Considering that the Political Left of countries like Britain frequently denied just how bad conditions were in the Soviet Union until the fucking 70's and 80's, and that there are prominent Leftists claiming that the Holodomor never happened, i'm gonna have to disagree.
Was this as much of a thing during the Bush and Obama administrations? Seemed more like pro-interventionalism back then, rather than seeing other countries as copycats.
> Lo and behold! Unmask them, and you will find that, behind every manifestation of evil, everywhere in the world, lies the eternal Trump, the tendrils of his finance corrupting greedy souls who spread his vulgar methods and all-devouring hatred, to the single-minded purpose: genociding Mexican children but stopping Mexican abortions.
Nah, not really needed. Afghanistan basically got immediately smacked around after 9/11 with 2000% public support.
It was Iraq that needed lots of cajoling to get people on board with. Once people started talking about Iraq the public basically forgot Afghanistan existed.
durrr u must be young n inexperienced like i was and had dreams of fuckin a lot but grew to accept i dont. u must be a wishful loser like i was. durrrr
they also think only western white people are 'racist and xenophobic', which is an mind-boggling and astonishing mindset given that any cursory glance at most every other country on the planet as being racially homogeneous monocultures.
There was a thread in some shithole, I think /r/relationshipadvice where someone was posting how they were being held captive by their family because their shithole country doesn't allow unmarried women under 35 to rent or own property. I pointed out the fact that that is truly what oppressing women looks like, and was banned within minutes. These people are so fucking ignorant.
Exactly, these are wonderful exotic and ethnic cultures you mayo. We need to let them be. Please read some literature on moral relativism before you mansplain to me, I have a masters from Yale so I know what I'm talking about.
Like, everyone on this site. Try discussing any of the following on a popular sub and tell me how it turns out:
the almost comical xenophobia of Japan and Korea
absolutely everyone in Europe is Hitler II about gypsies
Africa was a tremendous shithole before Imperialism
African culture was (still is) all about enslaving your enemies and happily sold as many slaves as people wanted to come buy, wh*tes didn't start it
Islam's general mistreatment of women, and violent hatred of everyone who isn't their particular sect of Islam
"So I was reading about total FGM in Sudan, it's terrible how Muslims/Africans are so backward" "FUCK YOU I HAVE TO PAY $8 A MONTH FOR BIRTH CONTROL! TRUMPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
I've seen a heavily updooted comment which basically said that Brazilian Gaols are better than Burger Gaols because the dumb fuck believed that Burger gaols didn't have early release for non violent criminals.
Now I'm no expert but watch people die and general reading shows that South American gaols are something.
Nobody hates burgers more than burgers I swear. I've never actually come across a 'Murican.
Bruh people in Latin America unironically think white people have taken over because they're the majority in ads. I swear to God I'll kill myself one day.
Yeah but not nearly as much as plebbitors like to think. People on this site act like Drumpf is single-handedly responsible for the right wing populist shitshow that is consuming the West right now, yet Yuropoors have been going through it before he even announced.
Funny they haven't considered this wave of retarded rightoid populism that's happening around the world may have caused a retarded rightoid populist to become POTUS not the other way round.
You sound like a typical american. From Europe : we don't care what you guys do. Hell, you guys banning something make us even more likely to make it legal.
The linked comment has to be the stupidest thing I've read all day, but I backpacked Europe twice in the summer of 16 and 18 and it is absolutely amazing how much of the graffiti, news stories and political conversations I overheard had to do with American politics and American policies. The entire world has some retarded hardon for what happens in burgerland and it's horrifying and I wish they and the linked commenter would just stop this shit.
I shit you not, I was in Guatemala, I dont see another white person around and I hear a "fuck Trump for doing this to your Country." Turn around and there are two other white people, backpackers, the scourage of travel destinations everywhere. They were speaking English to someone I don't think even knows a word of English, just telling how sorry they are for Trump. I wish I was joking.
I think backpackers like it, they see it as cultural enrichment. Trump oppresses the poor brown people there, so they get kidnapped as a form of reparations.
That's fine but I don't want to get kidnapped in some shit-tier country because everyone else with long hair, white skin and a backpack sucks these people's dicks like getting up and going to work in a geographically different area is somehow a spiritually inspiring mode of life.
I gotta be the one of the only people that got more conservative after repeated international travel.
I hope so man, half my friends that have spent time in Europe or South America want to move there permanently. I'm too American, I love guns, low taxes and cars and wide open forests, deserts and highways and I especially love undeserved arrogance.
I just travel America these days, /r/vandwellers style. Long term goal is 10+ acres in the woods in Idaho, some veggies and fruit trees, and spend winter in southern California.
Actually, the world does revolve around America and American politics. That's why all those Chinese billionaires send their kids to American colleges to study international business. America can and will dictate the terms around the globe, whether it's through corporations, military, or fat annoying tourists.
If he gets a second term, he will put maybe 4 or 5 justices on the court total and abortion will be illegal for the next 60 years or more.
Imagine thinking the dems wouldn't just add more supreme court justices in that time period.
The GOP literally can not hold power with current demographical trends. Something has to give, either the GOP changes policy to appeal to more people which would include becoming pro-choice, or they lose every national election within the next 25 years.
Lol are you joking. The parties constantly slightly change their opinions according to demographic and ideological shifts. The republicans will ironically have a much easier time because 90 percent of immigrants, especially Latinos, are conservative and will start voting R. The republicans just need to give up a little ground on the Mexican question and its done.
Well, they only became Bible thumpers in the mid 90s and made the South more or less permanently red as a result, Dems also became more centrist following Reagan's presidency (New Democrats), a man who single handedly altered and revitalised the GOP. What you're describing has been going on for centuries really...
In Europe old parties do regularly up and die, but it's pretty unlikely in an entrenched two party system.
Honestly have you gotten retarded or something? The GOP hasn't shifted stances? On what? in what time frame?
Both the Rs and Dems have changed stances on a ton of shit even in the past 15 years.
I know you're a burger but do you think there's a single country in the developed world aside from the US where they let people vote without registration and ID? The only reason you and retarded democrats are for it is so you can get illicit votes lol. And not only that, gerrymandering is a democratic weapon they historically used to benefit more from the black vote so it's hilarious how it's now the republicans fault it exists.
The GWB administration ran a lot of Hispanic outreach. For instance, San Antonio voted for Bush 52.2% to 44.9%. For comparison, the county voted 53.7% to 40.4% against Trump.
Trade protectionism and foreign non intervention/isolationism are two huge policy shifts on foreign and economic policy and complete 180's to previous administrations.
The GOP base has been nativist/protectionist for a while, the establishment? They're still pro-intervention for example.
Trump also isn't any different in terms of economic policy when compared to previous administrations, you should understand the difference between rhetoric and reality.
Almost everything Trump has managed to push through has been standard Republican policy for over 10 years.
Do you think the Koch brothers, for example, donated so much money to Donald Trump because they're protectionist and anti-free trade?
I mean yes you mongoloid, that's exactly why they do it, to ensure they're on the receiving end of protectionist policies that protect Koch industries factories against imports.
Can't even disprove you since you keep moving the goal posts.
Do you think they give money to Republicans because they just have such strong, genuine emotions about Adam Smith or because they have their own agenda?
I think they're doing what the republican party has always done.
Use nativist/racial politics to rile up the base, you trojan horse in guys like Trump that then do everything for the wealthy that you wanted, while creating the illusion that he's some outsider.
Trump is not anti-establishment.
The policies he's pushed, for the most part, have been on the republican agenda since before Obama even. The trade wars will end with Trump signing an agreement that is almost identical to current agreements, he'll then claim victory and declare he's "solved the one-sided trade issue" even though nothing of substance was done.
There are entire books written on this shit, it's not even subtle. A favorite quote of mine:
“For decades, Americans have experienced a populist uprising that only benefits the people it is supposed to be targeting.... The angry workers, mighty in their numbers, are marching irresistibly against the arrogant. They are shaking their fists at the sons of privilege. They are laughing at the dainty affectations of the Leawoof toffs. They are massing at the gates of Mission Hills, hoisting the black flag, and while the millionaires tremble in their mansions, they are bellowing out their terrifying demands. 'We are here,' they scream, 'to cut your taxes.”
The Koch brothers are using their money to influence law making in order to benefit their companies. You're so naive that you think people like Soros, Koch and Bloomberg lobby out of some altruistic motive rather than self benefit? The Kochs have multiplied their wealth several times in the past 3 decades due to favorable, protectionist and cronyist conditions. They support Trump's tariffs because they produce all the stuff Trump will make it harder to import and even you should realize by this that they don't give a shit about free trade, only their personal wealth.
It's not altruistic, they want tax cuts and deregulations. But the idea they're protectionist is retarded, they aren't.
And I wouldn't classify Soros in the same league as the Kochs, Soros pushes for tax INCREASES on people like himself and more regulations that would directly harm him.
No everyone is assigned a local voting station and you're not able to vote anywhere else. Your vote is triple checked and multiple people have to verify your ID at the station and cross check it with the voting lists.
It's only in the US this isn't done because racist democrats think black people are too stupid and lazy to get an ID and would therefore not vote -> hence losing them votes. The old racism of low expectations.
The only reason you and retarded democrats are for it is so you can get illicit votes lol.
There's no evidence that that this kind of voting fraud actually happens beyond a few shmucks per year. This whole issue is Republicans trying to make it harder to vote because their stance is unpopular with the majority.
Texas alone had 100k Mexicans, that's a huge amount.
I honestly don't understand how any rational person can claim requiring ID to vote is voter suppression. Do you honestly think if someone is too retarded, lazy or unable to produce ID that they are informed enough to vote? Holy shit lol.
It's funny how leftists always love the Scandinavian and Euro model unless it's something like this when it's obviously rational but doesn't benefit them.
Non-citizen is not the same as Mexican. There's a couple problems with how they got to that 95k number, but that aside a voter ID isn't going to do jack shit to prevent people who are wrongly registered to vote from voting.
I honestly don't understand how any rational person can claim requiring ID to vote is voter suppression. D
In theory it's not, just like in theory a literacy test isn't voter suppression either. The devil's in the details, like how they'll close down DMVs in areas with a majority of black voters to make it harder for them to get ID.
And if you think the modern GOP would never target black voters, ask North Carolina, there the GOP made voting restrictions to target black voters with surgical precision. And that's according to SCOTUS.
The GOP uses gerrymandering to their favor, just like the democrats use them in their favor. I just don't understand why people think it's a one party issue when the democrats have historically gained massively by using gerrymandering to put all the minorities in whatever districts they wanted so they could get more votes.
Sorry but having an ID is not voter suppression, if you think so, you're literally retarded. If you don't have an ID, how the fuck are you able to go to the bank LOL
That's not changing what they believe, it's them electing someone that conflicts with every moral stance they've taken over the years because he promised to do what they've been trying to do for years.
So? How hard can they believe it if they elected him? People have been saying the conservative party is doomed for decades because women/blacks/gays/Mexicans/whatever.
People have been writing this for years. Don't pay too much attention to that bullshit. The GOP will be around long after underpaid tech journalists dreaming of a utopia without whites or fundies are buried.
Data can be twisted to suit whatever narrative the author wants. Those same whites, especially women, were supposed to carry Hilldawg to the presidency which I'm sure Techcrunch believed too.
Let me guess. Those ones will all die off and then the GOP is really doomed.
The Irish and Italian population were rejected as dirty, poor and criminal when they immigrated but after a generation became the foundation of the conservative voting base. What makes you think the heavily conservative, 95% Catholic Latino voters will keep voting for a party that hates Christianity, is pro-abortion and gay marriage?
They only vote Democrat right now because the Democrats are pro immigration. Everything else the Dems stand for is diametrically opposed the what 90% of Hispanics believe.
Because conservatives have completely destroyed their credibility with Hispanics and blacks.
The only Hispanics they win tend to be older Cuban voters, that's about it.
I also think you're overestimating how conservative Catholics are.
What evidence do you have that there's some Hispanic shift towards republicans? On what data are you basing this on?
Also, how in the fuck does the DNC "hate "christianity." Most democrats are Christians. Is this standard republican logic that says "anyone that is against our extremism, illteracy, and Christian fundamentalism hates Christianity" or what?
that they've destroyed their credibility with hispanics is completely based on your hopes that it's true. the only reason blacks (African immigrants vote R btw) vote against the republicans is that they're a vote bank, due to their strong community leaders.
Democrats hate Christianity for good reason just like I do but it's not a good way to garner vote from a Christian population.
that they've destroyed their credibility with hispanics is completely based on your hopes that it's true.
Have you looked at Hispanic vote totals in recent elections?
the only reason blacks (African immigrants vote R btw) vote against the republicans is that they're a vote bank, due to their strong community leaders.
The reason blacks vote democrat is a nasty little tactic called the southern strategy:
The perception that the Republican Party had served as the "vehicle of white supremacy in the South", particularly during the Goldwater campaign and the presidential elections of 1968 and 1972, made it difficult for the Republican Party to win back the support of black voters in the South in later years.[4] In 2005, Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman formally apologized to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), a national civil rights organization, for exploiting racial polarization to win elections and ignoring the black vote.[13][14]
Southern Strategy is 50 years ago dude. And sure it's definitely part of why blacks don't vote for republicans but it doesn't change the fact that they're just a vote bank. They vote in 90-9% for the same candidates.
Yes I do which is why I differentiate between blacks and other minorities because I don't think blacks with slave ancestry will ever convert to the Republicans regardless of their policies, hence the vote bank label.
I specifically said that the Rs would have to make concessions if they wanted the Hispanic vote.
Ok, and even in the case of Hispanics, the GOP has backed themselves into a corner. The "concessions" would likely have to be a shift towards social liberalism, because believe it or not, most hispanics are in fact socially liberal and things like abortion are supported within the Hispanic community.
The GOP is in no way ready to shift towards social liberalism in relation to abortion/immigration because they've based their entire brand on reactionary responses to these things.
This a troll? Look at this politics posting faggot. “No the Dems are good! They dont embrace voter control by importing brown people and they totally care about stuff that isnt global economics”
Imagine ignoring not only the supreme court ruling that shows the GOP is engaged in voter suppression, but the GOP themselves bragging about said voter suppression and multiple federal court rulings on the subject.
This. I've said it before and I'll say it again - once the current generation of old racist dinosaurs start dying out, and the perception that republicans are racist begins to fade, the Democrats will realise that the minority groups they currently take for granted are actually much more conservative than even mayo conservatives are. This is true not just in the US, but in most western countries.
Yes and the exact same thing happened multiple times in the past with the Irish, Italians, Turks etc. They were all rejected as intruders by the conservative parties at the time but after a generation became part of the 'white' majority population and voted conservative to a large degree. But these people don't want to learn from history.
The people that controlled Troy were Anatolians. The Turks were a central asian tribe that invaded literally thousands of years later. The reason Turks look like Greeks is because their DNA is 70% Anatolian Greek and 30% Turkic.
I agree with you. Most people are religious but especially black and hispanic people. If the GOP was a little smarter, they could easily get those votes. But alas, they choose to align with the racists.
The republicans will ironically have a much easier time because 90 percent of immigrants, especially Latinos, are conservative and will start voting R.
Not really, especially the younger generations and those born in the US. It's a caricature to think they are all hardcore catholics that think the same way.
Well there's really nothing that proves that Hispanics aren't generally conservative. Voting doesn't really show anything because even the Dems know that most minorites vote for them because of the government benefits, which is why they always cling on to those things so tightly.
While Trump was enacting his anti-immigrant agenda, Latino voters seemed to have slowly warmed up to the president. In last week’s NPR/PBS/Marist poll, 41 percent of Hispanics approved of Trump’s performance
The republicans just need to give up a little ground on the Mexican question and its done.
Which they won't do. Black Americans are generally socially conservative, too, yet they would never turn Republican because that party inherented the dixiecrats, who are entirely incompatible with the black demographic and always will be. Similarly, the Republicans are now inherenting and adopting the beliefs of the anti-intervention and anti-immigration PaleoConservative movement, which is similarly eternally at odds with immigrant populations. There's no way to have both.
And I think you very seriously underestimate the extent to which rural Americans and Republicans have rigged the system in their favor to mask the fact they are a minority of the population.
The remarkable idiocy of the comparatively high information voters on r/politics, the astounding ignorance of the general American electorate, the strategic blunders and infighting of the Democratic candidate pool and last but not least the insufferability of the political smugtivists who will manage to drive any fence-sitter away.
You mean the Founders when the wrote the constitution, which ensured small states with low populations had a say to get them to join the united states? The GOP really hasn't done anything fundamental to the 'system' to rig it. They certainly will do what they can around the margins to give them extra percentage points like voter ID laws or ensuring felons can't vote, but the core of the issue is that the Democratic inclined voters have increasingly moved out of the 'Red' states to 'Blue' states, creating fewer and fewer 'Purple' states. Even Obama said the best thing a liberal can do to help politically is to move to Iowa.
Do not for one second pretend these people honored what the founders intended.
The founders had intended for the house to keep expanding with population size, first of all. The rurals decided to cap the house size in the early 1920s because they realized they were losing political influence.
The electoral college today is nothing like the college of those days, it's been completely destroyed and is nothing more than a farce at this point.
The GOP really hasn't done anything fundamental to the 'system' to rig it. They certainly will do what they can around the margins to give them extra percentage points like voter ID laws or ensuring felons can't vote, but the core of the issue is that the Democratic inclined voters have increasingly moved out of the 'Red' states to 'Blue' states, creating fewer and fewer 'Purple' states. Even Obama said the best thing a liberal can do to help politically is to move to Iowa.
The rigging is enough to win them state houses in many states, even traditionally purple states. But the biggest issue with the electoral college is the "winner take all" element. If it were based on percent of vote, we wouldn't have these issues.
The reality is the electoral system in the US is horribly outdated and the government has increasingly become less representative of the population.
The founders had intended for the house to keep expanding with population size, first of all. The rurals decided to cap the house size because they realized they were losing political influence.
The rigging is enough to win them state houses in many states, even traditionally purple states. But the biggest issue with the electoral college is the "winner take all" element. If it were based on percent of vote, we wouldn't have these issues.
You seem to be ignoring the political separating out of populations in states; liberals are moving out of 'traditionally purple' states to live in heavily blue states, especially on the coasts. Even with things like Gerrymandering, that isn't limited to the GOP. I live in Illinois and it is gerrymandered to hell by the Democratic party. Plus the population and political shifts are more important than gerrymandering:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-11-12/gerrymandering-is-not-the-problem-with-america
The reality is the electoral system in the US is horribly outdated and the government has increasingly become less representative of the population.
Bringing up shit like this is dumb, the parties of today have almost nothing in common with the parties of those days.
You seem to be ignoring the political separating out of populations in states; liberals are moving out of 'traditionally purple' states to live in heavily blue states, especially on the coasts. Even with things like Gerrymandering, that isn't limited to the GOP. I live in Illinois and it is gerrymandered to hell by the Democratic party. Plus the population and political shifts are more important than gerrymandering:
This is basically a "both sides" argument, it doesn't stand up to empirical analysis:
The Electoral College is just one example of how an increasingly urban country has inherited the political structures of a rural past. Today, states containing just 17 percent of the American population, a historic low, can theoretically elect a Senate majority, Dr. Lee said. The bias also shapes the House of Representatives.
It exists, as a result, in the formulas that determine where highway funds are spent or who gets Homeland Security dollars. It exists in state capitols, where bills preferred by urban delegations have been much more likely to be rejected.
Today, the influence of rural voters also evokes deeply rooted ideals about who should have power in America. Jefferson and James Madison argued that the strength of the nation would always derive from its agrarian soil.
The parties of today have nothing in common with the parties of those days. The founders were worried about there not being enough representatives, not that we'd have too many.
Later politicians didn't have the same concern given modern technology and since the law fixing the number of reps no party has challenged that status quo.
This is basically a "both sides" argument, it doesn't stand up to empirical analysis:
One side is currently more successful than the other. Let's see what happened in 2020 if the Dems win back enough of a majority in enough states to do it themselves.
This is.. questionable. 17% of the population being able to elect a senate majority is not a campaign finance issue:
You're changing your argument. We were talking about the House of Reps and now you're bringing up the Senate. Sorry, but the Founders were very serious about the Senate giving small states equality with the big ones and no one has challenged that since. It is more foundational to our system of government than the number of representatives in the House.
That's supporting my point, it was the foundation of our system of government that the senate would give low population states equal power to the largest ones so that a few don't set policy for the rest of the nation. Again no one has seriously challenged this, nor the basic concept that the country is really just a constitutional Republic, not a Democracy by design. Love it or lump it this is the structure of our government since it's inception, good luck getting a critical mass to change that given you need all the small states who would lose major power to agree to such a constitutional amendment.
You're changing your argument. We were talking about the House of Reps and now you're bringing up the Senate. Sorry, but the Founders were very serious about the Senate giving small states equality with the big ones and no one has challenged that since. It is more foundational to our system of government than the number of representatives in the House.
A) No, what I actually said was the government has become less representative of the population. The house is indeed part of the government, but so is the Senate, the white house, the courts. The government has a whole has become less representative of the population, this applies to the house as well.
B) The Senate was a compromise. The rurals have violated that compromise, so who gives a shit what deal the founders made back then?
If the rurals/small states have violated this agreement, why should we care?
The idea we should be slaves to what the founders did is absurd, things change, and the founders had no comprehension of what the future would look like.
That's supporting my point, it was the foundation of our system of government that the senate would give low population states equal power to the largest ones so that a few don't set policy for the rest of the nation. Again no one has seriously challenged this, nor the basic concept that the country is really just a constitutional Republic, not a Democracy by design. Love it or lump it this is the structure of our government since it's inception, good luck getting a critical mass to change that given you need all the small states who would lose major power to agree to such a constitutional amendment.
To be clear, the fact you think a constitutional republic is different than a democracy just reveals you have no idea what you are talking about. This is an argument you see uneducated boomers make, and it's one with no basis in reality. The only conclusion I can come to is our education system does not teach basic civics due to how many people I see repeating this.
And again; the idea rurals should have disproportionate political party simply because they're rurals is not acceptable. And at some point this is going to reach a boiling point, the vast majority of the population does not exist to serve dumb ass rural Americans.
A) No, what I actually said was the government has become less representative of the population. The house is indeed part of the government, but so is the Senate, the white house, the courts. The government as a whole has become less representative of the population, this applies to the house as well.
Compared to when? Senators used to be picked by state governments after all. And when has the judiciary ever been representative of the people?
B) The Senate was a compromise. The rurals have violated that compromise, so who gives a shit what deal the founders made back then?
How?
The idea we should be slaves to what the founders did is absurd, things change, and the founders had no comprehension of what the future would look like.
Sure, but good luck making that happen with the Senate considering the mechanism we have to alter the constitution. In fact the reason we have that mechanism is because the Founders knew they wouldn't know how the world would evolve.
To be clear, the fact you think the united states is not a democracy just reveals you have no idea what you are talking about. This is an argument you see uneducated boomers make, and it's one with no basis in reality. The only conclusion I can come to is our education system does not teach basic civics due to how many people I see repeating this.
And you're basing that on...?
A republic isn't a democracy even if you have democratic election of representatives...which is debateable that we even have that in our current political context, especially given the influence of cash on the process.
This understanding of a republic as a distinct form of government from a liberal democracy is one of the main theses of the Cambridge School of historical analysis.[65] This grew out of the work of J. G. A. Pocock who in 1975 argued that a series of scholars had expressed a consistent set of republican ideals. These writers included Machiavelli, Milton, Montesquieu and the founders of the United States of America.
So you have no fucking idea what you're talking about if you think the US ever was or was meant to be a Democracy by the Founders. Just because some fucking nitwits have retroactively decided that Republicanism really is some form of Democracy because 'muh elections' to honey-dick the populace into thinking their voice matters doesn't mean they're right.
Whether or not that is a good or desirable form of government is not what we're arguing, we're talking about things as they are and were intended to be by the Founders. That doesn't mean I agree with what those guys thought or think it is particularly relevant to the modern day, but it is our political structure that isn't going away without a lot of violence to overthrow it.
And again; the idea rurals should have disproportionate political party simply because they're rurals is not acceptable. And at some point this is going to reach a boiling point, the vast majority of the population does not exist to serve dumb ass rural Americans.
Ok, how are you going to change that? Short of overthrow of the government and rewriting the constitution from scratch you're not getting around that.
Compared to when? Senators used to be picked by state governments after all. And when has the judiciary ever been representative of the people?
Judges are either elected or appointed by elected officials. How is that not representative of the population?
How?
By capping the fucking house.
And you're basing that on...? A republic isn't a democracy even if you have democratic election of representatives...which is debateable that we even have that in our current political context, especially given the influence of cash on the process.
I'm basing it on having a basic fucking understanding of the US political system. The US is a representative democracy.
a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
1
Ok, how are you going to change that? Short of overthrow of the government and rewriting the constitution from scratch you're not getting around that.
Hot take: you can fix all of this without overthrowing the government or rewriting the constitution.
Hot take: you can fix all of this without overthrowing the government or rewriting the constitution.
How?
The US not being a direct democracy does not mean it is not a democracy.
The US was not set up as a representative democracy either, even if it later evolved toward that direction by opening up of the franchise, but functionally voters have little influence over politicians these days and only through special pleading can you even try to say the US is an actual representative democracy.
You can try the 'but muh websters definitions' all day, but the reality is that in a republic with elected officials effectively they operate as an oligarchy.
Judges are either elected or appointed by elected officials. How is that not representative of the population?
Appointed by other officials isn't really represenative, which is why we stopped letting the Senate be picked by state governments. And often 'elected' judges run unopposed so win by default.
By capping the fucking house.
How did rural states do that? That was something agreed on by congress, including the non-rural state dominated House, and hasn't been significantly challenged since. Who is even making that an issue among House Reps? They can overturn that law whenever they want and the House has been run by Dems on and off for a long time, but has never even tried in modern times to repeal that cap.
Change the electoral college to a proportional share system. (this can be done on a state by state level, without ever changing the constitution.) We actually already have a popular vote compact that's gaining ground: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
The US was not set up as a representative democracy either,
The US was literally set up to be a democracy. It was a democracy with safeguards against populism, but it was a form of democracy. And what the founders intended is not relevant, the US, as it has existed for the last 100 years, is a democracy.
Appointed by other officials isn't really represenative, which is why we stopped letting the Senate be picked by state governments. And often 'elected' judges run unopposed so win by default.
Uh, being appointed by elected officials is literally representative of the population. If I vote for a rep, he represents my views and appoints people that align with those views.
How did rural states do that? That was something agreed on by congress, including the non-rural state dominated House, and hasn't been significantly challenged since. Who is even making that an issue among House Reps? They can overturn that law whenever they want and the House has been run by Dems on and off for a long time, but has never even tried in modern times to repeal that cap.
Why do you think the house was capped after census data didn't look good for rurals?
The rural states, which (as we know) had disproportionate power in the Senate, had no intention of giving up their power any earlier than necessary, and they kept postponing the inevitable reapportionment, crushing bill after bill. Rep. Emmanuel Celler of New York expressed his frustration thus:
“The issue and the struggle underlying reapportionment is between the large States with large cities on the one side and the rural and agricultural States on the other side. That thread of controversy runs through all the political struggles evidenced in this House. That thread runs through immigration, prohibition, income tax, tariff. It is the city versus the country. The issue grows more and more menacing.”
This anxiety with the changing face of the country, as Rep. Celler noted, also led to legislation such as the Immigration Act of 1924, which established quotas based on the 1890 census.
Eventually, nine years after the Census, Congress passed the Reapportionment Act of 1929, which established a permanent method for allocating 435 seats. After the 1940 Census, this 435 cap was institutionalized, and the apportionment process was made automatic to avoid the congressional battles that had dominated the 1920s.
As for why it hasn't been fixed yet, the political will simply does not exist.
either the GOP changes policy to appeal to more people which would include becoming pro-choice
This is true but it would not at all involve being pro-choice. Social conservatives vastly outnumber social liberals in the US, it's mostly perceived racism and economic policy that is hurting republicans whereas abortion is probably the best issue to get religious people on the same page
Again, my point is that this has always been the case and Republicans have won despite this in the past. Because young women eventually age and stop being as pro-choice.
You are seriously extrapolating from the past few years as if this will continue forever, despite it being clear from looking at your own data how foolish this would be. If we were having this discussion in 2010 I could look at the data and say "wow abortion is doomed", but we're not because I'm not a moron.
There are not that many single issue abortion voters, and I'd guess that most of them are pro-life. When you also consider how high their voter turnout potentially is, the actual effect that being pro-choice would have on your constituency in elections is going to be far different from polls.
Demographics is destiny is a nice theory, but a large percentage of Latinos will meld into the white identity. It's not unprecedented if you remeber the Irish, Italian, Greek and all the other mongrels who pretend to be white today
Something has to give, either the GOP changes policy to appeal to more people which would include becoming pro-choice, or they lose every national election within the next 25 years.
Ironically I'm pretty sure Democrats have been saying this for longer than 25 years.
Obviously Republicans are not going to be effective at targeting young women. Suburban soccer moms and stuff though? Once Trump is gone they'll come back around to some extent.
Yeah, and Democrats have been saying shit like this for decades now and yet they still lose. "But this time it's different!" No it's not. People have short memories, and if they didn't we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
Can’t tell if you’re doing a bit or not, but here goes: the “overwhelming” margin that Dems win women by is all of 12%, same as the margin by which men vote Republican
The margin by which women identify as pro-choice over pro-life is half that at 6%
No, it’s a fraction of the size of <b>any</b> racial, religious, age-based, or educational attainment margin. The Black margin, for instance, is 80%, Latino is 36%, White is 21%. A 45-55 split (or a 44-50% for abortion) is absolutely not “massive”, nor is it “overwhelming” - stop bloviating, take a seat
Huge relative to what? It’s been consistent for decades and you’re whining that it can’t be compared to anything else - because it’s much smaller in comparison
A) The gender gap has not been consistent for years. In 2018 democrats won women by 19 points, republicans won men by 4 points.
B) Gender can't be compared to race/education because both race and education are secondary factors that also contribute to the gender gap.
A 19 point gender gap is a lot more interesting and surprising than a 70% racial gap, for example.
This isn't really a debate, you just very clearly don't know what you're talking about. It's why you thought a 6% gap in abortion was small. A 6% gap on a divisive issue such as abortion is relevant and it is large.
Midterm turnout can absolutely not be compared to presidential election turnout, everyone knows this. Election results have been almost perfectly consistent for several decades - 2016 didn’t move the needle at all
A 6% gap on a divisive issue is-
Smaller than the gap for nearly every other divisive issue; it is not large, it’s barely over the MoE and if you factor in location effects and the electoral college it’s almost certainly a wash
Midterm turnout can absolutely not be compared to presidential election turnout, everyone knows this. Election results have been almost perfectly consistent for several decades - 2016 didn’t move the needle at all
Except 2018 can, because turnout reached near presidential levels, turnout in 2018 was very high.
Smaller than the gap for nearly every other divisive issue; it is not large, it’s barely over the MoE and if you factor in location effects and the electoral college it’s almost certainly a wash
That's... no, that's not how this works. some 60% of the country supports abortion, electoral college rigging is not enough to overcome that margin.
You'd expect someone that won the popular vote by about 3 percent to crush the electoral college, for example.
Turnout was higher for the party not in power, which is entirely typical. Republicans sweeping far more seats in 2010 - a true wave election - was not indicative of their prospects for 2012, where they got spanked soundly
The gender gap has been almost perfectly static in presidential elections for decades now, including the most recent one which was the first to have a prominent female candidate
some 60% of the country supports abortion
You can appeal to different polling perhaps, but the Pew figures we’re citing from show a Pro-Choice / Pro-Life split of 50-44 among women and 46-47 among men
So no, it’s very even
You'd expect someone that won the popular vote by about 3 percent to crush the electoral college, for example.
What?
[I’m] 28
Lmao alright nvm Grandpa, I know that all the fiber in Denny’s extended breakfast special gets you all feisty 👴🏼
Turnout was higher for the party not in power, which is entirely typical. Republicans sweeping far more seats in 2010 - a true wave election - was not indicative of their prospects for 2012, where they got spanked soundly
Yeah, where do we even start with this political illiteracy.
Turnout was higher for the party not in power, which is entirely typical.
No, turnout was higher for both parties in 2018. Turnout in 2018 was historically high, record breaking even.
Republicans sweeping far more seats in 2010 - a true wave election
This isn't how you quantify a wave, first of all. You look at vote totals, and you look at swing state seats. 2018 was absolutely a wave election:
nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, elections analyst): It was, by any historical standard, a blue wave. Democrats look like they’re going to pick up around 38 House seats, which would be the third-biggest gain by any party in 40 years (after Republicans in 2010 and 1994). The Senate moved in the opposite direction, but not by much, and it was a very difficult map for Democrats anyway.
And Democrats won the House popular vote by 6.8 percentage points, according to preliminary data from the Cook Political Report. And Cook’s Dave Wasserman thinks continued vote-counting in California should bring Democrats to well over 7 points. That would be the third-highest popular vote margin of any election since 1992 (behind Democrats in 2006 and 2008).
1
The gender gap has been almost perfectly static in presidential elections for decades now, including the most recent one which was the first to have a prominent female candidate
This is not how these things work.
The gender gap has been increasing, you can see a clear pattern. The gender gap in elections being fairly stable historically does not mean it will remain such, polarization is a thing and women are increasingly shifting towards the democratic party.
You can appeal to different polling perhaps, but the Pew figures we’re citing from show a Pro-Choice / Pro-Life split of 50-44 among women and 46-47 among men
As of 2018, public support for legal abortion remains as high as it has been in two decades of polling. Currently, 58% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 37% say it should be illegal in all or most cases.
The reality is abortion has majority support in the united states. At some point you are going to have to accept this.
What?
You understand that popular vote is correlated with electoral college victories, correct?
If someone wins the national popular vote by about 3% you would expect they'd win well over 300 electoral votes.
If someone wins by over 4%, you'd expect to see over 360 electoral votes.
You run into situations like 2016 when someone wins large states by very narrow margins.
Lmao alright nvm Grandpa, I know that all the fiber in Denny’s extended breakfast special gets you all feisty 👴🏼
You understand that you are getting bent over here, right?
I think the country is way more polarized today and I think after the shit the GOP pulled with Garland, and the fact Trump was allowed to nominate 2 far-right, bat-shit insane religious fundies, that yes, if the DNC takes the white house/senate, they will absolutely pack the court to protect basic civil rights.
And there's too many people. A lot of future criminals get aborted too, as shown by the decrease in crime roughly 18 years after roe v wade.
This is perfect for annoying both sides of the political spectrum too. The right is enraged that abortion could be a crime fighting tool and the left is enraged that crime can be blamed on women having kids when they shouldn't.
This was one of the replies when a few of them decided that Christianity is to blame for them losing the ability to legally kill babies:
Religion is deeply rooted in American culture. Especially the Christian faiths. Until we can let this die out or find a way to move away from these barbaric beliefs we will always have these problems.
Imagine seriously thinking that Christianity is barbaric because it doesn’t want you to kill your unborn babies.
Modern day Protestant Christianity is one of the most banal and harmless belief systems in the world. Plus it gives all the uneducated shitheads in the world an easy to understand moral code that actually helps their lives. As opposed to just giving in to feral promiscuity because “hurr durr nothing happens after we die so I might as well be a hedonistic maniac.”
I’m not Catholic, you dope. That’s why I said Protestant. Fooling around with those pedophiles in the Vatican is the fastest way to punch your ticket to hell.
His point is that they have no problem handing out welfare to companies. It’s just poor people they hate. Farmers are like the poorest businessmen around but still a business.
This is what I hate most about the nazis adding all of these life term judges all over the place. Even with trump gone these maggots will remain to mess everything up for the next several decades unless they are assassinated or have their terms revoked. The republicans are wholesale trying to make a theocracy any way they can. It does not matter who they hurt and whose rights get trampled as long as they win.
Which is too retarded of an approach, even for him.
Look at it from this angle: No.
There's nothing too low for him. Or too high. Or too sideways.
Dude is a walking, talking drama machine. If it would explode people's heads you can bet he's going to at least ponder about it publicly with at least five cameras watching.
Most famously it was FDR who threatened to do it to pass the New Deal. He's probably the only president in history who could have gotten away with it without tanking his career though.
The narcissism of Americans really is astonishing, and every one of us battles with it. Not only do we assume everybody else knows about our culture and politics, we also assume that they care.
While it is true that the US provides significant global influence in human rights abuses of countries that aspire to international standing as some kind of Western-appropriate civil society, it's notably refused to do jack shit when it comes to women's rights, treating acid-burning, honor killing, forcing children to have rape babies, gender apartheid etc.. as "cultural" preferences of societies.
Also, 3rd wave feminism has abandoned womens' rights that are seen as trans-exclusive and have focused heavily on enforcing and celebrating anatomy-unspecific rights of those who identify as women.
It's inevitable that those of us who possess uteruses (uteri?) would see steep loss of reproductive rights and I've been saying this for a long time (leading me to get banned from that TwoX echo chamber and other so-called feminist subreddits).
México City state pretty much has the most liberal abortion laws in the world, they have on-demand abortion up to 16 weeks, so even if some states outlaw abortion its still available to any Mexican woman who can afford a bus ride to the capital.
Now that all the remaining moderators in this sub are all trannies, is it finally okay to talk about how evil white women are? Viva la TwoX(Y)Chromosomes!
370 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2019-03-11
Have you posted bussy yet?
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 Bcbp10 2019-03-11
I mean I don't mind someone believing this per se, but if you believe it because of BLUMPF then you're a melodramatic idiot
1 Vladith 2019-03-11
Ehh that has been a pretty common liberal talking point since 9/11
1 HerpDerpDrone 2019-03-11
"The REAL victims were those Saudi hijackers"
-- Liberals, hours after the twin towers fell
1 rockidol 2019-03-11
Man those straw liberals sure sound awful.
1 xthek 2019-03-11
almost as bad as the real ones
1 muck4doo 2019-03-11
I thought Cheney did 9/11 with remote control airplanes?
1 high_side 2019-03-11
Far right conpsiracy theory. Lefties kind of have documents to back up their allegations.
1 AFGANG 2019-03-11
Considering that the Political Left of countries like Britain frequently denied just how bad conditions were in the Soviet Union until the fucking 70's and 80's, and that there are prominent Leftists claiming that the Holodomor never happened, i'm gonna have to disagree.
1 high_side 2019-03-11
Lol
1 high_side 2019-03-11
Pretty sure it's illegal to own any sort of firearm in [current year] despite the spittle-laden shouting from the right.
1 EWDnutz 2019-03-11
Well, considering what sub was linked..
1 jchon960 2019-03-11
Considering this "ban" carries no actual penalty and is likely preempted by their national laws, the overly dramatic reaction is at hysteria levels.
1 dongslayer6669 2019-03-11
Is this your first time interacting with women?
1 number_11310 2019-03-11
Otherwise known as women.
1 HardIsLife 2019-03-11
This is another great example of how self absorbed and ignorant Americans are. They seem to think the world revolves around American politics.
1 Methmo 2019-03-11
Was this as much of a thing during the Bush and Obama administrations? Seemed more like pro-interventionalism back then, rather than seeing other countries as copycats.
> Lo and behold! Unmask them, and you will find that, behind every manifestation of evil, everywhere in the world, lies the eternal Trump, the tendrils of his finance corrupting greedy souls who spread his vulgar methods and all-devouring hatred, to the single-minded purpose: genociding Mexican children but stopping Mexican abortions.
1 kaczynskireborn 2019-03-11
Ironically republicans arguably started the whole muh third world women thing to get support for the afghan war
1 2938_throwd 2019-03-11
Nah, not really needed. Afghanistan basically got immediately smacked around after 9/11 with 2000% public support.
It was Iraq that needed lots of cajoling to get people on board with. Once people started talking about Iraq the public basically forgot Afghanistan existed.
1 wwyzzerdd 2019-03-11
This!
After 9/11 someone was going to get dicked. The Fed's could have rolled out any name and America would have been fine with it.
Feds: After some investigation we believe Mars is responsible for this horrible attack on the USA.
Murica: Hey NASA here's 100 billion, now strap some guns on the Space Shuttle and lets get to stompin ass.
1 RandolphCox 2019-03-11
NOT TRUE NOT TRUE. god i fuckin hate god damn libtards.
remember the whole "aids" in africa bullshit? or somalia intervention ?
1 regeya 2019-03-11
You're typing with one hand while you masturbate, aren't you.
1 RandolphCox 2019-03-11
i do not masterbate. can get sex whenever i want.
1 regeya 2019-03-11
/r/ihavesex
How high a tier of prostitute are we talking about?
1 RandolphCox 2019-03-11
maybe u would have sex if u did not do reddit tier jokes and memorize subreddits to link to. i do PUA as a hobby so trust me i fuck a lot.
1 regeya 2019-03-11
Sure you do, pal.
1 RandolphCox 2019-03-11
w/e virgin lol
1 yevyoyevyo 2019-03-11
You know railing your hand in the shower isn't sex?
1 RandolphCox 2019-03-11
"duurrrrr u masterbate durrrr"
sigh. prob the same person who says they are not an npc....sigh
1 yevyoyevyo 2019-03-11
You fuck so rarely that you have no idea that sexually active people still masturbate lmao
1 RandolphCox 2019-03-11
it is a fact if u fuck a lot u do not need to masterbate. u actual retard. lol..why would i jerk off when i can fuck.
1 regeya 2019-03-11
Midd schoolers shouldn't have Spring Break.
1 RandolphCox 2019-03-11
1 regeya 2019-03-11
Good God, you seem offended!
LOL!
1 yevyoyevyo 2019-03-11
Jesus you sound like a fuckin idiot lmao
1 RandolphCox 2019-03-11
not an argument
​
1 yevyoyevyo 2019-03-11
Holy shit! Nice molyneaux impression, you no pussy getting loser lmao
1 sevgee 2019-03-11
Your sister-mom doesn't count
1 donkeypunchtrump 2019-03-11
Sister is my new mother, Mother.
1 charming_tatum 2019-03-11
Is it just me or is she looking hotter too?
1 MG87 2019-03-11
I'm sure some bear is pounding your ass right now
1 bat_mayn 2019-03-11
they also think only western white people are 'racist and xenophobic', which is an mind-boggling and astonishing mindset given that any cursory glance at most every other country on the planet as being racially homogeneous monocultures.
1 ItsOverForTayceIIs 2019-03-11
There was a thread in some shithole, I think /r/relationshipadvice where someone was posting how they were being held captive by their family because their shithole country doesn't allow unmarried women under 35 to rent or own property. I pointed out the fact that that is truly what oppressing women looks like, and was banned within minutes. These people are so fucking ignorant.
1 RandolphCox 2019-03-11
explain how that is a bad law. you have seen gendercritical. maybe you are the ignorant one
1 Ferocetis 2019-03-11
Having those sweet dreams of medieval ages, eh? Sleep tight!
1 RandolphCox 2019-03-11
i am not following. please, elaborate,
1 Ferocetis 2019-03-11
🛌
1 SlashSero 2019-03-11
Exactly, these are wonderful exotic and ethnic cultures you mayo. We need to let them be. Please read some literature on moral relativism before you mansplain to me, I have a masters from Yale so I know what I'm talking about.
1 rockidol 2019-03-11
Who the hell actually thinks this? This sounds like a straw man.
1 carthoris26 2019-03-11
Like, everyone on this site. Try discussing any of the following on a popular sub and tell me how it turns out:
the almost comical xenophobia of Japan and Korea
absolutely everyone in Europe is Hitler II about gypsies
Africa was a tremendous shithole before Imperialism
African culture was (still is) all about enslaving your enemies and happily sold as many slaves as people wanted to come buy, wh*tes didn't start it
Islam's general mistreatment of women, and violent hatred of everyone who isn't their particular sect of Islam
"So I was reading about total FGM in Sudan, it's terrible how Muslims/Africans are so backward" "FUCK YOU I HAVE TO PAY $8 A MONTH FOR BIRTH CONTROL! TRUMPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
1 xlhat 2019-03-11
I've seen a heavily updooted comment which basically said that Brazilian Gaols are better than Burger Gaols because the dumb fuck believed that Burger gaols didn't have early release for non violent criminals.
Now I'm no expert but watch people die and general reading shows that South American gaols are something.
Nobody hates burgers more than burgers I swear. I've never actually come across a 'Murican.
1 ryandanegayin 2019-03-11
Bruh people in Latin America unironically think white people have taken over because they're the majority in ads. I swear to God I'll kill myself one day.
1 grilledsandwhich 2019-03-11
A large amount of it does since the socio political ramifications affect the world
1 sevgee 2019-03-11
Yeah but not nearly as much as plebbitors like to think. People on this site act like Drumpf is single-handedly responsible for the right wing populist shitshow that is consuming the West right now, yet Yuropoors have been going through it before he even announced.
1 PeskyPapaya 2019-03-11
Funny they haven't considered this wave of retarded rightoid populism that's happening around the world may have caused a retarded rightoid populist to become POTUS not the other way round.
1 check_fugazi_bro 2019-03-11
Fixed
1 BigDaddy_Delta 2019-03-11
They do seem to be very mentally ill
1 jaredschaffer27 2019-03-11
The linked comment has to be the stupidest thing I've read all day, but I backpacked Europe twice in the summer of 16 and 18 and it is absolutely amazing how much of the graffiti, news stories and political conversations I overheard had to do with American politics and American policies. The entire world has some retarded hardon for what happens in burgerland and it's horrifying and I wish they and the linked commenter would just stop this shit.
1 Zac1245 2019-03-11
The worst are American tourists they feel the need to go to some other country and then still complain about Trump.
1 jaredschaffer27 2019-03-11
You're 100% right. You can identify them everywhere even if you're blind by just listening for the phrase "you guys are so much smarter over here."
Gas every American millennial backpacker in Europe, myself included.
1 Zac1245 2019-03-11
I shit you not, I was in Guatemala, I dont see another white person around and I hear a "fuck Trump for doing this to your Country." Turn around and there are two other white people, backpackers, the scourage of travel destinations everywhere. They were speaking English to someone I don't think even knows a word of English, just telling how sorry they are for Trump. I wish I was joking.
1 jaredschaffer27 2019-03-11
Goddamn man, no wonder there's a burgeoning business for kidnapping white people in Central America. Destruyelos todos.
1 Zac1245 2019-03-11
I think backpackers like it, they see it as cultural enrichment. Trump oppresses the poor brown people there, so they get kidnapped as a form of reparations.
1 jaredschaffer27 2019-03-11
That's fine but I don't want to get kidnapped in some shit-tier country because everyone else with long hair, white skin and a backpack sucks these people's dicks like getting up and going to work in a geographically different area is somehow a spiritually inspiring mode of life.
I gotta be the one of the only people that got more conservative after repeated international travel.
1 Zac1245 2019-03-11
I think it is more common than you think. Happened to me.
1 jaredschaffer27 2019-03-11
I hope so man, half my friends that have spent time in Europe or South America want to move there permanently. I'm too American, I love guns, low taxes and cars and wide open forests, deserts and highways and I especially love undeserved arrogance.
1 Zac1245 2019-03-11
Same here man. I love traveling, but it makes me realize how much I dont want to live in other places.
1 jaredschaffer27 2019-03-11
I wish we could be platonic friends
I just travel America these days, /r/vandwellers style. Long term goal is 10+ acres in the woods in Idaho, some veggies and fruit trees, and spend winter in southern California.
1 xlhat 2019-03-11
Must've just shouted it because that way it translates.
1 PretendWallaby 2019-03-11
Actually, the world does revolve around America and American politics. That's why all those Chinese billionaires send their kids to American colleges to study international business. America can and will dictate the terms around the globe, whether it's through corporations, military, or fat annoying tourists.
1 myusername_sucks 2019-03-11
Don't blame us for whatever stupid shit they enact in Mexico.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
Imagine thinking the dems wouldn't just add more supreme court justices in that time period.
The GOP literally can not hold power with current demographical trends. Something has to give, either the GOP changes policy to appeal to more people which would include becoming pro-choice, or they lose every national election within the next 25 years.
1 snowkarl 2019-03-11
Lol are you joking. The parties constantly slightly change their opinions according to demographic and ideological shifts. The republicans will ironically have a much easier time because 90 percent of immigrants, especially Latinos, are conservative and will start voting R. The republicans just need to give up a little ground on the Mexican question and its done.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
The GOP hasn't shifted stances yet, what makes you think they're even capable of doing so?
They've doubled down on gerrymandering and voter suppression rather than change stances.
Just recently they called an anti-corruption bill that would improve voter turnout a "power grab" by democrats and were against it.
Does this seem like a party with any ability to change what they believe?
1 Van-Diemen 2019-03-11
Well, they only became Bible thumpers in the mid 90s and made the South more or less permanently red as a result, Dems also became more centrist following Reagan's presidency (New Democrats), a man who single handedly altered and revitalised the GOP. What you're describing has been going on for centuries really...
In Europe old parties do regularly up and die, but it's pretty unlikely in an entrenched two party system.
1 snowkarl 2019-03-11
Honestly have you gotten retarded or something? The GOP hasn't shifted stances? On what? in what time frame?
Both the Rs and Dems have changed stances on a ton of shit even in the past 15 years.
I know you're a burger but do you think there's a single country in the developed world aside from the US where they let people vote without registration and ID? The only reason you and retarded democrats are for it is so you can get illicit votes lol. And not only that, gerrymandering is a democratic weapon they historically used to benefit more from the black vote so it's hilarious how it's now the republicans fault it exists.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
What has the GOP shifted stances on?
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-03-11
The GWB administration ran a lot of Hispanic outreach. For instance, San Antonio voted for Bush 52.2% to 44.9%. For comparison, the county voted 53.7% to 40.4% against Trump.
1 snowkarl 2019-03-11
What? Recently?
Trade protectionism and foreign non intervention/isolationism are two huge policy shifts on foreign and economic policy and complete 180's to previous administrations.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
The GOP base has been nativist/protectionist for a while, the establishment? They're still pro-intervention for example.
Trump also isn't any different in terms of economic policy when compared to previous administrations, you should understand the difference between rhetoric and reality.
Almost everything Trump has managed to push through has been standard Republican policy for over 10 years.
1 snowkarl 2019-03-11
I mean yes you mongoloid, that's exactly why they do it, to ensure they're on the receiving end of protectionist policies that protect Koch industries factories against imports.
Can't even disprove you since you keep moving the goal posts.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
You believe the koch brothers, libertarian loons with a history of supporting absolute free trade are protectionists?
https://www.kochind.com/landing-pages/free-trade
1 snowkarl 2019-03-11
Do you think they give money to Republicans because they just have such strong, genuine emotions about Adam Smith or because they have their own agenda?
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
I think they're doing what the republican party has always done.
Use nativist/racial politics to rile up the base, you trojan horse in guys like Trump that then do everything for the wealthy that you wanted, while creating the illusion that he's some outsider.
Trump is not anti-establishment.
The policies he's pushed, for the most part, have been on the republican agenda since before Obama even. The trade wars will end with Trump signing an agreement that is almost identical to current agreements, he'll then claim victory and declare he's "solved the one-sided trade issue" even though nothing of substance was done.
There are entire books written on this shit, it's not even subtle. A favorite quote of mine:
1 LongPostBot 2019-03-11
K
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 snowkarl 2019-03-11
Lol what are you talking about
The Koch brothers are using their money to influence law making in order to benefit their companies. You're so naive that you think people like Soros, Koch and Bloomberg lobby out of some altruistic motive rather than self benefit? The Kochs have multiplied their wealth several times in the past 3 decades due to favorable, protectionist and cronyist conditions. They support Trump's tariffs because they produce all the stuff Trump will make it harder to import and even you should realize by this that they don't give a shit about free trade, only their personal wealth.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
It's not altruistic, they want tax cuts and deregulations. But the idea they're protectionist is retarded, they aren't.
And I wouldn't classify Soros in the same league as the Kochs, Soros pushes for tax INCREASES on people like himself and more regulations that would directly harm him.
What is he gaining from this?
1 snowkarl 2019-03-11
The Kochs directly benefit from tariffs that make it more difficult for their foreign competitors in the domestic market. What do you not get?
Tax cuts and deregulation has literally nothing to do with protectionism but perhaps you know that now but just refuse to admit you were wrong.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
The kochs have reliably been one of the most anti-tariff forces in the country.
1 Pro_Extent 2019-03-11
We vote without ID in Australia...and there are usually a shitload of rules down here cud of the whole penal colony thing.
1 snowkarl 2019-03-11
Weird. I need ID as well as a registration letter and proof that I'm at the right voting location to vote here in Socialist Paradise Sweden
1 Pro_Extent 2019-03-11
Right...location? You can't just show up to any election station in the country and mark your name off?
Jesus fuck how did my backwards ass country end up with such a good democracy and still end up with Tony Abbott?
1 snowkarl 2019-03-11
No everyone is assigned a local voting station and you're not able to vote anywhere else. Your vote is triple checked and multiple people have to verify your ID at the station and cross check it with the voting lists.
It's only in the US this isn't done because racist democrats think black people are too stupid and lazy to get an ID and would therefore not vote -> hence losing them votes. The old racism of low expectations.
1 StrategicSarcasm 2019-03-11
Seriousposters OUT!
1 snowkarl 2019-03-11
dad! he started it
1 rockidol 2019-03-11
There's no evidence that that this kind of voting fraud actually happens beyond a few shmucks per year. This whole issue is Republicans trying to make it harder to vote because their stance is unpopular with the majority.
1 snowkarl 2019-03-11
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/30/texas-finds-95000-noncitizens-voter-rolls/
Texas alone had 100k Mexicans, that's a huge amount.
I honestly don't understand how any rational person can claim requiring ID to vote is voter suppression. Do you honestly think if someone is too retarded, lazy or unable to produce ID that they are informed enough to vote? Holy shit lol.
It's funny how leftists always love the Scandinavian and Euro model unless it's something like this when it's obviously rational but doesn't benefit them.
1 rockidol 2019-03-11
Non-citizen is not the same as Mexican. There's a couple problems with how they got to that 95k number, but that aside a voter ID isn't going to do jack shit to prevent people who are wrongly registered to vote from voting.
In theory it's not, just like in theory a literacy test isn't voter suppression either. The devil's in the details, like how they'll close down DMVs in areas with a majority of black voters to make it harder for them to get ID.
And if you think the modern GOP would never target black voters, ask North Carolina, there the GOP made voting restrictions to target black voters with surgical precision. And that's according to SCOTUS.
1 snowkarl 2019-03-11
The GOP uses gerrymandering to their favor, just like the democrats use them in their favor. I just don't understand why people think it's a one party issue when the democrats have historically gained massively by using gerrymandering to put all the minorities in whatever districts they wanted so they could get more votes.
Sorry but having an ID is not voter suppression, if you think so, you're literally retarded. If you don't have an ID, how the fuck are you able to go to the bank LOL
1 rockidol 2019-03-11
You don't think it's at all suspicious that the gop makes voter ID laws then makes it harder for people to get voter IDs?
1 snowkarl 2019-03-11
Sure but it's also super easy fix. Just let banks, DMVs and other govt offices issue valid IDs.
1 MajorGiraffe1 2019-03-11
They elected an irreligious divorcee as president so I'd say so.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
That's not changing what they believe, it's them electing someone that conflicts with every moral stance they've taken over the years because he promised to do what they've been trying to do for years.
1 MajorGiraffe1 2019-03-11
So? How hard can they believe it if they elected him? People have been saying the conservative party is doomed for decades because women/blacks/gays/Mexicans/whatever.
It's not going to happen
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
The real issue for the GOP is the fact white evangelicals have been carrying them for years, but they've basically milked that for all it's worth.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/11/data-shows-a-downward-demographic-spiral-for-republicans/
When you look at turnout for evangelicals by year, it becomes obvious why the GOP has been able to cling to power in some areas.
But Evangelicals as a share of the population is falling rapidly.
1 MajorGiraffe1 2019-03-11
People have been writing this for years. Don't pay too much attention to that bullshit. The GOP will be around long after underpaid tech journalists dreaming of a utopia without whites or fundies are buried.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
Fam, you are not looking at the data.
https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/screen-shot-2017-01-30-at-1-17-56-pm.png?resize=680,538
Like right here, what do you think this points to?
Non-evangelical white voters are democrats for the most part, too.
1 MajorGiraffe1 2019-03-11
Data can be twisted to suit whatever narrative the author wants. Those same whites, especially women, were supposed to carry Hilldawg to the presidency which I'm sure Techcrunch believed too.
Let me guess. Those ones will all die off and then the GOP is really doomed.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
Ok let's think about this.
the GOP depends on a single demographic to win elections.
that demographic is in decline as a share of the voting population.
all of the demographics they lose are growing.
What does this point to?
1 snowkarl 2019-03-11
The Irish and Italian population were rejected as dirty, poor and criminal when they immigrated but after a generation became the foundation of the conservative voting base. What makes you think the heavily conservative, 95% Catholic Latino voters will keep voting for a party that hates Christianity, is pro-abortion and gay marriage?
They only vote Democrat right now because the Democrats are pro immigration. Everything else the Dems stand for is diametrically opposed the what 90% of Hispanics believe.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
Because conservatives have completely destroyed their credibility with Hispanics and blacks.
The only Hispanics they win tend to be older Cuban voters, that's about it.
I also think you're overestimating how conservative Catholics are.
What evidence do you have that there's some Hispanic shift towards republicans? On what data are you basing this on?
Also, how in the fuck does the DNC "hate "christianity." Most democrats are Christians. Is this standard republican logic that says "anyone that is against our extremism, illteracy, and Christian fundamentalism hates Christianity" or what?
1 snowkarl 2019-03-11
you just argue based on wishful thinking
that they've destroyed their credibility with hispanics is completely based on your hopes that it's true. the only reason blacks (African immigrants vote R btw) vote against the republicans is that they're a vote bank, due to their strong community leaders.
Democrats hate Christianity for good reason just like I do but it's not a good way to garner vote from a Christian population.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
Have you looked at Hispanic vote totals in recent elections?
The reason blacks vote democrat is a nasty little tactic called the southern strategy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Or, you know, the blatant voter suppression.
1 snowkarl 2019-03-11
Hey Cenk! Nice to know you have a reddit acc now.
Southern Strategy is 50 years ago dude. And sure it's definitely part of why blacks don't vote for republicans but it doesn't change the fact that they're just a vote bank. They vote in 90-9% for the same candidates.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
Except the GOP has continued with extreme racial voter suppression/racist dog-whistles lmao.
For fucks sake, Trump himself tweeted fake black crime statistics he lifted from stormfront in 2016.
1 snowkarl 2019-03-11
Yes I do which is why I differentiate between blacks and other minorities because I don't think blacks with slave ancestry will ever convert to the Republicans regardless of their policies, hence the vote bank label.
I specifically said that the Rs would have to make concessions if they wanted the Hispanic vote.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
Ok, and even in the case of Hispanics, the GOP has backed themselves into a corner. The "concessions" would likely have to be a shift towards social liberalism, because believe it or not, most hispanics are in fact socially liberal and things like abortion are supported within the Hispanic community.
The GOP is in no way ready to shift towards social liberalism in relation to abortion/immigration because they've based their entire brand on reactionary responses to these things.
1 snowkarl 2019-03-11
How exactly does a more favorable immigration and path to citizenship be a shift towards social liberalism?
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
Because those are socially liberal stances in the current political discourse.
1 DodgeIvan 2019-03-11
This a troll? Look at this politics posting faggot. “No the Dems are good! They dont embrace voter control by importing brown people and they totally care about stuff that isnt global economics”
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
Imagine ignoring not only the supreme court ruling that shows the GOP is engaged in voter suppression, but the GOP themselves bragging about said voter suppression and multiple federal court rulings on the subject.
1 DodgeIvan 2019-03-11
You are a faggot.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
Are the courts rigged against Republicans too, just like the education system, science, math, and reality?
1 Eternal_Reward 2019-03-11
Wew lad.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
You realize Donald Trump himself is a fucking anti-vaxxer, right?
Which mainstream, elected, democratic official is a hardcore anti-vaxxer like Trump is?
Also, copy paste to me where on the democratic platform "1000 genders" is discussed.
1 Eternal_Reward 2019-03-11
If the GOP is the party of racists cause a few KKK guys say their republicans, the Dems can be the party of anti-vaxxers and 1000 genders.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
Which party elected an anti-vaxxer to the white house?
1 Eternal_Reward 2019-03-11
BUT BLUMPF!
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
You know what you're saying is factually incorrect and Trumptards are more likely to be anti-vaxxers than liberals, correct?
1 Eternal_Reward 2019-03-11
Nu uh.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
Yes.
1 Eternal_Reward 2019-03-11
Nope
1 ConservativesRBIGgay 2019-03-11
Smh 🤦♀️ at newfags not knowing who drama’s lord, savior and king turbo autist is.
1 DodgeIvan 2019-03-11
Been here for 4 years faggot. Oh jesus that makes me the faggot
1 HappyFriendlyBot 2019-03-11
Hi, DodgeIvan!
I wanted to stop by and wish you the most terrific day ever! Have a good one!
-HappyFriendlyBot
1 DodgeIvan 2019-03-11
Aww thanks pookie <3 uwu
1 youre_mum_mate 2019-03-11
This. I've said it before and I'll say it again - once the current generation of old racist dinosaurs start dying out, and the perception that republicans are racist begins to fade, the Democrats will realise that the minority groups they currently take for granted are actually much more conservative than even mayo conservatives are. This is true not just in the US, but in most western countries.
1 snowkarl 2019-03-11
Yes and the exact same thing happened multiple times in the past with the Irish, Italians, Turks etc. They were all rejected as intruders by the conservative parties at the time but after a generation became part of the 'white' majority population and voted conservative to a large degree. But these people don't want to learn from history.
1 alienfrostweaver 2019-03-11
Turks are absolutely not white, never have been and never will be.
1 snowkarl 2019-03-11
I know I added them in at the end, but other than white, the same is true of them.
1 DodgeIvan 2019-03-11
If you have hate in your heart let it out White Power
1 alienfrostweaver 2019-03-11
I don't hate anyone, Turkish people are objectively not white or European.
1 number_11310 2019-03-11
WEAK
1 alienfrostweaver 2019-03-11
The virgin hate vs the Chad amused detachment
1 muck4doo 2019-03-11
Turks controlled Troy. They are featured in The Iliad. It sounds like they had a lot in common with the Greeks.
1 alienfrostweaver 2019-03-11
And the Moors controlled Spain for like 700 years, doesn't mean Moroccans are white.
1 muck4doo 2019-03-11
Spaniards and Moroccans look the same
1 alienfrostweaver 2019-03-11
Maybe Andalusians but not the rest of Spain.
1 AFGANG 2019-03-11
The people that controlled Troy were Anatolians. The Turks were a central asian tribe that invaded literally thousands of years later. The reason Turks look like Greeks is because their DNA is 70% Anatolian Greek and 30% Turkic.
1 Tzar-Romulus 2019-03-11
Are turks even human?
​
1 alienfrostweaver 2019-03-11
I think they might be giants. But that's nobody's business but the Turks.
1 Tzar-Romulus 2019-03-11
It's Istanbul not Constantinople.
1 totalrandomperson 2019-03-11
Ur mum thinks my dick is inhuman
1 jaytix1 2019-03-11
I agree with you. Most people are religious but especially black and hispanic people. If the GOP was a little smarter, they could easily get those votes. But alas, they choose to align with the racists.
1 wiking85 2019-03-11
What they hell are you talking about?
1 snowkarl 2019-03-11
Hispanics are conservative
Republicans are more conservative than Democrats
1 wiking85 2019-03-11
Citation needed
1 WeenieHutJrSupreme 2019-03-11
Do you actually think they aren't?
1 wiking85 2019-03-11
Not really, especially the younger generations and those born in the US. It's a caricature to think they are all hardcore catholics that think the same way.
1 WeenieHutJrSupreme 2019-03-11
Well there's really nothing that proves that Hispanics aren't generally conservative. Voting doesn't really show anything because even the Dems know that most minorites vote for them because of the government benefits, which is why they always cling on to those things so tightly.
1 snowkarl 2019-03-11
Clock's ticking for the race baiters!
1 Sudokublackbelt 2019-03-11
https://ol.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/azbg5d/the_state_i_live_in_just_penalized_abortion/ei7clqi/
1 Sarge_Ward 2019-03-11
Which they won't do. Black Americans are generally socially conservative, too, yet they would never turn Republican because that party inherented the dixiecrats, who are entirely incompatible with the black demographic and always will be. Similarly, the Republicans are now inherenting and adopting the beliefs of the anti-intervention and anti-immigration PaleoConservative movement, which is similarly eternally at odds with immigrant populations. There's no way to have both.
1 snowkarl 2019-03-11
I mean they absolutely will if they start losing elections lol.
1 Homer00025 2019-03-11
You really are underestimating how great the Dems are at losing.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
And I think you very seriously underestimate the extent to which rural Americans and Republicans have rigged the system in their favor to mask the fact they are a minority of the population.
1 Homer00025 2019-03-11
See, you're miscalculating again. I'm very aware to what extent the Republicans rigged the system in their favor and Democrats let them.
And now they're getting ready to bungle the next election.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
Based on what?
1 Homer00025 2019-03-11
The remarkable idiocy of the comparatively high information voters on r/politics, the astounding ignorance of the general American electorate, the strategic blunders and infighting of the Democratic candidate pool and last but not least the insufferability of the political smugtivists who will manage to drive any fence-sitter away.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2019-03-11
The fact that we're a year out before the 2020 general starts and the Democrats have already managed to divide themselves.
1 wiking85 2019-03-11
You mean the Founders when the wrote the constitution, which ensured small states with low populations had a say to get them to join the united states? The GOP really hasn't done anything fundamental to the 'system' to rig it. They certainly will do what they can around the margins to give them extra percentage points like voter ID laws or ensuring felons can't vote, but the core of the issue is that the Democratic inclined voters have increasingly moved out of the 'Red' states to 'Blue' states, creating fewer and fewer 'Purple' states. Even Obama said the best thing a liberal can do to help politically is to move to Iowa.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
Do not for one second pretend these people honored what the founders intended.
The founders had intended for the house to keep expanding with population size, first of all. The rurals decided to cap the house size in the early 1920s because they realized they were losing political influence.
The electoral college today is nothing like the college of those days, it's been completely destroyed and is nothing more than a farce at this point.
The rigging is enough to win them state houses in many states, even traditionally purple states. But the biggest issue with the electoral college is the "winner take all" element. If it were based on percent of vote, we wouldn't have these issues.
The reality is the electoral system in the US is horribly outdated and the government has increasingly become less representative of the population.
1 LongPostBot 2019-03-11
look im gunna have 2 ask u 2 keep ur giant dumps in the toilet not in my replys 😷😷😷
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 wiking85 2019-03-11
It's not like the Dems weren't party to that or that the Founders weren't on board with the functions of state changing based on experience: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_Act_of_1911
You seem to be ignoring the political separating out of populations in states; liberals are moving out of 'traditionally purple' states to live in heavily blue states, especially on the coasts. Even with things like Gerrymandering, that isn't limited to the GOP. I live in Illinois and it is gerrymandered to hell by the Democratic party. Plus the population and political shifts are more important than gerrymandering: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-11-12/gerrymandering-is-not-the-problem-with-america
That is more a function of campaign finance than anything: https://bulletin.represent.us/u-s-oligarchy-explain-research/
1 LongPostBot 2019-03-11
Mommy is soooo proud of you, sweaty. Let's put this sperg out up on the fridge with all your other failures.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
Bringing up shit like this is dumb, the parties of today have almost nothing in common with the parties of those days.
This is basically a "both sides" argument, it doesn't stand up to empirical analysis:
http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-part-1-busting-the-both-sides-do-it-myth/
One side is much, much worse than the other.
This is.. questionable. 17% of the population being able to elect a senate majority is not a campaign finance issue:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/upshot/as-american-as-apple-pie-the-rural-votes-disproportionate-slice-of-power.html
1 LongPostBot 2019-03-11
Ma'am we've been over this before. You need to stop.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 wiking85 2019-03-11
Later politicians didn't have the same concern given modern technology and since the law fixing the number of reps no party has challenged that status quo.
One side is currently more successful than the other. Let's see what happened in 2020 if the Dems win back enough of a majority in enough states to do it themselves.
You're changing your argument. We were talking about the House of Reps and now you're bringing up the Senate. Sorry, but the Founders were very serious about the Senate giving small states equality with the big ones and no one has challenged that since. It is more foundational to our system of government than the number of representatives in the House.
That's supporting my point, it was the foundation of our system of government that the senate would give low population states equal power to the largest ones so that a few don't set policy for the rest of the nation. Again no one has seriously challenged this, nor the basic concept that the country is really just a constitutional Republic, not a Democracy by design. Love it or lump it this is the structure of our government since it's inception, good luck getting a critical mass to change that given you need all the small states who would lose major power to agree to such a constitutional amendment.
1 LongPostBot 2019-03-11
This is one of the worst post I have EVER seen. Delete it.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
A) No, what I actually said was the government has become less representative of the population. The house is indeed part of the government, but so is the Senate, the white house, the courts. The government has a whole has become less representative of the population, this applies to the house as well.
B) The Senate was a compromise. The rurals have violated that compromise, so who gives a shit what deal the founders made back then?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise
If the rurals/small states have violated this agreement, why should we care?
The idea we should be slaves to what the founders did is absurd, things change, and the founders had no comprehension of what the future would look like.
To be clear, the fact you think a constitutional republic is different than a democracy just reveals you have no idea what you are talking about. This is an argument you see uneducated boomers make, and it's one with no basis in reality. The only conclusion I can come to is our education system does not teach basic civics due to how many people I see repeating this.
And again; the idea rurals should have disproportionate political party simply because they're rurals is not acceptable. And at some point this is going to reach a boiling point, the vast majority of the population does not exist to serve dumb ass rural Americans.
1 LongPostBot 2019-03-11
OUT!
OUT!!!
OUT!!!
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 wiking85 2019-03-11
Compared to when? Senators used to be picked by state governments after all. And when has the judiciary ever been representative of the people?
How?
Sure, but good luck making that happen with the Senate considering the mechanism we have to alter the constitution. In fact the reason we have that mechanism is because the Founders knew they wouldn't know how the world would evolve.
And you're basing that on...? A republic isn't a democracy even if you have democratic election of representatives...which is debateable that we even have that in our current political context, especially given the influence of cash on the process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_States The US government as a system was specifically against the 'tyranny of the majority' and 'rule of the mob', aka Democracy.
So you have no fucking idea what you're talking about if you think the US ever was or was meant to be a Democracy by the Founders. Just because some fucking nitwits have retroactively decided that Republicanism really is some form of Democracy because 'muh elections' to honey-dick the populace into thinking their voice matters doesn't mean they're right.
Whether or not that is a good or desirable form of government is not what we're arguing, we're talking about things as they are and were intended to be by the Founders. That doesn't mean I agree with what those guys thought or think it is particularly relevant to the modern day, but it is our political structure that isn't going away without a lot of violence to overthrow it.
Ok, how are you going to change that? Short of overthrow of the government and rewriting the constitution from scratch you're not getting around that.
1 LongPostBot 2019-03-11
look im gunna have 2 ask u 2 keep ur giant dumps in the toilet not in my replys 😷😷😷
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
Judges are either elected or appointed by elected officials. How is that not representative of the population?
By capping the fucking house.
I'm basing it on having a basic fucking understanding of the US political system. The US is a representative democracy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
Like this is literally basic, the fact this many people do not understand that the united states is a representative democracy is absurd.
Furthermore, the fact you think a republic can not be a democracy is even more evidence that you do not understand what these terms mean.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic
1
Hot take: you can fix all of this without overthrowing the government or rewriting the constitution.
1 LongPostBot 2019-03-11
I've known more coherent downies.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 wiking85 2019-03-11
How?
The US was not set up as a representative democracy either, even if it later evolved toward that direction by opening up of the franchise, but functionally voters have little influence over politicians these days and only through special pleading can you even try to say the US is an actual representative democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy
You can try the 'but muh websters definitions' all day, but the reality is that in a republic with elected officials effectively they operate as an oligarchy.
Appointed by other officials isn't really represenative, which is why we stopped letting the Senate be picked by state governments. And often 'elected' judges run unopposed so win by default.
How did rural states do that? That was something agreed on by congress, including the non-rural state dominated House, and hasn't been significantly challenged since. Who is even making that an issue among House Reps? They can overturn that law whenever they want and the House has been run by Dems on and off for a long time, but has never even tried in modern times to repeal that cap.
1 LongPostBot 2019-03-11
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/038/094/0a1.jpg
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
Expand the house.
Make gerrymandering illegal on a federal level.
federalize state elections.
Change the electoral college to a proportional share system. (this can be done on a state by state level, without ever changing the constitution.) We actually already have a popular vote compact that's gaining ground: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
The US was literally set up to be a democracy. It was a democracy with safeguards against populism, but it was a form of democracy. And what the founders intended is not relevant, the US, as it has existed for the last 100 years, is a democracy.
Uh, being appointed by elected officials is literally representative of the population. If I vote for a rep, he represents my views and appoints people that align with those views.
Why do you think the house was capped after census data didn't look good for rurals?
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2013/4/22/1203840/-Why-do-we-have-a-435-member-House
As for why it hasn't been fixed yet, the political will simply does not exist.
1 LongPostBot 2019-03-11
still unemployed then?
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 SpiceAndEvNice 2019-03-11
lmao you can't be serious.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
What is it I said that is factually incorrect?
1 TwentyHundredHours 2019-03-11
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
Fuck off, NPC.
1 kaczynskireborn 2019-03-11
This is true but it would not at all involve being pro-choice. Social conservatives vastly outnumber social liberals in the US, it's mostly perceived racism and economic policy that is hurting republicans whereas abortion is probably the best issue to get religious people on the same page
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
The US is more socially liberal than socially conservative.
A) Religion is on the decline.
B) Young people are overwhelmingly pro-choice and are rapidly growing as a share of the voting population.
1 mtg_liebestod 2019-03-11
Google "age vs cohort effect" kthx. afaik there is not a strong cohort effect favoring pro-choice views.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
I'm willing to bet young women favor abortion at much higher rates than the general population.
1 mtg_liebestod 2019-03-11
Again, my point is that this has always been the case and Republicans have won despite this in the past. Because young women eventually age and stop being as pro-choice.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
[citation needed]
1 mtg_liebestod 2019-03-11
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1532673X9302100103
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
This seems highly questionable considering the pew data I linked, with even 65+-year-old people supporting abortion 57%.
1 mtg_liebestod 2019-03-11
You are seriously extrapolating from the past few years as if this will continue forever, despite it being clear from looking at your own data how foolish this would be. If we were having this discussion in 2010 I could look at the data and say "wow abortion is doomed", but we're not because I'm not a moron.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
Support for abortion has been fairly stable for a long time.
1 kaczynskireborn 2019-03-11
There are not that many single issue abortion voters, and I'd guess that most of them are pro-life. When you also consider how high their voter turnout potentially is, the actual effect that being pro-choice would have on your constituency in elections is going to be far different from polls.
1 Megazor 2019-03-11
Demographics is destiny is a nice theory, but a large percentage of Latinos will meld into the white identity. It's not unprecedented if you remeber the Irish, Italian, Greek and all the other mongrels who pretend to be white today
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
The country is different today. Even the GOP had planned a 'Hispanic strategy" after Romney, they, themselves, know they are in trouble.
1 Megazor 2019-03-11
I feel like the Democrat coalition is way more unstable than the GOP one.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
Depends, there are way more democrats than republicans, but GOP voters show up more and are more loyal on average.
1 acetyler 2019-03-11
Yes, because the GOP has a more stable coalition.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
More like it's easier to maintain a stable coalition when you appeal to only one demographic.
It's harder to unite 15 demographics than it is to unite 1.
1 Tzar-Romulus 2019-03-11
This but unironically. Can't wait to be considered white.
1 mtg_liebestod 2019-03-11
Ironically I'm pretty sure Democrats have been saying this for longer than 25 years.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
Yeah everyone knows young women are anti-abortion.
1 mtg_liebestod 2019-03-11
Obviously Republicans are not going to be effective at targeting young women. Suburban soccer moms and stuff though? Once Trump is gone they'll come back around to some extent.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
Considering democrats win women by such large margins, it's unlikely the GOP will ever be able to peel them away from the DNC.
1 mtg_liebestod 2019-03-11
Yeah, and Democrats have been saying shit like this for decades now and yet they still lose. "But this time it's different!" No it's not. People have short memories, and if they didn't we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
You understand democrats won women by 19 fucking points in 2018, correct?
1 mtg_liebestod 2019-03-11
And look at how much republicans won blacks by in 1918!
1 Sizzle50 2019-03-11
Can’t tell if you’re doing a bit or not, but here goes: the “overwhelming” margin that Dems win women by is all of 12%, same as the margin by which men vote Republican
The margin by which women identify as pro-choice over pro-life is half that at 6%
You need to work on your material
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
12% is a massive fucking margin in politics, what?
That's neat, now look at it by age group you mongoloid:
1 Sizzle50 2019-03-11
No, it’s a fraction of the size of <b>any</b> racial, religious, age-based, or educational attainment margin. The Black margin, for instance, is 80%, Latino is 36%, White is 21%. A 45-55 split (or a 44-50% for abortion) is absolutely not “massive”, nor is it “overwhelming” - stop bloviating, take a seat
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
You have literally no idea what you are talking about.
A 12% margin within a demographic such as gender is fucking huge.
Like, the fact you think this can be compared to something like race or education reveals you're politically illiterate.
1 Sizzle50 2019-03-11
Huge relative to what? It’s been consistent for decades and you’re whining that it can’t be compared to anything else - because it’s much smaller in comparison
This is like debating a child
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
A) The gender gap has not been consistent for years. In 2018 democrats won women by 19 points, republicans won men by 4 points.
B) Gender can't be compared to race/education because both race and education are secondary factors that also contribute to the gender gap.
A 19 point gender gap is a lot more interesting and surprising than a 70% racial gap, for example.
This isn't really a debate, you just very clearly don't know what you're talking about. It's why you thought a 6% gap in abortion was small. A 6% gap on a divisive issue such as abortion is relevant and it is large.
1 Sizzle50 2019-03-11
Midterm turnout can absolutely not be compared to presidential election turnout, everyone knows this. Election results have been almost perfectly consistent for several decades - 2016 didn’t move the needle at all
Smaller than the gap for nearly every other divisive issue; it is not large, it’s barely over the MoE and if you factor in location effects and the electoral college it’s almost certainly a wash
How old are you? Be honest
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
Except 2018 can, because turnout reached near presidential levels, turnout in 2018 was very high.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/19/18103110/2018-midterm-elections-turnout
That's... no, that's not how this works. some 60% of the country supports abortion, electoral college rigging is not enough to overcome that margin.
You'd expect someone that won the popular vote by about 3 percent to crush the electoral college, for example.
28.
1 Sizzle50 2019-03-11
Turnout was higher for the party not in power, which is entirely typical. Republicans sweeping far more seats in 2010 - a true wave election - was not indicative of their prospects for 2012, where they got spanked soundly
The gender gap has been almost perfectly static in presidential elections for decades now, including the most recent one which was the first to have a prominent female candidate
You can appeal to different polling perhaps, but the Pew figures we’re citing from show a Pro-Choice / Pro-Life split of 50-44 among women and 46-47 among men
So no, it’s very even
What?
Lmao alright nvm Grandpa, I know that all the fiber in Denny’s extended breakfast special gets you all feisty 👴🏼
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
Yeah, where do we even start with this political illiteracy.
No, turnout was higher for both parties in 2018. Turnout in 2018 was historically high, record breaking even.
This isn't how you quantify a wave, first of all. You look at vote totals, and you look at swing state seats. 2018 was absolutely a wave election:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/yes-it-was-a-blue-wave/
1
This is not how these things work.
The gender gap has been increasing, you can see a clear pattern. The gender gap in elections being fairly stable historically does not mean it will remain such, polarization is a thing and women are increasingly shifting towards the democratic party.
No.
The reality is abortion has majority support in the united states. At some point you are going to have to accept this.
You understand that popular vote is correlated with electoral college victories, correct?
If someone wins the national popular vote by about 3% you would expect they'd win well over 300 electoral votes.
If someone wins by over 4%, you'd expect to see over 360 electoral votes.
You run into situations like 2016 when someone wins large states by very narrow margins.
You understand that you are getting bent over here, right?
1 LongPostBot 2019-03-11
still unemployed then?
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 muck4doo 2019-03-11
"This is like debating a child"
Your first time having a conversation with Chuck E. Cheese? This is just how Pizzashill rolls.
1 2938_throwd 2019-03-11
Is this post suggesting Dlumpf will pack the court with 4-5 more justices to increase the total number?
Wtf? Why? He already has a decently friendly SCOTUS and when RBG kicks it, it will be a solid conservative SCOTUS. Why would he fuck with that?
The only side that has been talking about expanding the number of SCOTUS seats are super shrill progressive types on r/politics.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
No, I'm saying the DNC can simply pack the court.
1 IHeartCommyMommy 2019-03-11
Fucking FDR couldn't pull that off, you think that Nancy will?
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
I think the country is way more polarized today and I think after the shit the GOP pulled with Garland, and the fact Trump was allowed to nominate 2 far-right, bat-shit insane religious fundies, that yes, if the DNC takes the white house/senate, they will absolutely pack the court to protect basic civil rights.
1 IHeartCommyMommy 2019-03-11
I don't know shit about Kavanaugh and his historical rulings but Gorsuch isn't some fundy-fucktard.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-11
Gorsuch is bad, but he's not as bad as Kavanaugh. Gorsuch is just a shitty person, much like his mother was.
1 Trumpghanistan 2019-03-11
Imagine wanting to kill babies this badly
1 SinisterPuppy 2019-03-11
Imagine thinking a zygote is a baby.
1 ancap_attack 2019-03-11
Imagine thinking that most abortions are killing zygotes
1 ImayGoByRen 2019-03-11
Imagine thinking on r/drama
1 FutureCW 2019-03-11
Imagine thinking
1 kikorny 2019-03-11
Imagine dragons
1 Ccrasus 2019-03-11
Imagine all the people
1 ImayGoByRen 2019-03-11
Imagine.
1 Momruepari 2019-03-11
Im
1 huey764 2019-03-11
Imag
1 Ferocetis 2019-03-11
Ahahaha, they do the anaphora thingy and it's so funny!
1 SithisTheDreadFather 2019-03-11
Normies really have ruined this sub
1 ImayGoByRen 2019-03-11
normies really have
1 Poolooloo 2019-03-11
How old are you? If I can come up with a term to describe your age bracket that sounds sciencey and technical can we do a post term abortion on you?
1 KingWayneX 2019-03-11
Shut up woman hater!!!
1 ImJustaBagofHammers 2019-03-11
Imagine thinking birth miraculously makes a fetus human.
1 SinisterPuppy 2019-03-11
Imagine not wanting to yeetus the fetus.
1 GuillotinesNOW 2019-03-11
Imagine not wanting to kill babies.
Babies are stupid and annoying.
1 Alkerio 2019-03-11
yeah but then they grow up into sexy spicy latina toddlers
1 Ferocetis 2019-03-11
Oubliette! Now!
1 ryandanegayin 2019-03-11
Darqwolf alt found
1 TheLordHighExecu 2019-03-11
oscurolobo
1 Zero5urvivers 2019-03-11
Its over for childrencels
1 jctoastpig 2019-03-11
And there's too many people. A lot of future criminals get aborted too, as shown by the decrease in crime roughly 18 years after roe v wade.
This is perfect for annoying both sides of the political spectrum too. The right is enraged that abortion could be a crime fighting tool and the left is enraged that crime can be blamed on women having kids when they shouldn't.
1 jaredschaffer27 2019-03-11
1 CiuhCiuh 2019-03-11
So just abort black babies, problem solved.
1 PresidentYang 2019-03-11
*mayo babies
1 xthek 2019-03-11
But having a lower population statistically increases your chances of being a victim because there are fewer targets.
1 UnexpectedLizard 2019-03-11
Bruh, abortion is the mayocide. White people are easily the most aborted by percent, worldwide.
1 duelapex 2019-03-11
Well no there aren't too many people. Japan's stagnant economy can partially be blamed on not having enough children.
Also most economists do not respect Levitt's methodology on the "abortion lowered crime" study.
1 AsianVinylEnthusiast 2019-03-11
But it's no fun before they're born, you can't get a good punt.
1 FlexualHealing 2019-03-11
Call me the semen assassin
…wait don’t
1 boehnerofamerica 2019-03-11
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH
ABORTION IS EBIL WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH
sucks thumb
1 xthek 2019-03-11
it's nice to see we have friends from r/politics
1 boehnerofamerica 2019-03-11
Ew gross, I hate r/politics
1 SithisTheDreadFather 2019-03-11
Did you chuckle to yourself when you wrote this post?
1 boehnerofamerica 2019-03-11
I did, actually
1 Osterion 2019-03-11
Imagine conferring person hood on to fetuses lmao
1 Poolooloo 2019-03-11
Fetuses, unlike communists, are people.
1 high_side 2019-03-11
Good t_d tard impression.
1 Poolooloo 2019-03-11
Spotted the subhuman
1 high_side 2019-03-11
Lol you sound like you're actually one of them. Did you do a study abroad program?
1 ReDMeridiaN 2019-03-11
This was one of the replies when a few of them decided that Christianity is to blame for them losing the ability to legally kill babies:
Imagine seriously thinking that Christianity is barbaric because it doesn’t want you to kill your unborn babies.
1 fentanyl_peyotl 2019-03-11
Imagine thinking that religion isn't barbaric.
1 ReDMeridiaN 2019-03-11
Modern day Protestant Christianity is one of the most banal and harmless belief systems in the world. Plus it gives all the uneducated shitheads in the world an easy to understand moral code that actually helps their lives. As opposed to just giving in to feral promiscuity because “hurr durr nothing happens after we die so I might as well be a hedonistic maniac.”
Now Islam on the other hand.
1 sevgee 2019-03-11
Imagine being such a cuck that you think hedonism is a bad thing
1 ReDMeridiaN 2019-03-11
It can be a bad thing and it can be a good thing. Not everything is black and white, dipshit. Lay off the identity politics for a while.
1 cocainejesusman 2019-03-11
Your church diddles boys u retard.
1 ReDMeridiaN 2019-03-11
I’m not Catholic, you dope. That’s why I said Protestant. Fooling around with those pedophiles in the Vatican is the fastest way to punch your ticket to hell.
1 cocainejesusman 2019-03-11
All churches have huge sex crime abusers. You are a willingly retarted retard
1 ReDMeridiaN 2019-03-11
Can you prove that all churches have hugesex crime abuses, brainlet?
No, you can’t. Wanna know why? It’s because you’re a follow the leader retarded dick licker.
1 Tzar-Romulus 2019-03-11
Prods are just as bad if not worse than atheists change my mind.
1 GeauxHouston22 2019-03-11
the seriousposters are out in full force today I see
1 kaczynskireborn 2019-03-11
Imagine not thinking barbarism is good
1 jaredschaffer27 2019-03-11
Basted
1 cernbro 2019-03-11
I want to kill white babies to support mayocide. If that means legalizing abortion, so be it.
1 donkeypunchtrump 2019-03-11
ugh, babies are gross. They should be banned.
1 high_side 2019-03-11
> has never been on an airplane
1 Van-Diemen 2019-03-11
As if a super Catholic, poor country can't choose to ban abortions without American influence.
1 balisunrise 2019-03-11
It was the same week they legalized same sex marriage though! Win some lose some. Unfortunately Nuevo Leon is the rich Texas of Mexico.
1 BurgerLaowai 2019-03-11
Yeah, but Mexico still bans gay men from getting abortions. Literally 3rd class citizens!
1 ErictheRedding 2019-03-11
But what about gay fetuses?
1 BurgerLaowai 2019-03-11
It is illegal to abort a gay fetus in the civilized world.
1 Patsy02 2019-03-11
Just a thought: If fetuses were genderfluid, would that make abortion a hate crime? I think I found a loophole for bible thumpers.
1 squishles 2019-03-11
if your gay sex ends in a baby, I'm not sure I want the wrath of god from you aborting it falling on my continent either >.>
1 DrPessimism 2019-03-11
Was this because of Drumpf too?
1 Psyman2 2019-03-11
Everything is.
Even BelleAriel is the spawn of one of his affairs.
1 BeiberFan123 2019-03-11
The only reason republicans don’t have 70% of Latino voters is cause they don’t want to give out welfare. Otherwise Dems would be fucked.
1 [deleted] 2019-03-11
[deleted]
1 TheLordHighExecu 2019-03-11
laughs in farm subsidies
1 BeiberFan123 2019-03-11
Those are pretty old.
Pretty sure those are continuations of Democrat policies. Like min wage and black people being 1/8 a white person.
1 aX10mAt1CaL1Y 2019-03-11
His point is that they have no problem handing out welfare to companies. It’s just poor people they hate. Farmers are like the poorest businessmen around but still a business.
1 MemesOfTheResistance 2019-03-11
You seem retarded
1 aX10mAt1CaL1Y 2019-03-11
No I
1 apocolyptictodd 2019-03-11
No it must be drumpf. Everyone knows how interested he is in Mexico’s domestic social issues. /s
1 Zac1245 2019-03-11
Rongleeeeeee Glumpfffffff is destroying the US and Mexico. Next is Guatemala.
1 Heyjoe1818 2019-03-11
As wise words said white women are the white men of the oppressed
1 rbsh123 2019-03-11
f they caught us.
1 cernbro 2019-03-11
Doesn’t TwoX routinely defend Islamic oppression of women tho? 🤔🤔🤔
1 bbshabob 2019-03-11
Genuine question with all this precedent is it even possible for Trump to overturn all of it?
1 Zac1245 2019-03-11
Trump is gonna overturn Mexican law?
1 bbshabob 2019-03-11
*sigh
I am specifically talking about American law and precedent
1 Zac1245 2019-03-11
Ok but what’s that gotta do with Mexico bro.
1 bbshabob 2019-03-11
Nothing, i'm just wondering if the hysterical loons in that sub who talk about Trump outlawing abortion constantly actually have a reason to be upset.
1 Zac1245 2019-03-11
Idk. Has Dongle Blumpf tried to outlaw abortion.
1 VidiotGamer 2019-03-11
I'm sorry, but how can you be so stupid? Since when can a President overturn a supreme court ruling?
1 bbshabob 2019-03-11
My point exactly
1 Dr-Dingleberry-PhD 2019-03-11
The Donald is planning on assassinating all remaining Supreme Court justices, confirmed
1 2938_throwd 2019-03-11
I think they are saying he’ll expand the number of seats. Which is too retarded of an approach, even for him.
Guess which side has actually floated the idea though?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-need-a-plan-b-for-the-supreme-court-heres-one-option/2018/07/27/4c77fd4e-91a6-11e8-b769-e3fff17f0689_story.html?utm_term=.44e515b041e0
1 Psyman2 2019-03-11
Look at it from this angle: No.
There's nothing too low for him. Or too high. Or too sideways.
Dude is a walking, talking drama machine. If it would explode people's heads you can bet he's going to at least ponder about it publicly with at least five cameras watching.
1 darkfrost47 2019-03-11
Most famously it was FDR who threatened to do it to pass the New Deal. He's probably the only president in history who could have gotten away with it without tanking his career though.
1 Sarge_Ward 2019-03-11
Not true. FDR was merely trying to bring back an idea which had already been tried in tested in the Civil War by Lincoln.
It had precedent before FDR, though to be fair only in the most extreme strain on America in history
1 muffler_kek 2019-03-11
It was basically impossible for him to lose, his opposition sperged out, “FDR IS A COMMIE REEEEEE”
1 -Shank- 2019-03-11
Including Clarence Thomas since he's old and black anyway
1 JurijFedorov 2019-03-11
Fucking Americans. Do they think other countries don't have leaders?
1 JollyOllyMansFatDick 2019-03-11
Not the brown ones
1 Firnin 2019-03-11
To the woke city dwelling American, only America has agency, and everything that happens in the world is due to America being bad
1 validoman 2019-03-11
What’s this Mexico doing something right? Surprising
1 throwaway_999912 2019-03-11
A state in a backward country abolishing abortion? Surprising!!
1 Vladith 2019-03-11
The narcissism of Americans really is astonishing, and every one of us battles with it. Not only do we assume everybody else knows about our culture and politics, we also assume that they care.
1 high_side 2019-03-11
They do I am sure of it.
1 dongslayer6669 2019-03-11
Tell weebs about how conservative Japan is and you'll see their unkemped heads explode
1 Vladith 2019-03-11
I think the conservatism and the toleration of pedo degeneracy is what draws most weebs, actually
1 dongslayer6669 2019-03-11
You've never seen a weeb talk about how "progressive" they are and how Japan would be perfect for them?
1 LightUmbra 2019-03-11
50% of weebs are alt-right virgins. The other 50% are progressive virgins.
1 PresidentYang 2019-03-11
1 drkitteh 2019-03-11
I can't blame them for thinking that given all the assblasted yuropoors acting like experts on American culture and politics on Reddit.
1 XhotwheelsloverX 2019-03-11
Dude abortion lamayo
--TwoX
1 wonderful_wonton 2019-03-11
While it is true that the US provides significant global influence in human rights abuses of countries that aspire to international standing as some kind of Western-appropriate civil society, it's notably refused to do jack shit when it comes to women's rights, treating acid-burning, honor killing, forcing children to have rape babies, gender apartheid etc.. as "cultural" preferences of societies.
Also, 3rd wave feminism has abandoned womens' rights that are seen as trans-exclusive and have focused heavily on enforcing and celebrating anatomy-unspecific rights of those who identify as women.
It's inevitable that those of us who possess uteruses (uteri?) would see steep loss of reproductive rights and I've been saying this for a long time (leading me to get banned from that TwoX echo chamber and other so-called feminist subreddits).
1 loli_esports 2019-03-11
Is it men, Trump/the US, or Christians?
1 Ace4929 2019-03-11
WTF I loce Trump now
Inshallah
1 Diabetic_T-Rex 2019-03-11
All of this but completely, 100% unironically.
1 Ace4929 2019-03-11
Thats what I was going for yea
1 Pukalo_Reincarnate 2019-03-11
Nice chuckle to start the day.
1 queerjihad 2019-03-11
This is why need a femicide
1 GuillotinesNOW 2019-03-11
Amerifats sure are full of themselves. I mean, they're still full of high fructose corn syrup and trans fats, but also themselves.
1 calciu 2019-03-11
...build that wall?
1 Dopella 2019-03-11
Imagine unironically naming a state after a shitty dog breed.
1 wow___justwow 2019-03-11
literally and objectively false.
1 lascanto 2019-03-11
Wait isn’t Mexico like a primarily catholic nation? Wouldn’t abortion prohibition be more likely in Mexico than in the United States of Atheism
1 Mikhail_Tolstykh 2019-03-11
"you're not entitled to sex, sweety! but WTF WOMEN ARE ENTITLED TO ABORTIONS WE LIVE IN A PATRIARCHAL REALITY!"
1 MightiestEwok 2019-03-11
IT MUST BE DRUMPF!!
1 estonianman 2019-03-11
I’m pro-choice but people that brag about having the right to kill a baby are cringe
1 Tzar-Romulus 2019-03-11
Anybody who brags about abortion should be post-birth aborted.
1 estonianman 2019-03-11
Agreed. The only reason I am pro choice is because I understand that the black market would pick-up demand
But I hate the debate, and people that use abortion in place of birth control are cancer
1 Unreal_Ale 2019-03-11
México City state pretty much has the most liberal abortion laws in the world, they have on-demand abortion up to 16 weeks, so even if some states outlaw abortion its still available to any Mexican woman who can afford a bus ride to the capital.
1 Magehunter_Skassi 2019-03-11
(((america))) hypnotizing the world as usual..
1 high_side 2019-03-11
Foids assume "state" refers to US state on a largely American sub.
One tries to cover (since terfs are never wrong) by saying the US is relevant because world leader.
/r/drama is flooded with eurotrash mad that the world leader comment is narcisisstic when it was just a shitty cover.
1 monderigon 2019-03-11
And the answer was... shuffles cards Catholicism
1 AsianVinylEnthusiast 2019-03-11
It's almost like basically every country south of the US is hardcore catholic.
1 Dawknight 2019-03-11
Shit I'm banned there.
1 primph 2019-03-11
Sorry you can’t execute your child anymore really feel for you man
1 wateronthebrain 2019-03-11
10,000 IQ
1 VidiotGamer 2019-03-11
Finally got banned from TwoX(Y)
Here is the comment that did it.