The Supreme Court may overturn Roe v Wade according to leak

[Hardkill]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

California and New York are currently getting fucked over.

Why don't you care about that?

Actually, don't you think that there shouldn't have ever been a need for any kind of states' rights in the USA?

[Frylock]

1 minute ago, Joel3102 said:

I do, which is why I don’t think a President should get elected without the majority vote. But it’s the United *States*. Small states will basically have no say if the Senate is gone. 
 

Australia also has a Senate is 6 Senators from each state regardless of size. Works fairly well

Empty land doesn't vote. Absolutely ridiculous that South Dakota and North Dakota have the same power as California and New York.

[Joel3102]

Just now, Hardkill said:

Actually, don't you think that there shouldn't have ever been a need for any kind of states' rights in the USA?

If you wanna abolish states all together an become more like the UK, that’s a seperate argument. But given the very founding of the US is a union of states with seperate interests, that idea would be completely unrealistic

[Joel3102]

Another thing to note is the system you support completely comes down to which party you support. If it happened to be that the Senate and Electoral College favoured Democrats, there’s 0 chance liberals would be arguing against it using the same principled arguments. 

Edited June 26, 2022 by Joel3102

[Hardkill]

12 minutes ago, Joel3102 said:

If you wanna abolish states all together an become more like the UK, that’s a seperate argument. But given the very founding of the US is a union of states with seperate interests, that idea would be completely unrealistic

Obviously abolishing states' rights will never happen within the foreseeable future. However, I think that it honestly might've been a big mistake that our Founding Fathers made. 

Also, why should a state like Wyoming that has only about a 1.5% the population size of that California have as much of a say about the country as a whole?

Edited June 26, 2022 by Hardkill

[Raze]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

California and New York are currently getting fucked over.

Why don't you care about that?

How are they getting fucked over?

[Joel3102]

1 minute ago, Hardkill said:

Obviously abolishing states' rights will never happen within the foreseeable future. However, I think that it honestly might've been a big mistake that our Founding Fathers made. 

Also, why should a state like Wyoming that has only about a 1.5% the population size of that California have as much of a say about the country as a whole?

Perhaps the US founding was kinda fucked and the idea of uniting so many states with such different interests is proving to be a mistake, with the insane polarisation now. 
 

California still has a bigger say over the country obviously. There’s 53 vs 1 house seats in that case. The idea is to provide some balance to represent each states interest. Like it or not it’s not gonna change in the short or medium term.

[Frylock]

1 minute ago, Hardkill said:

Obviously abolishing states' rights will never happen within the foreseeable future. However, I think that it honestly might've been a big mistake that our Founding Fathers made. 

Also, why should a state like Wyoming that has only about a 1.5% the population size of that California have as much of a say about the country as a whole?

70% of the GDP comes from democratic counties. Red states like Wyoming and the Dakotas really contribute fuck all in the big picture but oppress the country through the senate. It's egregious, it's anti-democratic, it's stupid.

If Republicans win the house, senate, and WH, then expect a nation-wide abortion ban in 5 years. Will people actually revolt and fight a civil war? What about when gay marriage is banned as well?

[Joel3102]

2 minutes ago, Frylock said:

If Republicans win the house, senate, and WH, then expect a nation-wide abortion ban in 5 years. Will people actually revolt and fight a civil war? What about when gay marriage is banned as well?

Unlikely given the filibuster in the Senate.

[Hardkill]

21 minutes ago, Joel3102 said:

Perhaps the US founding was kinda fucked and the idea of uniting so many states with such different interests is proving to be a mistake, with the insane polarisation now. 
 

California still has a bigger say over the country obviously. There’s 53 vs 1 house seats in that case. The idea is to provide some balance to represent each states interest. Like it or not it’s not gonna change in the short or medium term.

According to this Vox article, "In 2013, the New York Times pointed out that the six senators from California, Texas, and New York represented the same number of people as the 62 senators from the smallest 31 states." This in and of itself already is already overkill with regard to balancing to representing each states interest. 

Not to mention, that most people from all the smallest 31 states combined are stupidier and more bigoted than most people from California, Texas, and New York combined. So, compared to most people in California, Texas, New York, and other big ones such as Illinois, most people in the smaller states are already too underdeveloped to be voting in major elections for the entire country.

Besides, as much as I am becoming more and more averse to the idea of states' rights, each of those smaller such as Wyoming could probably pass their own state laws that could to some extent water down any new federal laws enforced in each of their own states.

18 minutes ago, Joel3102 said:

Unlikely given the filibuster in the Senate.

Now that Roe vs. Wade has been overturned, McConnell and the Repubs in the Senate will probably carve out the filibuster to pass a nation wide abortion ban law throughout the entire country if the Repubs end up gaining control of both chambers in congress and the presidency.

Take a look at Noam Chomsky said in an interview:

"C.J. Polychroniou: Many Democrats wish to eliminate the filibuster — another Jim Crow relic — because with the wafer-thin majority that they hold it is impossible to pass into law landmark pieces of legislation. However, given today’s political climate, and with the possibility looming on the horizon that Trumpist Republicans will retake the House in 2022, aren’t there risks in abolishing the filibuster?

Noam Chomsky: It’s a concern, and it would have some weight in a functioning democracy. But a long series of Republican attacks on the integrity of Congress, culminating in McConnell’s machinations, have seriously undermined the Senate’s claim to be part of a democratic polity. If Democrats were to resort to filibuster, McConnell, who is no fool, might well find ways to use illegal procedures to ram through acts that would establish more firmly the rule of the far right, whatever the population might prefer. We saw that illustrated recently in his shenanigans with the Garland-Gorsuch Supreme Court appointments, but it goes far back."

https://chomsky.info/20210708/

 

Edited June 26, 2022 by Hardkill

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Joel3102 said:

I do, which is why I don’t think a President should get elected without the majority vote. But it’s the United *States*. Small states will basically have no say if the Senate is gone. 
 

Australia also has a Senate is 12 Senators from each state regardless of size. Works fairly well

The US has very strong minority protections. It's not like the minority will be enslaved.

[Hardkill]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The US has very strong minority protections. It's not like the minority will be enslaved.

Then we should definitely get rid of states' right, eliminate the filibuster, and reduce the power of the senate.

Edited June 26, 2022 by Hardkill

[How to be wise]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Other countries have democracy where the majority gets its way, and have no such problem.

 

If you look at the brexit vote, Scotland voted against leaving, but England with a much larger population voted to leave, as a result the UK left the European Union. Immediately after brexit, Scottish nationalism skyrocketed in Scotland, and all polls show that Scots now want to leave the UK. This is because they voted to stay, but a larger state forced them to leave.

Unlike other countries, each state in the US already has an ego, if you will. Each has a flag, a defined territory and a government. It won’t take a lot to stoke up independence movements in those states.

[Leo Gura]

Look, the nature of democracy is majority rule. Not everyone can have their way.

[How to be wise]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Look, the nature of democracy is majority rule. Not everyone can have their way.

The unity of the states is more important.

[Joel3102]

34 minutes ago, How to be wise said:

If you look at the brexit vote, Scotland voted against leaving, but England with a much larger population voted to leave, as a result the UK left the European Union. Immediately after brexit, Scottish nationalism skyrocketed in Scotland, and all polls show that Scots now want to leave the UK. This is because they voted to stay, but a larger state forced them to leave.

Exactly. If the Senate was abolished, a very real secessionist movement and maybe civil wars would begin.

[somegirl]

Here we go again, regressing in a year of 2022.

We thought we would be having flying cars by the age of 2022, but we are actually gonna go back in medieval ages and ban something that should be noone's business except women's since she is the one doing the birthing of a child. 

Let's not forget that women don't get pregnant on her own... But looks like all the responsibility is put on women, like they are the only ones responsible for the baby being made. 

And if this will take place, then they need to get their hands dirty and come up with male birth control. We are tired of suffering all the burdens, responsibility and side effects of birth control. Women are not the only one responsible for a child. It's both women's and men's problem and we should act like it.

This is simply ridiculous. 

I can't even express how furious I am.

Edited June 26, 2022 by somegirl

[Gidiot]

If the majority keeps getting ruled by the minority the same stuff will happen, better democracy actually functions, I’d rather the majority get their way and have to deal the minorities dissent than the other way around. We shouldn’t abolish the senate but I wouldn’t mind making it more democratic

[WisdomSeeker]

@Leo Gura A couple of things.. from your teachings, I gained that this is a small piece of the larger process of spiral dynamics and spiral dynamics is not necessarily a linear process. Eventually as a part of the evolutionary process, our society and policies will become more conscious, or we will cease to exist. That said, it may likely get worse before it gets better. We may not even see the US reach the next level of spiral dynamics in our lifetime, and the US as we know it may not even exist at the end of our lifetime.

This is likely the first of a number legal and policy regressions, being pushed by a 5-4 right leaning supreme court. More right leaning than what we've seen in our lifetime.  

I have a couple pf questions. What does this mean for the average actualize.org follower? How can we push for change, while still remaining outcome independent and not neurotically attached to the change we want to see. Counter intuitively speaking, I'm sure some degree of acceptance is required? What would be top 3 to 5 areas an actualized.org follower can focus  on to maximize possibility of change working within the system? What would be top 3 to 5 areas an actualized.org follower can focus on to maximize possibility of change working outside the system.l?

As Im sure many are seeing the same thing, this is a powder keg waiting to explode. There is only so much we can be pushed, until we push back and historically speaking this has resulted in armed conflicts. 

[Leo Gura]

23 minutes ago, somegirl said:

Let's not forget that women don't get pregnant on her own... But looks like all the responsibility is put on women, like they are the only ones responsible for the baby being made. 

Not really true since the guy is legally obligated to pay child support. Guys don't want spare babies to support either.

Getting the wrong girl pregnant can be worse than catching an STD.

Quote

And if this will take place, then they need to get their hands dirty and come up with male birth control. We are tired of suffering all the burdens, responsibility and side effects of birth control. Women are not the only one responsible for a child. It's both women's and men's problem and we should act like it.

1) That's what condoms are.

2) That's what vasectomy is.

8 minutes ago, WisdomSeeker said:

I have a couple pf questions. What does this mean for the average actualize.org follower? How can we push for change, while still remaining outcome independent and not neurotically attached to the change we want to see. Counter intuitively speaking, I'm sure some degree of acceptance is required? What would be top 3 to 5 areas an actualized.org follower can focus  on to maximize possibility of change working within the system? What would be top 3 to 5 areas an actualized.org follower can focus on to maximize possibility of change working outside the system.l?

Firstly, you gotta make sure to keep working on yourself and embody a positive and constructive outlook.

Then, you can do all sorts of stuff like vote, volunteer, donate, organize, protest, educate, and even run for office.