Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I would agree to that work no qualms.Our current political system is a train wreck coming from both sides.
Not that is is possible, but are you open to compromise.
I would be willing to (from politics) eliminate Trump Jordan and Gaets if my Democrat friends would be willing to eliminate Biden, Nadler and Schiff.
These six are the biggest source of hatred and division.
This will never happen, but I thought it was an interesting hypothetical
I have been looking into the people who are running on the republican side for president and some seem willing to pass a federal ban that would go along the lines of some of those state bans. I would support a federal "ban" that gave states a limit to say for example no state may allow abortion after this point, but I do feel that early term abortions should be legal as a matter of safety so you will not have women going into the back alley or otherwise seeking abortions in unsafe ways/conditions but there should be strict time lines and maybe even stricter limits on who may prescribe/preform them.All it takes is one decision for folks to respect the US Supreme Court.
Yes, this was a HUGE decision, probably more significant than the overthrow of Roe. The House is now likely to become and stay Democratic for years to come. And yes, Kavanaugh is turning out to be a much better choice than we expected.
Even Ginzburg disagreed with the Roe decision. Abortion is an issue for legislation, now by the states. However, there certainly could be federal legislation. The Democrats FAILED to pass such legislation when they had the power to do so (when they had signifcant majorities in the House and Senate).
Getting rid of Manchin today does not mean passed legislature of the last few years would need to be given back. We don't owe Manchin anything - he was getting his cash from from the coal industry, and now that the coal industry is dying, WV is dying too. Manchin can't save them.So you all would give back ALL the Biden successes just to have your wish of a representative senator in West Virginia (Republican is a state that was the most Trump state in the nation).
I acknowledge all that we owe Manchin.
This is assuming "the same thing is going on in both sides"Our current political system is a train wreck coming from both sides.
Not that is is possible, but are you open to compromise.
I would be willing to (from politics) eliminate Trump Jordan and Gaets if my Democrat friends would be willing to eliminate Biden, Nadler and Schiff.
These six are the biggest source of hatred and division.
This will never happen, but I thought it was an interesting hypothetical
Our current political system is a train wreck coming from both sides.
Not that is is possible, but are you open to compromise.
I would be willing to (from politics) eliminate Trump Jordan and Gaets if my Democrat friends would be willing to eliminate Biden, Nadler and Schiff.
These six are the biggest source of hatred and division.
This will never happen, but I thought it was an interesting hypothetical
Because you cant.Why not get rid of both parties?
Or MMP where it doesn't just come down to two parties. Parties need to form coalitions to form government. The "american" experiment is a disaster of a system. Which results in extreme partisanship and often gridlock.Because you cant.
We have an electoral system that naturally games out to a 2 party right vs left contest. If you scrap Ds and Rs, they'll very quickly be replaced by the same thing under different names.
Want some different parties? Change the game. Ranked preference type voting is one way.
Yeah, individual politicians, while influential, are merely a symptom of the problem. Getting rid of them solves nothing - unless you work to fix the system that spawned them, a similar (or worse) replacement will rise up to take their place.Getting rid of this or that politician is not that important.
Abolish gerrymandered legislative districts. Now there's a compromise I could support.
If I were in Congress, I'd support that compromise. But only if another compromise would be passed: Donald Trump's southern border wall and security package would be enacted in full. And in return, the law would allow for undocumented immigrants, who've been living and working in the US for years and have otherwise clean records, to register, receive legal resident alien status, and eventually become eligible for citizenship. The template for this already exists. It's Senate Bill 744 of 2013. Which passed the Senate 68-32 in 2013. (This means that 15 Republicans voted for it along with 53 Democrats.) And Pres. Obama agreed to sign it. But the House--in Republican hands--refused to even give it a hearing. They said it was an amnesty. But what's wrong with an amnesty that must be earned and includes very tight border security over the long term?Our current political system is a train wreck coming from both sides.
Not that is is possible, but are you open to compromise.
I would be willing to (from politics) eliminate Trump Jordan and Gaets if my Democrat friends would be willing to eliminate Biden, Nadler and Schiff.
These six are the biggest source of hatred and division.
This will never happen, but I thought it was an interesting hypothetical
What a border wall would need to be (to stand the test of time), is a six-lane, interstate Highway laying on its side; that sounds like a good idea?If I were in Congress, I'd support that compromise. But only if another compromise would be passed: Donald Trump's southern border wall and security package would be enacted in full. And in return, the law would allow for undocumented immigrants, who've been living and working in the US for years and have otherwise clean records, to register, receive legal resident alien status, and eventually become eligible for citizenship. The template for this already exists. It's Senate Bill 744 of 2013. Which passed the Senate 68-32 in 2013. (This means that 15 Republicans voted for it along with 53 Democrats.) And Pres. Obama agreed to sign it. But the House--in Republican hands--refused to even give it a hearing. They said it was an amnesty. But what's wrong with an amnesty that must be earned and includes very tight border security over the long term?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/744
Well MMP is a re-write of our system of govt. I was just trying to think of election process solutions that dont require massive constitutional editing. Maine, for example, has already done RCV.Or MMP where it doesn't just come down to two parties. Parties need to form coalitions to form government. The "american" experiment is a disaster of a system. Which results in extreme partisanship and often gridlock.
All the Mainers I've talked to don't like RCV.Well MMP is a re-write of our system of govt. I was just trying to think of election process solutions that dont require massive constitutional editing. Maine, for example, has already done RCV.
Well I dont think any system is going to overcome people's disinterest in understanding the basics of politics or political systems. Thats the other half of a solution: people caring enough to put in just a little more effort than they might at the Sonic drive up menu.All the Mainers I've talked to don't like RCV.
A) They don't understand what the point is or really how it even works.
B) The candidates are still lousy, as while the 2-party system in not an inherent part of a RCV ballot, it is so deeply culturally ingrained that it is an inherent part of the people filling out the ballots.
Not against RCV at all, but it's going to take a lot of states doing it and a lot more education on the subject for it to start making a noticeable difference.
What a border wall would need to be (to stand the test of time), is a six-lane, interstate Highway laying on its side; that sounds like a good idea?
USA can keep its constitution, that's kind of ok.Well MMP is a re-write of our system of govt. I was just trying to think of election process solutions that dont require massive constitutional editing. Maine, for example, has already done RCV.
I strongly disagree.The American political class has replaced compromise with zero sum incrementalism, where wins (no matter how small) are what is important and nothing is ever ceded to the "enemy" .
How generous of you.USA can keep its constitution, that's kind of ok.
Irrelevant. The Declaration of Independence has no legal power. It never set any structure for government or rights. It was merely a resolution declaring that the 13 colonies were independent states.They need to remove references to god from the declaration of independence, so that all people are included not just Christians.
Gerrymandering has nothing to do with the electoral (college) system. "Alternative slates of electors" are not actually legal and criminal charges related to them are likely to happen eventually.They need to get rid of the electoral system so that gerrymandering and this shenanigans about an alternative slate of electors is done away with. Trump just wants the Republican electors to vote for him and to ignore the votes of the people.
The 2ne amendment isn't the problem. People who can't read it are the problem. 18 states can block any amendment and there are definitely 18 to stop this proposal. It is a dead letter and not worth discussing. It also has nothing to do with the structure of government.They should do away with the second amendment. Firearms should be a privilege not a right.
I thought you were letting us keep our constitution. The so-called "mid-term" elections are just Congressional elections that take place at the midpoint of a presidential term. (Frankly, I don't like the term.) One-third of the Senate and all of the House are elected every 2 years. "Mid-term" elections can't be done away with without some radical restructuring of the legislature of the United States.They should do away with mid term elections, it causes gridlock.
Parties can change their leaders anytime they want, and the often do. Most party leaders are relatively unknown. I forget who the Democrats' leader is right now. (The Republicans' leader is Ronna something or other.)They should make it easier for a party to change their leadership,
O good grief, no.A Party should get elected, not a president.
O good grief, no. I thought you thought the US Constitution was "kind of ok". Now you want to rip out the first two sections and replace it with some wretched parlimentary system?If the party losses confidence in their leader they should be able to take an internal vote and oust the party leader (a.k.a the president) and replace them.
It's merely a guideline. Not much of a thing overall.They should do away with the guideline on not indicting a sitting president.
Why do you hate us so? With single member districts the reps at least nominally feel a need to represent the whole district. Multi-member districts makes everything about parties.The should go towards MMP.
It's not as many different parties as you are making out.That way the Republican party would fracture into several right wing parties. You would have the White power party, the Christian party, the White nationalist party, the far right party, the right moderate party.
I'm not sure how fragmenting parties helps prevent the election of extremists. MTG comes from a pretty conservative district, she's likely to get elected anyway. Boebert almost lost election anyway in a 2-party system.And when the votes of the people are added up, you'll see exactly what people want and the parties of significance can form a coalition. That way, people like MTG and Bobert are much less likely to get into government.
Perhaps I should also explain that in addition to the 1800 congresspersons, and since the electoral college is tied to the number of congressional seats a state holds, the power to elect a President under an electoral college will be more equitably distributed, and it’ll become harder to succeed, breeding better politicians, serving constituents (not monied interests).Let us revisit the Congressional Reapportionment Act of 1929 that permanently set the number of Representatives in the House at 435, when our population was 133,000,000?
Herding 1800 votes for this or that act would require real politicking and statesmanship; it would also open the field to new parties instead of this “my team good/your team bad” politics of the last 40 years.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?