Population distribution between states has become more pronounced over the past century, so the electoral college that elects FDR isn’t the same that elects JFK, and it’s not the same that elects Obama. Further, you’re not really making a case for Federalism, all of the elections you listed having the Democratic nominee getting more votes than their competitors, while in the past 20 years we have had two Democratic nominees win more votes but lose their elections. At this point, conservatives have realized that if they set up exclusionary laws, if they gut social services, if they deny franchise in enough states, they can basically NIMBY their way to ruling majorities thanks to Federalism. They don’t need cities to extract mineral wealth, and ALEC doesn’t need to convince tens of millions of California voters, when for the same money they can run campaigns in 10 Midwest states and net far more political influence.
So, what would be the better plan? Start getting competitive in smaller states, or get going on amending the constitution?
Isn’t amending the constitution a major undertaking in the US? Sounds to me like “start getting competitive” is a better idea.
Another extremist “natural law” type party… Very limited support. More than socialists or communists, but much less than libertarians or greens.
Again, I don’t think we have any effective 3rd parties in US politics, except occasionally at the local level in specific circumstances (libertarians in red states, in rural areas and the greens/socialists in blue places).
I think I prefer the British Natural Law Party (I know, different natural law). They were unelectable for obvious reasons, but at least they were entertaining.
Apparently there was an attempt to have the surviving Beatles run as candidates in Liverpool, they didn’t want to do it but George Harrison did do fundraisers for them.
So my initial reply doesn’t seem to have made it past moderation. Which may be a good thing. So I’ll just leave the advice it was intended to be an example of.
What you should do. And I do mean you should actually do this. Is take your comment. And replace “dickhead” with an actual slur. An actual slur starting with N and ending with a queasy sense of shame. Then read it back.
And think really fucking hard. About the difference between simple name calling. Or taunts based on a political affiliation. And being subject to actual racism and bias. I don’t want a reply on the subject. I don’t want to further this particular argument. But its clearly something you need to do a little thinking on.
As for the rest of it. I’ll tell you a story about childhood name calling.
On my very first day of first grade. My mom shoved me on the bus with my older brother and told him to keep an eye out for me.
Aside from being heinous to me on the bus. The very first thing he did when we got to school was tell some kid I’d never met, apparently a friend of his. “This is my brother Teddy”. My name is not Teddy, and isn’t even related to that name. I was pissed, called my brother an asshole and shouted that my name was not Teddy. Those two shits spent the rest of the week making sure everyone at the school, down to the teachers, knew to call me Teddy. And Teddy I remained for the next 4 or 5 years. They used to chant it at me on the playground. At a certain point kids started throwing teddy bears at me. And no amount of thrown punches, ignoring it, crying, yelling, complaining to authority figures changed that.
You know what did?
When I fucking owned it.
I did a presentation in class on Teddy Roosevelt. I dressed up in costume, made everyone refer to me as Teddy for the whole day. And spent the whole damn day wearing a fake mustache. This is also the first time I wore my specs in school. Previously I had refused to do so for fear of being made fun of. At the end of the month we had a field trip to Sagamore Hill and I was asked to repeat the costume.
I stopped being Teddy after that. And though I still occasionally run into some one from back then who will refer to me as Teddy, its generally something long forgotten by everyone but me.
Generally speaking one has to do the former to make the latter possible.
Hell yes it is.
To get an amendment through without cross party support. Would require not just control of both houses of congress. But enough majority to ensure a 3/4 majority vote in favor. AND a similar level of majority in 3/4 of the states’ legislatures.
there’s a natural law party in the united states.
The candidate spoke at my college. It was … interesting…
Natural Law? Is that a fancy name for theocracy?
It wouldn’t be totally crazy to look at cheating by advocates of the Leave position, Russian internet-troll disinformation campaigns, etc., and for the government to say “in light of all this, we unbind ourselves from the result of the referendum and will no longer pursue separation from the EU.”
Particularly if Labor takes power.
As a member of a minority who dealt with ethnic slurs every day growing up, I honestly don’t need advice from you on this. You seem really invested in the idea that the Democratic Party should somehow embrace these McCarthyite taunts, and in explaining to us why we shouldn’t be be bothered by them. Maybe that is an even less productive use of your time and energy than resisting reactionary assholism is for us.
I though Corbyn wasn’t keen on the EU
I really don’t think your following.
Flipping a shit about being called “the democrat party” essentially validates that being a democrat is bad. It furthers the McCarthesque smear campaign. As does the current fad on the left for shitting on “liberals” and/or discarding liberal as a label (and the perpetual misunderstand about what neo-liberalism is). It cedes ground. Accepting that to be liberal or to be a democrat or the democrat party is a bad thing. Its how that tactic works. What its supposed to do.
There is nothing wrong with the name “Michael.” But if someone tells you their name is “Miguel” and you keep calling them “Michael” anyway even after they correct you multiple times then the onus isn’t on THEM to shut up and accept it, the onus is on YOU to stop acting like a dick.
I was unaware that there is a concerted effort by people with names not derived from Michael/Mikha’el to smear those with names derived from Michael/Mikha’el as bad, un-American, and not deserving of a place in our political hierarchy by specifically re-branding them all “Michaels”.
And let’s not get started on the third person who strolls along and feels compelled to lecture Miguel on how he shouldn’t object to the provocation.
This might help:
Pretty much the long and short of it.
I’ll be impressed/happy if they can get more support than Debs did. That would be something.
You forgot your sarcasm tag.
Having read the Constitution Party’s blurbs in several elections, all it takes to write the opposition statements is to quote the CP’s own platform…
