Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Randalor posted:

Jesus Christ the 2nd amendment was the worst thing to come out of the US, and that's including the racism at this point.

It's one and the same since the 2nd amendment exists solely because of racism

Kalit fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Mar 27, 2023

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Kammat posted:

Could you expand on this? I'm familiar with gun control laws only becoming popular when the "wrong people" started carrying, but I'm honestly stumped figuring out the racial angle on the 2nd.

Here's a good article about it: https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002107670/historian-uncovers-the-racist-roots-of-the-2nd-amendment

TLDR: It exists because land owners feared a slave revolt and thought the federal government would take too long to, or wouldn't, respond

Kalit fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Mar 27, 2023

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Dick Trauma posted:

DeSantis is scheduled to be at this gun store on Thursday to push his book. :patriot:

Sadly, it will probably help with DeSantis' popularity as he complains about big government picking on local businesses

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Judgy Fucker posted:

I think that's leaping to the most extreme possible interpretation of what they said.

I agree with them to be honest. It sure appears as if the gun violence crisis--really, multiple different kinds of crises that all go back to guns--is not going to be resolved through normal political means. There will need to be, at least, sustained nationwide demonstrations on par with what we're seeing in France and Israel right now in order to even begin to move the needle.

Looks like it's time, once again, to point to the example of Australia. This time with assistance from John Oliver! I have even queued up the link for the inevitable "America is different" argument:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0FLsIzNxkI&t=839s

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Judgy Fucker posted:

Respectfully, that is not at all convincing. It does not address the myriad systemic issues--both cultural and political--that make America a vastly different situation than Australia.
:allears: Thanks for proving my point so quickly

Judgy Fucker posted:

As a specific example, the speed with which they passed their gun control legislation. Of course it only took a few months, Australia has a parliamentary system where a government can do poo poo like that. They don't have to worry about divided government or a filibuster (at the very least) when legislating.
....how does this prevent us from passing gun control related laws? And do you think that a parliamentary system makes it impossible to have a divided government?

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Technically, yes. A parliamentary system has the executive and legislative branch within a single elected body, so it is literally impossible to have a divided government where the executive and legislative branches are controlled by different people.

Thanks for the explanation, maybe I had a different idea of the term divided government. I was thinking of a divided government within the same branch, i.e. Australia's Senate and House of Representatives. This is how it was always referred to as within my state of MN, so I assumed this was the correct usage of the term.

Kalit fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Mar 27, 2023

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Judgy Fucker posted:

How did I do that, exactly? It's not a logical fallacy to say that the U.S. is different from Australia both socially and politically. Why is it logical to assume that something that worked in Australia will definitely work in the U.S.?

Oh, you don't know what you're talking about. Okay, then.

You never answered the question and are ignoring the fact that the Australian government can have split control of the legislative branch, like they currently do. Let me rephrase my question.

Since we've seen the US government pass meaningful gun control legislation in the recent past (Federal Assault Weapons Ban), why do you think that our government structure is what holds us back from passing gun control laws similar to Australia?

Or, to the larger point that started this derail, why do you think our government structure is what makes it impossible to get it to the point where we can see a meaningful difference in gun deaths in our country?

Kalit fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Mar 27, 2023

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Judgy Fucker posted:

Why is this a derail? We're discussing a US-centered current event :confused:

The structure of our government prevents us from passing meaningful gun control legislation because it is purposefully undemocratic. It is willfully structured so that minority rule prevails. There are enough powerful, minority interests who do not want any kind of gun control legislation to pass, ever. What happened to that assault weapons ban, by the way?

If you want to know how or why I've come to my position, here's a question for you: if it's so easy Australia did it, why is meaningful gun control legislation not being passed in the U.S. right now? or even since the ban was repealed?

And besides, you're arguing the affirmative here. You prove your case on how it'd be so simple to do, and please be a bit more thorough in your explanation than posting a four-minute infotainment clip.

Good point about this not being a derail, whoops.

Our structure of government is not a true democracy, absolutely. But, as history as shown, we can still pass gun control laws. I never said it's simple/easy/etc. But you were making the argument that it's impossible because of it.

To correct your statement, I wouldn't say Australia easily did it. IIRC, they passed it by one vote by a conservative who threw away his political career for it. A more accurate stating would probably be they had the correct politicians in office at the correct time.

Another correction is the Federal Assault Weapons Ban wasn't repealed, it was expired and wasn't renewed. Which ends in the same result of the ban, but I think its important to show that it wasn't because of an extremely strong rebuke of that law.

For your question about the USA, gun control legislation isn't being passed for a myriad of reasons. Off the top of my head, the leading causes is probably something along the lines of:
  • The gun lobby is still really powerful
  • The second amendment makes the ideological discussion for gun control harder (but, as we know, SCOTUS has placed limitations on 2A)
  • Guns are [incorrectly] viewed as a useful tool for protection. While historically this was much more common in the right leaning communities, it's been taken off recently in the left leaning communities

To your point about government structure in general, I could maybe throw the makeup of the senate in that list too. However, I think that's secondary to those other 3 points. If those other 3 points shift among the general populace, I imagine a lot more centrist (D & R) politicians would happily vote for gun control laws.

Once again, I never said it was simple, but I think it absolutely is possible to pass major changes through our federal government. And I know this is true because we've seen it in the recent past.

Kalit fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Mar 27, 2023

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Fister Roboto posted:

Feel free to offer any reason that people shouldn't think that our politicians have failed to address this issue for literally decades.

What exactly do you mean here? What level of government do you mean by "our politicians" (i.e. local/state/federal)? What does "failing to address this [gun control] issue" mean to you?

We've seen politicians at every level of government pass gun control legislature in the last ~30 years, so that's why I'm confused on what you're asking.

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

CuddleCryptid posted:

The large problem with "stopping" shootings is that you can't, at least not entirely. There are dozens of things you can do to minimize shootings such as safe storage laws, domestic violence gun revocation, and mental health services expansion. But none of those truly *prevent* shootings one hundred percent and that makes them sound like half measures, meaning they get very little play. Ultimately if someone is motivated enough then they could do it, because it is a cultural problem, not a legislative one.

People don't want to hear "this will cut shootings by 80%", because that isn't far enough. But even if you go full on "the police keep us safe, melt all privately held guns in America" confiscation (which will never happen) then there will *still* be at least some shootings from the people who are still allowed to have guns.

The only way to actually fix this is a fundamental shift in how we interact with firearms as a culture and good loving luck on that.

I’m confused on who your post is directed at. Are you directing this at a poster ITT or saying that the populace don’t care about gun safety if it’s not 100% effective, but otherwise would? Or someone else?

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Most marijuana legalization at the state level is either dead or frozen in place until 2024, but Delaware has kind of come out of nowhere and passed a bill to legalize marijuana recreationally very quickly.

The Governor hasn't said whether he will sign it or not, but the legislature also passed it with a veto-proof majority.

https://twitter.com/kylejaeger/status/1640815702100807680

Don’t forget about MN :colbert: We’re moving right along since the DFL finally regained state control: https://www.marijuanamoment.net/minnesota-lawmakers-approve-marijuana-legalization-bill-with-overhaul-amendment-in-house-committee/

No idea how long before everything gets ironed out, but at least they’re being thorough. And it doesn’t sound like there will be any hold out votes in either our House or Senate

Kalit fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Mar 29, 2023

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

True. They haven't actually passed anything yet, though. I'm not familiar with the progress on that specific issue in MN; do you know if it is likely to pass? I believe it has passed committees there before, but ended up dying.

It never went anywhere previously because we’ve had a split controlled legislature for a while. The DFL finally got full control of it this year.

While they only have +1 in the Senate, I haven’t heard of any holdouts. The main DFL leaders/Governor Walz (and Jesse Ventura, of course) have been very outspoken about getting this passed. And it’s gone through like 13 committees already since the beginning of the year, I think? So it seems to be flying through with changes being made here and there, but nothing that’s been majorly opposed by any DFL members AFAIK.

Based on these things, I would say yes, it's very likely to pass

Kalit fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Mar 30, 2023

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Slashrat posted:

Whatever she has been up to, trying to get back at her by charging a 13-year old with terrorism over posting a jpeg is loving vile.

Eh, put me in the skeptical camp until there’s an actual charge filed…

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Skex posted:

DeSantis tricked and basically kidnapped and human trafficked immigrants to score political points, arrested people for voting and engaged in countless petty abuses of power to punish his political enemies,

Wtf would you give that Nazi piece of poo poo the benefit of the doubt?

It’s not trust in DeSantis, but distrust in an extremely far fetched story (in multiple ways) by someone who has lied a lot

For the biggest specific reason why I’m skeptical: how has no news outlet printed a story on this? It shouldn’t be hard to confirm a 13 year old that was arrested and has since been in custody for nearly 12 hours

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

XboxPants posted:

If you're looking for more details, most of the info seems to be coming from local Florida outlet Pensacola News Journal: https://www.pnj.com/story/news/crim...ns/70088634007/

They claim the son has been put on home detention with a monitor, and have specific quotes about wanting to do a school shooting that are allegedly from him. I get how it would have been scary as gently caress for the mom, but unless this is being wildly misrepresented, it looks like this is the system functioning as we would want it to. Or at least, it's better than ignoring it when kids are making threats to shoot up a school.

Yea, that sounds about right, thanks for posting this link.

So much for the whole “my kid was kidnapped for domestic terrorism for sharing a meme about lazy cops” story :rolleyes:

Kalit fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Apr 6, 2023

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Vahakyla posted:

DADT was an improvement.

While you’re not 100% wrong with this statement, there was no reason why it couldn’t have been “queer people are allowed to serve in the military”. It didn’t even need legislative support. Hell, I was a child when it was implemented and I still knew it was a bullshit policy.

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Tiny Timbs posted:

Sorry, but in what way are they any percent wrong?

I can rephrase: “While you’re technically correct, DADT was still a very homophobic policy that could have just not existed”

7c Nickel posted:

Have you considered that as a child you didn't actually have the best grasp of what was going on? Bill Clinton campaigned on "“queer people are allowed to serve in the military” but there was bipartisan support for a total ban being pushed by the Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. They didn't cut it down to DADT for no reason.

You should read up more on Clinton’s stances before tooting his horn too much: https://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/clinton-documents-gays-in-the-military-111784

quote:

Clinton heard strong disagreement from Powell and the other chiefs. Marine Commandant Gen. Carl Mundy may have been the most strident opponent of allowing gays to serve openly. Quoting someone involved in a Queer Nation parade, Mundy said people associated with “gay pride” are licentious and unconstrained by law or morality. Mundy, who died earlier this year, also suggested that announcing “I’m gay” was the “same as I’m KKK, Nazi, rapist,” the notes show.

Answering some of Mundy’s concerns, Clinton said a “disqualifying act” could go beyond sex acts. “People I would like to keep [in the military] wouldn’t show up at a Queer Nation parade,” the president said.

quote:

Gore added that he thought Mundy was “borderline in his presentation,” especially when he compared gays to Nazis.

Clinton did not agree with Gore that Mundy’s remarks were out of line, the notes say, adding that he thought the Marine commandant “meant it well.”

Kalit fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Apr 7, 2023

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Nelson Mandingo posted:

Rebekah Jones is not a perfect witness and definitely has some personal life issues*. I'm still in the camp of "Trust, but verify" but it's absolutely looking more and more like this was another deliberately targeted attack at her.

I congratulate her on the upcoming financial settlement. "State forcefully child away from parent for petty politics" is not going to go well for the state if they let it get to a jury trial.


edit: Personal life issues that would make a CPS action a believable notion that is**

Umm... you might want to look at the news article XboxPants posted in the last page or two. Especially when it comes to that "forcefully takes child away" part:

quote:

Santa Rosa Sheriff’s Office investigators called the boy’s mother, Rebekah Jones, who said the family was vacationing in Mississippi but would call investigators when she returned. During the interview, Rebekah Jones confirmed there were no guns in the residents and the only weapons were kitchen knives, which she has stored in a locked box.

SRSO spokeswoman Jillian Durkin said Jones turned her son in to the Sheriff's Office.

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Oracle posted:

The gently caress is this? What kind of site are you linking to?

Seriously, this rear end in a top hat (lil poopendorfer) deserves to be threadbanned (or forumbanned) for stupid poo poo like this. I tried reporting the post, but it was already reported. But since it’s in such bad faith, I want to emphasize it, which is why I’m posting about posters

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Kalit fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Apr 8, 2023

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Charlz Guybon posted:

She must have an angle. Retiring? Or trying to get ahead of demographic changes in her district? Would seem fatal in a primary. :thunk:

https://twitter.com/MollyJongFast/status/1645404122202374144

On a brief lookup, it seems in line with what she's said in the recent past and realizes how damaging this issue can be to the Republican party in general.

From August: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/07/republicans-abortion-nancy-mace-midterms-00050229

quote:

GOP Congresswoman Nancy Mace on Sunday warned that Republicans could pay a price in November if they don’t reel in extreme takes on abortion policy.

The Republican from South Carolina supports the overturning of Roe v. Wade but criticized bans that states have implemented that take measures such as preventing a person traveling out of state for care or include no exceptions for rape or incest.

From January: https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/nancy-mace-says-gop-needs-show-balance-abortion-rcna74276

quote:

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) said she thinks abortion is the reason why Republicans did not pick up a larger majority in the House, urging lawmakers to find middle ground on the issue.

“It’s the reason we didn’t get more of a majority,” Mace said to Chuck Todd on NBC’s “Meet The Press” on Sunday. “We should have had a dozen or two dozen seat majority this legislative session but we don’t because this is one of the issues that was top of mind for swing voters.”

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

InsertPotPun posted:

texas passed a 6 week ban but left the "criminalizing" up to their citizens bypassing the whole "state punishment" thing in a very very obvious way. they set up the system and handed out the tools for punishment but never punished anyone themselves. this led to RvsW being overturned right? the state did criminalize abortions but outsourced the punishment. to me that's a direct non-compliance because it set up the overturn by passing laws contrary to the previous ruling.
to me that's enough to say texas was ignoring established law.
again i think we agree on most of this stuff. i just don't think it's as settled as "they accept rulings they don't like"

Since there seems to be some confusion, let me try reiterating it a different way. In general, Republicans want to severely restrict and/or ban abortion. However, every time they passed a state/local law that got struck down by a federal judge for being in violation of Roe v Wade, they have never raised a middle finger and said “we’re still going to enforce this law”.

Of course they’re going to try to get around the law. Everyone does that with a law they disagree with. It’s a natural part of the system, since laws do (and should) have limitations. But that’s still abiding by a judge’s ruling on the previous attempt that was found in violation of said law

Kalit fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Apr 10, 2023

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006
I still wonder how the meat/dairy industry pulled off getting almonds to be the biggest focus on CA water usage instead of alfalfa. Congrats to them, I guess it worked :sigh:

*I don’t want to single out a single post, but I’m talking about how a lot of posts in the past page or two talking about water usage are overwhelmingly focused on almonds without mentioning alfalfa

Kalit fucked around with this message at 12:23 on Apr 12, 2023

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Gyges posted:

It's most likely less the meat industry, more conservatives trying to own almond milk loving liberals. The topline numbers are always going to make almonds look worse than alfalfa just because nuts are a ridiculously inefficient crop from a water usage perspective. So everyone agrees to throw all the shade on almonds while everyone else continues to guzzle the rivers dry.

It's the usual thing where it's way easier for the lay person to identify the various composite parts of the problem than it is to identify the overall foundation of the problem itself. Almonds aren't single-handedly draining the river, the F-23 isn't why the Military budget is FUBAR, 6-pack rings aren't the foundation of ocean pollution, and earmarks aren't the true bane of wasteful government spending.

TBH, I don't think generic conservatives are smart enough, or care enough, to do it. For a while it seemed like all of the media outlets were heavily focused on things along the lines of "CA drought is being heavily exasperated by all of these almonds!!!!". If conservatives wanted to own the libs, they would do what they always do, which is to blame minorities for the problem.

E: And as silence_kit alluded to, the story changes a lot when you look at it from a calorie perspective. At a quick glance of https://www.watercalculator.org/water-footprint-of-food-guide/, almonds use only slightly more water than, for example, milk. Per thousand calories, it's ~737 gallons of water for almonds and ~644 gallons of water for milk. Once you start looking at things like cheese/meat/etc, it's a higher water usage.

Kalit fucked around with this message at 13:46 on Apr 12, 2023

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Nelson Mandingo posted:

And this is exactly why lab-ground meat is going to eventually overtake and replace animal husbandry in my opinion. It'll just be significantly more efficient and cost-effective. The problem right now is simple production pipeline issues.

TBH, humanity will probably be dead from climate change before lab grown is the default meat source on a global level

E: To add more context, I would love for lab-grown meat to take off like crazy, it would be so much better for everything climate related. However, it's such a slow development process and will take forever for it to even have a decent market share in the US. And then having that spread from the US (and/or wherever else) to the rest of the world that won't be able to afford to manufacture it

And that's not even taking people's attitudes/skepticism into account

Kalit fucked around with this message at 14:26 on Apr 12, 2023

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Sub Par posted:

The doomerism on cultured meats (and things with technological solutions and viable proofs-of-concept already existing, generally) strikes me as really weird and shortsighted. If the past 200 years has taught us anything about humanity's capacity for invention, it is that we routinely develop and scale things that were thought just one generation before to be impossible or unworkably complex

My doomerism is because when it comes to human invention, including all of the items you listed, it always prioritizes convenience over everything, especially environmental impact. Now hey, maybe we’re finally focusing on the environment enough. But that’s not a bet I’d be willing to make.

On top of that, IRL I mostly hear about lab grown meat from people who resist eating less meat*. Which I feel like is a deflection mechanism in those people. So I’m admittedly biased in that regard

*This is absolutely not directed at you, as you already clearly stated you are veg

Kalit fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Apr 12, 2023

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Automata 10 Pack posted:

Why can’t politicians do this for cool poo poo? 😔

Here are politicians from my state doing some cool poo poo:
https://twitter.com/JacobWNewton/status/1633972364915376129
https://twitter.com/MNHouseInfo/status/1639210462456999938

Kalit fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Apr 14, 2023

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

FizFashizzle posted:

If that’s the case then Kavanaugh is gonna start hitting the throttle on something a little stronger than beer.

He's probably too busy doing keg stands to be focused on coming up with fraudulent schemes. However, if people start looking into drinking on the job, it might become an issue for him...

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

FizFashizzle posted:

Remember how Kavanaugh very clearly was laundering bribes through Washington nationals tickets and everyone was just kinda like “meh.”

Hah, I actually missed that. I guess sports-related fraudulent schemes would seem up his alley.

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Morrow posted:

Like it or not if there's a violent revolution in the US it will be the far right taking the reins.

Has this happened in the history of the US? Every example I can think of ends up with law changes in favor of the left and not the right (slavery, civil rights, etc). Unless you don't count those as revolutions, I suppose.

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Morrow posted:

It's pretty decisive that those were not revolutions: those were top down reforms imposed by the federal government after abolitionists/Civil rights activists successfully lobbied and took power through democratic means.

Saying those things happened because of activists lobbying and taking power through "democratic means" is an odd way to describe the mass violence that occurred, but okay.

Kalit fucked around with this message at 14:43 on Apr 29, 2023

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Cool NIN Shirt posted:

I think the talk about murdering people was all bluster, as evidenced by the fact that they didn’t murder anyone.

Talking about wanting to murder a politician and actually doing it are far different.

They did kill a capitol police officer, it's not that far of a leap to think they would have also killed a politician had they gotten their hands on one...

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

TheDeadlyShoe posted:

That is fair and defensible, but the jan 6 rioters being united by hating democracy doesn't proceed automatically to Murder Death Kill.

What are you talking about? They killed a capitol police officer...

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Space Cadet Omoly posted:

I blows my mind that with all the mass shootings that take place in America every day, where a person brings a gun to a building and murders ton of people all at once, that anyone could look at the Jan. 6 riots where a bunch of people brought a bunch of guns to a building and think "Yeah, there was clearly no way anyone could have been killed that day".

Seriously. It also blows my mind that some people ITT already forgot that they did kill someone that day.

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

cat botherer posted:

But you repeat yourself,

I’d love for you to explain how capitalists are equivalent to fascists

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

WebDO posted:

Who in Utah do you imagine is smart enough to know what a VPN is but isn't smart enough to move out of that poo poo hole state?

Utah is absolutely gorgeous and has a million outdoor things to do. You should check it out sometime

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Fister Roboto posted:

That's right.

e: but seriously there's no reason to jump immediately to openly talking about violence when there's a whole spectrum of action that hasn't even been tried. The Floyd protests were a step in the right direction, but that energy seems to have completely dried up after Biden was elected.

Just a reminder that the Floyd protests absolutely did get violent in Minneapolis. 2 people died in burning buildings here

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

cat botherer posted:

PETA is ideologically opposed to pets (having a dog is akin to slavery), so in their twisted logic it can actually be more ethical to just kill them instead of consigning them to a lifetime of slavery/belly rubs.

I’m not a PETA fan, but their ideologies aren’t anywhere near this stupid: https://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/pets/

Kalit fucked around with this message at 21:20 on May 12, 2023

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Ghost Leviathan posted:

I also feel like it's part of the problem with those deranged rear end trump threads that liberals get more obsessed with trump than his own followers are and at the expense of literally everything else.

Trump is a symptom of the problem, he is not the source and getting rid of him will not fix it.

Can you expand on this with specific examples? TBH, I barely knew Trump had some town hall with CNN. And after I found out, I saw a headline with Anderson Cooper essentially saying “please don’t watch this”*

*I think the literal wording was closer to “I don’t blame you if you don’t watch this”

Kalit fucked around with this message at 05:25 on May 14, 2023

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Ghost Leviathan posted:

I'm still loving shocked that people were watching Trump's speeches in this very forum. And then complaining about their mental health issues. Don't need to dunk your head in the sewer to confirm it still tastes like poo poo.

So…because there were some people in D&D watching Trump’s speeches, you’re making the claim that

Ghost Leviathan posted:

liberals get more obsessed with trump than his own followers are

???? Sounds like you’re doing some heavy projecting, TBH…

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Kalit
Nov 6, 2006

Baronash posted:

No, the original point being made was this:

And that is just wrong. I literally just posted an example of a party with a minority of votes holding onto dominating power by having previously bent government processes to their will. That is in direct conflict with the stated understanding of power, so yeah, I'm calling it wrong. If you want to say that the only way that was possible was they had the votes at some point in the past to make those changes, then you're basically just making my point, which, again, is this:

Do you think the Democratic party can achieve more [lasting] power without getting more votes? Do you think that Republicans will continue maintaining their current level of power if they keep getting less votes?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply