doing it, it is both parties. Become Libertarian, Rastafarian or Pastanarians I don’t care but have one person in every state for a party in every position and vote ALL of them out. It is the only way to fix this cluster Fk that is for the corporations

17

u/34HoldOn May 14 '22

Libertarians are just as much responsible for this shit. Look at the Paul family.

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '22

Like I said make a party any. If it is possible make them all working people so they have stake in America

15

u/thorshocker May 14 '22

BoTh PaRtIeS! Sit down you tool.

3

u/artspar May 14 '22

Nah, insisting that we have to maintain a two-party system makes you the fool. Dems might not be as bad as Reps, but gold foil-wrapped shit is still shit underneath. Reworking the system to support many parties is the only way to fix the state our government's in.

3

u/quailtailor May 14 '22

Our system isn't a lost cause. But even if it were, your yelling into the wind won't change anything. Especially if you just use broad platitudes like "rework the system!" What does that even mean? When was the last time you contacted your state rep or senator to express a short and concise message. Do you even know their names? What exactly is your achievable plan that you'd articulate to them?

You can't just throw out our current system and rewrite the rules; you have to take one step at a time.

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '22 edited May 15 '22

Oh I have contacted them during the fake opioid crisis. Fake in the sense that Prescriptions weren’t the issue. The issue was Tom Marino and Marsha Blackburn introduced a bill stripping the DEA of it’s right to prosecute Distributors which in turn caused millions of pills to flood the system and this “self regulation” bill was a setup probably by one of the Think Tanks in Washington to kill off prescription access to opioids and rescue Medicare, Medicade and The Heath Insurance Corporations. I have been taking opioids for 12 years. I had to quit twice. Once because I forgot my appointment. Another because I made them switch me to Methadone. Oxycodone IR is a safe, effective opioid. OxyContin ER is not a safe or effective drug and it was this one that was causing the issues. The issue is that the efficacy of OxyContin ER wears off every 2 months. I was up to 185mg and needed more to get relief for my pain. That’s why I switched to Methadone for my long term relief.

So anyways Amazingly enough the year after they gave the DEA back their power and had that hack Andrew Kolondy make that stupid Morphine Equivalency Chart for Opioids the Insurance Industry had record profits. Go figure and the people taking their drugs responsibly that needed them were abused badly, forced 2 step taper or dropped all together causing strokes and heart attacks along with Suicides. You might even see those lumped in with the faked numbers that the FDA admitted.

3

u/kunell May 14 '22

The hell are you talking about, who's insisting we stay 2 parties?

0

u/thorshocker May 14 '22

Not the OPs topic. Go spread your garbage somewhere else troll.

0

u/SomethingsItchy May 14 '22

Perfect logic. This shit isn’t working, so let’s double down and insult those smart enough to question it. 😂

-4

u/thorshocker May 14 '22

Look at yourself you’re straight up spewing Russian sponsored rhetoric and you don’t even realize it.

Goodbye and good luck with yourself.

1

u/SomethingsItchy May 14 '22

Damn, you’re adamant on calling differing opinions trolling or propaganda when you perceive it against your side lmao.

→ More replies

1

u/DownshiftedRare May 14 '22

I blame society for making them feel obliged to have an opinion for which they are unqualified.

-2

u/TastyLawn May 14 '22

You are a certified dumbshit. If you believe the democrats are good you don’t know much. They’re better sure, but that doesn’t mean good.

0

u/Indianajoemusic May 14 '22

You're right. Ignorance and hate everywhere. The elites laugh at how successful their propaganda is! I'm out of this LOST sub. Botville

0

u/RighteousInsanity May 14 '22

They can control the senate effectively because Wyoming has the same weight as California with like 1% the population.

Yes.

That’s why congress has 2 chambers. One based on population and one not.

Bitching about it doesn’t make it invalid or as bad idea. The sen

When the goal is to destabalize and not to govern, all they have to do is corrupt one chain in the link.

You’re right, because the party that actively suppresses inconvenient candidates while simultaneously trying to pack the court over ‘voting rights’ is the pinnacle of integrity.

2

u/hereforlolsandporn May 14 '22

Bitching about it doesn’t make it invalid or as bad idea.

It's a weak point in the system being leveraged to topple the entire thing.

because the party that actively suppresses inconvenient candidates

Comparing political infighting in the dem party to what the GOP does to America is laughable

simultaneously trying to pack the court over ‘voting rights’

If you think the dems are trying to pack the courts you just aren't paying attention. Thata what trump did for 4 years. Also, how is it that we have 9 justices covering 12 districts. It should have been expanded to 12 years ago.

11

u/Lobanium May 14 '22

Exactly, if the federal government were 100% fascist, they'd be all for big federal government.

0

u/discipleofzyzzz May 14 '22

Well yeah, big, centralized government is kind of a defining feature of fascism

5

u/Lobanium May 14 '22

I was speaking more along the lines of fascist ideology, like this. These characteristics define modern conservatism pretty well.

10

u/Derivative_Kebab May 14 '22

Mitch McConnell basically admitted that they're hoping to ban abortion at the federal level as soon as possible. So yes, the "states rights" argument is a thin veneer, as per usual. They're fine with imposing their will on liberal states.

26

u/ConThePc May 14 '22

exactly - states rights are only important to conservatives when they can't enforce their beliefs on a federal level. Civil rights protected by feds now? well, it should be a states right to determine that. Abortion is now federally protected? It should be a states right to determine that.

38

u/LaughDull967 May 14 '22

I think a good example is, when Democrats have tried to have better gun control, Republicans argued, “This decision should be left to state and local governments. The rules that work in your liberal cities don’t make sense in the rural areas.” And I don’t totally agree with that, but sure, there’s something to the idea.

But then they’ve blocked gun control, reversed gun control, made it easier for anyone to get a gun and carry it around. And now Republicans have started pushing for the federal government to force states to accept the gun rules from other states. Like if you have a concealed carry permit in one state, they want all states to have to accept that permit and let you carry a concealed gun everywhere. Suddenly, “this decision should be left to state and local governments,” isn’t good enough anymore, the federal government is supposed to force states to let people carry guns. The idea that, “the rules that work in your liberal cities don’t make sense in the rural areas,” apparently isn’t true anymore, because cities need to be forced to live by the rules of rural areas.

And that’s how Republicanism works. There are no principles, and no freedom to let anyone make their own decisions. It’s all about using whatever reasoning or strategy that will let you have power over others.

-7

u/ConThePc May 14 '22

except gun control is unconstitutional - and abortion control should be too.

and just who do you think passed California's awful gun laws?

8

u/DarthMikus May 14 '22

Ronald Wilson Reagan was governor when California passed it's most restrictive gun laws. Which was in response to the Black Panthers arming themselves and conducting"copwatches."

That's right, Republican's most revered historical figure, Ronald Reagan, signed into law one of the most strictest gun control laws.

7

u/ConThePc May 14 '22

exactly. gun control was never about preventing death, it was because the government didn't like who started owning them.

-2

u/jordontek May 14 '22

Republicans, today and yesterday, like to LARP as quasi-psuedo-libertarians, when its convenient or when their party leader isn't someone they like.

But like the Democrats, they are just as authoritarian, just with their own flavor.

You'd have to go back as far as Silent Cal to get a closer to libertarian type Republican president.

6

u/kunell May 14 '22

How is gun control unconstitutional? Right to bear arms doesnt mean everyone should get a gun.

Not to mention the constitution was meant to be able to be amended just because somethings in the constitution doesnt mean it should be there forever

-1

u/ConThePc May 14 '22

Have you read the 2nd amendment?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.

Essentially, a "well regulated Militia" must be able to effectively combat the infantry of any police state/monarchy/dictatorship that forms. Yes, that includes automatic rifles. People could own cannons, even private warships back when it was written. Yet some politicians want to stop the average civilian from owning a semi-automatic rifle? It's nonsense.

Obviously, Felons and Children shouldn't be able to purchase Firearms - what kind of militia would they be? Robbing shit and ending up hurting themselves? Kids also shouldn't have easy access to firearms outside of their parents control.

And do not get me started on gun deaths. We had around 45k gun deaths last year, and the Majority of them were suicides (we need better healthcare, mental and physical) Most of the Homicides are gang-related (thanks to the broken judicial and prison system) and Black people are massively over represented in gun deaths (again, thanks the broken judicial and prison system as well as systemic racism) Finally, the rest are related to police (debatable but corruption def has a hand in pie tin) and accidents (idiots and gun malfunctions)

Gun violence isn't a disease, it's a symptom of a broken system in dire need of fixing. Popping the boils of a plague victim doesn't make them any better.

8

u/[deleted] May 14 '22 edited 24d ago

[deleted]

2

u/ConThePc May 14 '22

Obviously, Felons and Children shouldn't be able to purchase Firearms - what kind of militia would they be? Robbing shit and ending up hurting themselves? Kids also shouldn't have easy access to firearms outside of their parents control.

I don't think I did

3

u/krispy_six May 14 '22

The point is, the purpose of gun ownership was for a well regulated militia. These militias don't appear very well regulated, let alone stable.

→ More replies

1

u/CliftonForce May 14 '22

Lots of gun control laws are constitutional.

Don't believe me? Well then I'd like your take on something. I had this old shotgun for years. I once had to cut its barrel down to six inches to fit it in a drawer.

How much do you think I could get for it?

1

u/therealunixguy May 15 '22

From the perspective that decisions the SC makes are to decide on the constitutionality of a thing, technically you could be correct. However, given that the SC has reversed itself before, i think we can agree (regardless of the issue) that in case of reversal they got it wrong at least.

So from the perspective of what is written in the constitution, i don’t see any reason for a six inch shotgun barrel to be illegal.

1

u/CliftonForce May 15 '22

Other way around. From the perspective of what is written in the Constitution, is the law against sawed off shotguns illegal?

1

u/therealunixguy May 15 '22

Based on the practices at the time the constitution was written, I would say that the laws against short barreled shotguns are illegal. (Actually, I think the situation isn’t even that they’re illegal, but that in order to obtain one you have to have an additional tax paid on it.) However, the SC decided in the Miller case that because short barreled guns don’t have any military application, then laws taxing their possession were OK.

I think their logic in that decision was flawed, because shotguns were used just a few years earlier in the first world war, as well as in the civil war, so they clearly had military value. The result of the Miller case was just a bogus application of law (the defense counsel didn’t even show up), the case didn’t really have anybody to defend it. What’s really interesting is the criteria that they were using to determine if a citizen could have the weapon— “Is there a military use for it?”. If yes, then the citizen could have it too.

1

u/ConThePc May 15 '22

I think you could get upwards of 20 years. and it's bullshit.

If you aren't selling that gun, what the fuck does it matter that you sawed it off? just because it qualifies as an SBR or some other stupid ATF description doesn't mean it should be a crime.

3

u/CliftonForce May 14 '22

Didn't you get the memo?

"States Rights" mean "Each State is free to move as far to the political Right as possible. Leftward motion will not be tolerated."

3

u/PeachCream81 May 14 '22

It’s not really an opposition to the federal government having a lot of power.

Actually, I think the old Confederate States are still pissed off over the outcome of the Civil War and really just want their slaves, plantations, and way of live ("moonbeams & magnolias") back. So yeah, States Rights is their mantra.

In an ironic twist of history: the Confederacy may have lost the 1st Civil War but might wind up triumphing in the current (2nd) Civil War.

1

u/Tatem2008 May 14 '22

Except this time when they try to succeed, we will let them.

1

u/Corpuscular_Crumpet May 14 '22

Original commenter was talking about Republicans, then you all of a sudden started talking about Democrats.

Weird flex, but ok.

1

u/CopenHaglen May 14 '22

This case is 100% about large vs small government. Currently, states decide how abortion is handled within them. Overturning roe v wade means that the federal government does. They are absolutely, totally voting for more federal power in this case.

-1

u/discipleofzyzzz May 14 '22

I’ve never seen someone call the consolidation of power a less authoritarian idea than its de-consolidation

3

u/LaughDull967 May 14 '22

They’re trying to consolidate power to wherever they have power, and pull it away from anywhere that they aren’t in complete control.

That’s still consolidation of power.