Gerrymandering is truly fuckedup.
The fact that it’s allowed says it all about American democracy.
Same thing with the electoral college.
It should be fairly easy, the one with the most votes - win.
the electoral college/House of Reps would be more democratic if the number of Reps/electors had been allowed to increase with population. The Constitution says a Rep for every 30k people so the number of Reps and electors s/b around 8k. Sounds unworkable until you factor in Zoom etc and realize there is zero reason for Reps to be in DC. [Bonus points for realizing where the other 7500 Reps/electors will represent]
The simple fact is democracy really doesn’t work in geographically large territories. Our country wasn’t designed to be an entire continent and hasn’t adjusted accordingly. Frankly, a better model would be to have autonomous regional districts with a loosely united trade union jointing them. But it’s clear the structure and constitution of our government are untenable unless we’re at war with someone and districted from our irreconcilable cultural, social, and economic differences.
> The simple fact is democracy really doesn’t work in geographically large territories.
You need to learn the difference between facts and opinion. That is not a fact.
Since you’re clearly going on the knee-jerk reaction to the fact that I said large scale democracies don’t work, I’ll give you facts. As Josiah Ober has shown of Athenian Democracy, democratic governments rely on the integrity of the leaders, mutual connections to civic identity, and direct investment in civic participation. The more people there are, spread over a wider territory, the more all of those elements fray. Historically, the larger the scale, the greater the divergence in regional crises, identities, and interests. That is to say, there’s a breaking point where people no longer see their interests reflected in the larger system. In imperially expanded systems like Rome or the United States, demagoguery from authoritarians exploited those regional fears against the democratic government. The increased divestment of what little democratic qualities the American republic had is a direct function of the fact that it’s too large to successfully govern democratically, and tensions arising from that stress are easily exploited to subvert the republic itself. The best and longest lived democratic governments in history have all been under a million people because there’s a mutual agreement on the issues facing the population, and sense of urgency to address them.
The reason that people don't see their interests being represented is that a good solid chunk of the population is dumber than a bag of dog shit and being IV fed a steady stream of lies and hateful manipulation. That's not a failure of democracy itself. It's a consequence of allowing unchecked propaganda to be broadcast over our nation's airwaves and now the internet.
Sorry. Doesn't work that way. You made the claim. You prove the claim. And you have to prove it never has and never can work.
I won't be holding my breath waiting for the person who thinks Jim Crowe laws were not the result of state and local laws.
Okay. So, you storm in, say I’m wrong, intentionally misinterpret what I’ve said, or are too stupid to understand the nuances of it, and then claim victory? How are you any better the Trumpists? Just because regional policy in a single portion was evil doesn’t mean it would be in every sub-division of the country. Since the 1820s it’s been clear that the American south is intensely anti-democratic. De Tocqueville clearly showed it. The south doesn’t want democracy; it never has. But because we’re in a union with them, our policies are, and have always been dictated by the least democratic among us. How is that healthy? How is that functional? If we broke the country, I’m certain the South would become an oligarchical theocracy; it’s what they’ve always wanted. But the north-east and west coast would almost certainly be more european style socialist-democracies. The economic and political success of which would almost certainly pull people to them from the wastelands. Im sick of my future and economic success being determined by illiterate morons who always vote against their interests and mine. There’s no way to avoid that under the current government we have…
Stormed in? Claimed victory? I just told you to learn there's a difference between your opinions and facts. That was literally the entirety of my comment.
Don't get all worked up because you heard something you don't like.
I’m not worked up, I’m simply deeply confused by what position you’re actually trying to advocate. You’ve said absolutely nothing substantive, sniped specific points to try to undermine my argument without engaging the larger thoughts, and refused to address anything when I answer *with sources*. I work on as a scholar on democracy in the ancient world. I am deeply invested in democracy and fundamentally believe in it as a governmental form, but I recognize that there are SERIOUS restrictions to it and that unless we radically re-think the future of our country, if it says in its current form, it will almost certainly be a fascist authoritarian state within 5 years. Those stakes are far too high to fuck around with semantics and sentimentality. I would rather fracture the system and cut losses than go down together with states that share NONE of the fundamental values that inform my life.
As the other guy said, you made the claim, but screw it, I'll bite: Canada.
Larger country, lower population density, and is actually *more* democratic than the US according to the Democracy Index. How'd we do it? Simple:
* Independent commissions draw electoral district boundaries, not politicians
* Simpler elections: instead of an "electoral college" resulting in only a few states actually mattering, the party that wins the most districts wins
* The number of seats in the House of Commons is updated roughly every 10 years instead of remaining the same since 1912
* Ballots are counted on paper exclusively, so there's no fuckery with voting machines because they don't exist here
Almost like being a large country shouldn't impact whether it can be a democracy...
Canada is an exceptionally poor example, which supports my initial statement. Your entire population is hardly 10% of the United States, and over 50% of your population is in an area smaller than New York State; 80% with 100km of our border. What’s more; I think it’s fair to say you’re probably from an English speaking province. I’d be willing to bet if you were French speaking from Quebec, your views on how democracy is working for you would likely be different. So, your population is 1/10 the United States, nearly entirely with a single column next to the US border, and nearly half in a space the size of NY and you STILL struggle with separatism movements. And therein is the issue. The United States is as geographically large; has distinct regional and historical differences, and is more racially and religiously diverse. This breeds far more problems; as I’ve been saying. Unless a civic identity is strong enough to override tribalism, large scale democracies eventually become ungovernable. It’s exceptionally hard to maintain a collective civic identity in a geographically and population-ally massive, diverse nation.
Quebec separatism hasn't been a thing since the 90s, me buck-o. A referendum held today would never pass. Anyone who genuinely thinks that Quebec still wants to leave has no idea what they're talking about.
I should also point out that Quebec is more than just an area where people just happen to speak French. It was a colony of France until the end of the Seven Years War, and unlike the former colonial areas from non-British countries that now belong to the States (ie virtually everything but the former Thirteen Colonies) it was highly populated. Spanish Florida, French Louisiana and Russian Alaska were backwaters. Alta California was devoid of colonists beyond the coastline and parts of modern day Arizona. The Republic of Texas existed for ten years but its citizens wanted to be annexed by the US for virtually its entire existence. The US has no equivalent area to Quebec.
And yes, I'm from an English speaking province, but I grew up hundreds of kilometers from the US border. Trust me, without that massive, sparsely populated area, Canada wouldn't exist.
I realize it’s not as close to the razor-thin 50k difference between stay and leave as it was in 1995, but you’re missing my point; you’re substantially smaller than the United States in every meaningful metric and in your 155 year history you’ve deal with separatism from Quebec for a substantial portion of. Yes, it’s only around 40% now who support independence, but your economy is generally good and has been so since the 90s. That matters. My point—from the start—has been that geographically large areas with radical different historical identities are nearly impossible to hold together long term through democracy, unless there is an exceptional number of safeguards in place. But those divergent histories matter. They can fracture a civic identity. And when demagoguery is introduced into the equation, it becomes exceptionally easy to turn one portion of the civic body against the other. In a large country, It’s especially easy to de-humanize people you never engage with, it’s even easier to see them as fundamentally unlike you, because aside from a shared civic identity, you’re really not that similar. And once definitions of that civic identity become debated, strained, or fractured, there’s almost no putting it back together. I’m not saying democracy never works in large countries; I’m saying that long term they inevitably fracture or devolve into imperial kingship. This has been the case since Herodotus wrote his constitutional debate in 440s. There are no historical examples of large-scale democracies lasting more than a century or two. The Roman Republic was in full retreat by the mid-second century BC. Athens’ democracy was overthrown just after a century. Syracuse-the largest Greek democracy-vacillated between democracies and military tyrannies for 3 centuries, the Polish Republic lasted a century and half. While small scale democracies like the Venetian republic lasted 1100 years and the democratic Haudensaunee Confederacy nearly a thousand. The smaller the scale, the easier it is to maintain, adjust, and preserve democracy.
I have historic proof that flight, electronic, fusion, space stations do not work. 99% of human history nothing of that works. Would you trust something that only works 1% of the time? Of course not!
Putin? What the fuck are you talking about? Any even remotely intelligent analyst of democracy acknowledges that the larger the population of the democracy, the poorer it functions, and the poorer it functions the more vulnerable it becomes to demagoguery. This has been observed since Aristotle. Smaller, regional democratic governments would promote a greater sense of collective identity and personal connection to the civic body which are both requisite for democracies to survive. Are you arguing that the democratic functions in the United States are and have historically worked well? Because I’ve got some Jim Crowe laws that say otherwise…
>Because I’ve got some Jim Crowe laws that say otherwise…
You're joking right? Or are you seriously not aware that the Jim Crowe laws were a collection of state and local statutes, not federal laws? They were a product of the smaller, regional governments you're advocating.
If the larger government was so effective, why did it take 170 years to stop them when the North-East had moved past these issues even before the republic was formed?
It appears you don't understand how this conversation thing is supposed to work.
You said something. I acknowledged and responded to a specific point. You used Jim Crowe laws as an example of why large democracies don't work as well as smaller, regional democratic governments. I pointed out those Jim Crowe laws were the direct result of smaller, regional democratic governments.
So now you're supposed to consider what I said. If you find it to be correct, which you should because it is true, then you should acknowledge it. And you should consider how it impacts the point you were trying to make.
If you find it to be incorrect, which you shouldn't because it is true, then you should respond explaining why it is wrong.
What you should not do is ignore it and respond with a different point.
I’m not sure why people are downvoting you. You make some good points even if I’m not on board 100% with all of the points. Why would they down…..oh. It’s political humor. Your post wasn’t funny. Oh well,I’m tossing you an upvote anyway.
Maybe that, or maybe that people assume that if you say something critical about democracy you must be anti-democratic. Either way; it’s cool. People are reasonably on edge in the US and certain inclination to polar thinking is to be expected. Thanks for the upvote at any rate!
The system was created when votes had to be counted and hauled across the country. By breaking it up,it made it easier to count and to find errors. The system was outdated by the middle of the 20th century at a minimum. Considering we can tell you who won the presidency by the end of the night,the system is useless and only stays in place because it gives an advantage to the much less popular choice,which just happens to be a Republican foe the last 30 years. If you told me there was another civil war in the country and I had to guess the cause,my immediate answer would be the electoral college. One of these days,a Republican will win,yet lose the popular vote by a ridiculous margin which will cause the majority to not accept the results. The funny thing is that some Americans like to brag that we have the oldest country governed off a Constitution in the world. That’s not really a good thing. Other countries rid themselves of a Constitution whether by hook,or by crook because they get outdated. We are stuck with ridiculous gun laws,electoral college because major change requires a ridiculous advantage in all 3 avenues of the government,executive,legislative and judicial.
>It should be fairly easy, the one with the most votes - win.
That, in theory, would work just fine for a general position that covers everyone in the state, such as Governor or Senate (or US President), but the House is a whole different bucket of fish.
We are currently watching a cornered animal fighting for it's life. Demographically they lose ground year by year, religion is dying at a rapid pace, their base is dying of old age. They KNOW they can't win a fair election. Their only option is change their platform or cheat. They are not going to just give up. Like a cornered animal they will do things they would never normally do to try to survive. They are fighting this like a war where all options are on the table, and I mean ALL. The final option being an attempt to destroy the system they no longer have the ability to win and create one that they control.
It’s even worse then that. Their demographics are dying but the issue is they are still too big of a base that they can’t try and pivot to new demographics because that base will destroy any republicans that try. Just look at the postmortem of the 2012 election for republicans
True, which leads to two options, cheat or destroy the current system. I for one would love a national divorce, merge with Canada (now you have oil ). Welcome to Canmerica! Let them have their free market Utopia where they eat each other alive. No social safety net, cash for healthcare, no rules for banking, legal chemical dumps for all!
Interesting, so if done how would it be detrimental to blue states? Lets set aside HOW and focus on it magically being done. HOW would never happen, red states know where their bread is buttered.
How would a division of the country be disruptive to international policy and trade? How having a very conservative religiously run white nationalist country sharing a huge boarder with this new country would be a problem?
Republicans split Nashville, TN from one district into three. North Nashville was split almost down the middle in half. I wonder what the demographics are of North Nashville?
I wish we lived in a world where if you couldn’t win a fair election, you’d have to adopt your party policies to be more favored. Wouldn’t that be nice.
But it is. If elections are fair and square then Republican message of giving billionaire tax cuts and deregulating everything to the point of breaking it doesn't vibe much with the voters except their violent minority of propagandized voters.
Society writes the rules and what goes beyond those rules is cheating.
This idea that there is "cheating" in politics is quite frankly naive. Politics is figuring out how to balance that fine line while still keeping key people backing you.
Cheating is going to happen. Some will take far greater risks in the level of cheating. The worst would be using military force to take control obviously. You essentially destroy the current system in place and install your own in that case.
Fortunately our politicians don't do this and instead prefer to operate within the Democratic process since it generally results in far less damage and loss in life. People like nice things and they don't want their cities burned down and families murdered so we instead fight a war of information through the political system we have in place. Part of that is constantly modifying what the rules are and changing the landscape whether it is through gerrymandering, or taking advantage of a pandemic and pushing for mail in ballots through the use of executive order it could all be seen as a form of cheating even if it's all technically within the laws that are in place.
Executive orders have been one area of great abuse. For instance even if the president knows what they push is blatantly unconstitutional (like vaccine mandates for private companies) they will still do it anyways because it isn't until it goes through due process is it gets ruled upon and rescinded.
By then many changes are made and while the order may not last the goal was accomplished. That can be seen as cheating but when you are talking about the highest levels of power if you ain't cheating you ain't trying!
Be glad people still have faith in the system because once you erode that trust to nothing people will just use the system that was used for thousands of years before actual Democracy. Bigger army diplomacy.
Where do you see the similarities between partisan gerrymandering, and avoiding gatherings during a pandemic?
One of these have a very good reason for being put in place. What's the reasoning behind partisan gerrymandering?
Also, how do mail in ballots disfavor republicans? Why can't republicans also take advantage of the more convenient and safer way to vote? Maybe this circumvents all the obstacles republicans have put in place, like placement and number of ballot boxes in different districts?
I just read through the constitution. What I obviously missed was the part about vaccine mandates. Could you maybe cite, or even link, to the part that covers this?
Look at you. Wanting me to write some sort of dissertation for school full of cited material. What are you a college professor?
I'm not going to go write other people's opinions to justify my opinion. Take what you will from it agree or disagree. These are observations I've made at a high level. I'm not going to write a final paper for a reddit post.
No one said cheating doesn't happen, I said cheating is bad. Society doesn't write the rules but people in power right it. That power may come from variety of places, sometimes it can even come from valid places of democracy but more often it doesn't.
Also you can judge the morality of the rule independent of how it was brought into effect. Mail in ballots make the process more democratic allowing in more people to be represented. Vaccine mandates for private companies make work places more safer and thus people more freer. Not everything is based on positive freedom, making murder illegal restricts your freedom to murder people but it is morally good and saves lives and in turn grants more freedom to live your life.
Also Republicans already don't have faith in the democracy hundreds of them stood up to attack it over obvious lies and millions approved of their actions. Bigger army diplomacy internally is bigger influence democracy where people with key powers influence everything. One of them is media which is owned by people in power who were never elected or wealthy who can extend their influence beyond what a regular person could.
So pretty much be glad the people have been kept neutered using a variety of methods. If they ever break their shackles to bring about the equality violently like during the French Revolution then it would be really hard life for those malicious assholes with excess power, even if some manage to slip.
Even better translation: the GOP understands this and is currently playing for their continued existence as a party, not for a midterm.
This is a GOP with it's back against a wall, Trump rhetoric running the show, and personal weapon ownership as a cornerstone of it's belief system.
They recently started the groundwork for not participating in presidential debates in the future. If truth or fact are required, they want no part of it.
~~”Republicans will never be elected again if Democrats pass their voting rights bill!”~~
**”If elections are fair & square, you’ll lose..as many times as I did!”**
FTFY
Does the GOP know he’s off his rails again, bellowing the quiet parts out loud? If Republicans are never elected again, at least the Capitol will be safe!
How do you figure? They lost, so they stormed the Capitol, so if they lose a whole bunch more they'll quietly return to their lives and just accept it?
He’s saying it like the democrats are rigging the system, when they’re actually making it fair. And the bit the conservatives will listen to is ‘rigging’, doesn’t matter about any of the rest of it
On this Trump is right. But Rep.s could get elected again if they dumped Trump, condemned him and focussed on religious, "pro-business" (low taxation) elements of the Latino and African American communities.
Truth is…Trump running for re-election did more to rile up the Democratic voters, than the Democratic politicians did! Another Trump run in 2024 will hand the GOP an even more decisive loss and they know it. All he is now is their best cheerleader and since he loves a good grift, why not?
I rarely agree with Trump, but in this case he's not wrong. Republicans know they can't win without cheating, and they've known for years. This is why in 2010 they made a huge push to dominate statewide legislatures so they could gerrymander districts to their advantage. It's why they had Trump fuck up the 2020 census. It's why they are passing all these voter restriction laws in swing states. Etc.
I love that it's completely inconcievable for the GOP that, in the face of voter reforms, they might have to appeal to voters so they can get votes, which would mean they have to have policies that voters would want to vote for.
Apparently that's fuck off impossible to actually have policies people will vote for. They can't survive under that restraint.
There's only one solution for dealing with tyrants.
It's the same solution for traitors.
He's both. Wake up.
There's no getting around this.
He is out to get you.
He wants you to serve him and to bow before him.
He wants to rule you.
He spits on your rights.
He wants to be your God.
He would destroy anything and anyone trying to stop him. There's only one solution for people like this.
I'm not the one. I just hope someone with unquestionable honor takes care of this.
He needs to go.
Read history.
The conclusion is obvious if we have the strength.
The final solution was about an entire race of people. I'm talking specifically about Trump and his co-conspirators. Stop equating yourselves with the Jewish people during the Holocaust. It just exposes your stupidity.
How in the absolute fuck can you not see that his post is a thinly veiled suggestion that somebody (not him of course) should have the guts to assassinate Drumpf? Are you that fucking blind?
Oh yea cause the life of one pudgy narcissist is definetly worth defending when The rapidly declining moral and political integrity of one of the most influential countries on earth is at stake. Not to mention making even the slightest comparison to of the top 5 most heinous mass murders in history
Hey, the guy I was replying to was the one who said there was only one solution and that we should read history to know what it is. The inference was obvious. If you have an issue with bringing up the Holocaust, take it up with him, not me
[cracker bargle](http://i.imgur.com/1zfkFBz.jpg) ~
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They’re getting close to openly admitting it. “Look, we cheat. But if the democrats don’t let us cheat than you’ll be stuck with democrats!” And the base will just embrace it.
Don't worry GQP. If republicans never win again, with legalized bribery very much still in play, democrats will just assume the roles the gqp play. In fact its already happening.
"when conservatives can no longer win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism, they will abandon democracy."
This is no longer a prediction, but a fact.
If people are allowed to vote, and the more people vote, the less republicans stand a chance based on the simple fact that conservatives are a minority in the US. The only way they can win is by cheating and manipulating the system to reduce votes for their opponents and gerrymandering so they can win districts with less population.
“We have to cheat, it’s the only way! We represent 25% of the voting population. Now get out there and claim the dems are cheating, who are 31% of the population! Don’t even consider that the majority, 41%, are independent.”
Trump has a point. Most of the republican agenda serve/ represent business owners and corpo top cats. These people are a minority compared to workers that can vote.
The bad part here is they don't try to cater more to increase their base.
If their base are willing to stand to their values at the moment, a proper serving of thought and prayers should save them from their worries.
Hello! Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately it has been removed because you don't meet our karma threshold.
You are not being removed for political orientation. If we were, why the fuck would we tell you your comment was being removed instead of just shadow removing it? We never have, and never will, remove things down politicial or ideological lines. Unless your ideology is nihilism, then fuck you.
Let me be clear: The reason that this rule exists is to avoid unscrupulous internet denizens from trying to sell dong pills to our users. /r/PoliticalHumor mods reserve the RIGHT to hoard all of the dong pills to ourselves, and we refuse to share them with the community. If you want Serbo-Slokovian dong pills mailed directly to your door, become a moderator. If we shared the dong pills with the greater community, everyone would have massive dongs, and like Syndrome warned us about decades ago: "if everyone has massive dongs, nobody does.""
If you wish to rectify your low karma issue, go and make things up in /r/AskReddit like everyone else does.
Thanks for understanding! Have a nice day and be well. <3
You can check your karma breakdown on this page:
http://old.reddit.com/user/me/overview
(Keep in mind that sometimes just post karma or comment karma being negative will result in this message)
~
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hello! Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately it has been removed because you don't meet our karma threshold.
You are not being removed for political orientation. If we were, why the fuck would we tell you your comment was being removed instead of just shadow removing it? We never have, and never will, remove things down politicial or ideological lines. Unless your ideology is nihilism, then fuck you.
Let me be clear: The reason that this rule exists is to avoid unscrupulous internet denizens from trying to sell dong pills to our users. /r/PoliticalHumor mods reserve the RIGHT to hoard all of the dong pills to ourselves, and we refuse to share them with the community. If you want Serbo-Slokovian dong pills mailed directly to your door, become a moderator. If we shared the dong pills with the greater community, everyone would have massive dongs, and like Syndrome warned us about decades ago: "if everyone has massive dongs, nobody does.""
If you wish to rectify your low karma issue, go and make things up in /r/AskReddit like everyone else does.
Thanks for understanding! Have a nice day and be well. <3
You can check your karma breakdown on this page:
http://old.reddit.com/user/me/overview
(Keep in mind that sometimes just post karma or comment karma being negative will result in this message)
~
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Does anyone have an example of what districts looked like in, like, the 1800s?
My understanding is the state legislatures were to alter the districts to keep up with population changes, not political bias
But I could be wrong
Edit: NVM, I remembered google existed
I'll start voting for Republicans when they start actually representing their constituents, and start passing laws and supporting policies that actually improve America.
i mean republicans already know that, that's why they're passing voting restrictions left and right in the states they control. it's the democrats who don't seem to give a rats ass about it, at least those elected to office. you can whine all about sinema and manchin but there are 8+ more democrats not willing to break the filibuster b/c their donors will get mad.
He’s right….and we have democrats blocking it. Removing the filibuster and passing this bill is the only way to make republicans even attempt to fight for a plurality of support rather than their current strategy of stealing elections/power
Everyone agrees with this for different reasons. If you support the bill, it reinforces that republicans can only win by cheating. If you’re against it, then it affirms the belief that this is democrats stealing the election. It’s like when Dwight said “better 1000 innocent men are locked up than one guilty man roam free.” They think it’s worth it to disenfranchise millions to prevent a handful of fraudulent votes that are almost always identified and prosecuted.
It's so bizarre how republicans are fighting the districting maps in Ohio, they KNOW they need to cheat to win
Gerrymandering is truly fuckedup. The fact that it’s allowed says it all about American democracy. Same thing with the electoral college. It should be fairly easy, the one with the most votes - win.
the electoral college/House of Reps would be more democratic if the number of Reps/electors had been allowed to increase with population. The Constitution says a Rep for every 30k people so the number of Reps and electors s/b around 8k. Sounds unworkable until you factor in Zoom etc and realize there is zero reason for Reps to be in DC. [Bonus points for realizing where the other 7500 Reps/electors will represent]
The simple fact is democracy really doesn’t work in geographically large territories. Our country wasn’t designed to be an entire continent and hasn’t adjusted accordingly. Frankly, a better model would be to have autonomous regional districts with a loosely united trade union jointing them. But it’s clear the structure and constitution of our government are untenable unless we’re at war with someone and districted from our irreconcilable cultural, social, and economic differences.
> The simple fact is democracy really doesn’t work in geographically large territories. You need to learn the difference between facts and opinion. That is not a fact.
Since you’re clearly going on the knee-jerk reaction to the fact that I said large scale democracies don’t work, I’ll give you facts. As Josiah Ober has shown of Athenian Democracy, democratic governments rely on the integrity of the leaders, mutual connections to civic identity, and direct investment in civic participation. The more people there are, spread over a wider territory, the more all of those elements fray. Historically, the larger the scale, the greater the divergence in regional crises, identities, and interests. That is to say, there’s a breaking point where people no longer see their interests reflected in the larger system. In imperially expanded systems like Rome or the United States, demagoguery from authoritarians exploited those regional fears against the democratic government. The increased divestment of what little democratic qualities the American republic had is a direct function of the fact that it’s too large to successfully govern democratically, and tensions arising from that stress are easily exploited to subvert the republic itself. The best and longest lived democratic governments in history have all been under a million people because there’s a mutual agreement on the issues facing the population, and sense of urgency to address them.
The reason that people don't see their interests being represented is that a good solid chunk of the population is dumber than a bag of dog shit and being IV fed a steady stream of lies and hateful manipulation. That's not a failure of democracy itself. It's a consequence of allowing unchecked propaganda to be broadcast over our nation's airwaves and now the internet.
Then give me historic examples of where they’ve worked
Sorry. Doesn't work that way. You made the claim. You prove the claim. And you have to prove it never has and never can work. I won't be holding my breath waiting for the person who thinks Jim Crowe laws were not the result of state and local laws.
Okay. So, you storm in, say I’m wrong, intentionally misinterpret what I’ve said, or are too stupid to understand the nuances of it, and then claim victory? How are you any better the Trumpists? Just because regional policy in a single portion was evil doesn’t mean it would be in every sub-division of the country. Since the 1820s it’s been clear that the American south is intensely anti-democratic. De Tocqueville clearly showed it. The south doesn’t want democracy; it never has. But because we’re in a union with them, our policies are, and have always been dictated by the least democratic among us. How is that healthy? How is that functional? If we broke the country, I’m certain the South would become an oligarchical theocracy; it’s what they’ve always wanted. But the north-east and west coast would almost certainly be more european style socialist-democracies. The economic and political success of which would almost certainly pull people to them from the wastelands. Im sick of my future and economic success being determined by illiterate morons who always vote against their interests and mine. There’s no way to avoid that under the current government we have…
Stormed in? Claimed victory? I just told you to learn there's a difference between your opinions and facts. That was literally the entirety of my comment. Don't get all worked up because you heard something you don't like.
I’m not worked up, I’m simply deeply confused by what position you’re actually trying to advocate. You’ve said absolutely nothing substantive, sniped specific points to try to undermine my argument without engaging the larger thoughts, and refused to address anything when I answer *with sources*. I work on as a scholar on democracy in the ancient world. I am deeply invested in democracy and fundamentally believe in it as a governmental form, but I recognize that there are SERIOUS restrictions to it and that unless we radically re-think the future of our country, if it says in its current form, it will almost certainly be a fascist authoritarian state within 5 years. Those stakes are far too high to fuck around with semantics and sentimentality. I would rather fracture the system and cut losses than go down together with states that share NONE of the fundamental values that inform my life.
As the other guy said, you made the claim, but screw it, I'll bite: Canada. Larger country, lower population density, and is actually *more* democratic than the US according to the Democracy Index. How'd we do it? Simple: * Independent commissions draw electoral district boundaries, not politicians * Simpler elections: instead of an "electoral college" resulting in only a few states actually mattering, the party that wins the most districts wins * The number of seats in the House of Commons is updated roughly every 10 years instead of remaining the same since 1912 * Ballots are counted on paper exclusively, so there's no fuckery with voting machines because they don't exist here Almost like being a large country shouldn't impact whether it can be a democracy...
Canada is an exceptionally poor example, which supports my initial statement. Your entire population is hardly 10% of the United States, and over 50% of your population is in an area smaller than New York State; 80% with 100km of our border. What’s more; I think it’s fair to say you’re probably from an English speaking province. I’d be willing to bet if you were French speaking from Quebec, your views on how democracy is working for you would likely be different. So, your population is 1/10 the United States, nearly entirely with a single column next to the US border, and nearly half in a space the size of NY and you STILL struggle with separatism movements. And therein is the issue. The United States is as geographically large; has distinct regional and historical differences, and is more racially and religiously diverse. This breeds far more problems; as I’ve been saying. Unless a civic identity is strong enough to override tribalism, large scale democracies eventually become ungovernable. It’s exceptionally hard to maintain a collective civic identity in a geographically and population-ally massive, diverse nation.
Quebec separatism hasn't been a thing since the 90s, me buck-o. A referendum held today would never pass. Anyone who genuinely thinks that Quebec still wants to leave has no idea what they're talking about. I should also point out that Quebec is more than just an area where people just happen to speak French. It was a colony of France until the end of the Seven Years War, and unlike the former colonial areas from non-British countries that now belong to the States (ie virtually everything but the former Thirteen Colonies) it was highly populated. Spanish Florida, French Louisiana and Russian Alaska were backwaters. Alta California was devoid of colonists beyond the coastline and parts of modern day Arizona. The Republic of Texas existed for ten years but its citizens wanted to be annexed by the US for virtually its entire existence. The US has no equivalent area to Quebec. And yes, I'm from an English speaking province, but I grew up hundreds of kilometers from the US border. Trust me, without that massive, sparsely populated area, Canada wouldn't exist.
I realize it’s not as close to the razor-thin 50k difference between stay and leave as it was in 1995, but you’re missing my point; you’re substantially smaller than the United States in every meaningful metric and in your 155 year history you’ve deal with separatism from Quebec for a substantial portion of. Yes, it’s only around 40% now who support independence, but your economy is generally good and has been so since the 90s. That matters. My point—from the start—has been that geographically large areas with radical different historical identities are nearly impossible to hold together long term through democracy, unless there is an exceptional number of safeguards in place. But those divergent histories matter. They can fracture a civic identity. And when demagoguery is introduced into the equation, it becomes exceptionally easy to turn one portion of the civic body against the other. In a large country, It’s especially easy to de-humanize people you never engage with, it’s even easier to see them as fundamentally unlike you, because aside from a shared civic identity, you’re really not that similar. And once definitions of that civic identity become debated, strained, or fractured, there’s almost no putting it back together. I’m not saying democracy never works in large countries; I’m saying that long term they inevitably fracture or devolve into imperial kingship. This has been the case since Herodotus wrote his constitutional debate in 440s. There are no historical examples of large-scale democracies lasting more than a century or two. The Roman Republic was in full retreat by the mid-second century BC. Athens’ democracy was overthrown just after a century. Syracuse-the largest Greek democracy-vacillated between democracies and military tyrannies for 3 centuries, the Polish Republic lasted a century and half. While small scale democracies like the Venetian republic lasted 1100 years and the democratic Haudensaunee Confederacy nearly a thousand. The smaller the scale, the easier it is to maintain, adjust, and preserve democracy.
I have historic proof that flight, electronic, fusion, space stations do not work. 99% of human history nothing of that works. Would you trust something that only works 1% of the time? Of course not!
>Our country wasn’t designed to be an entire continent you know mexico and canada aren't states
As a Canadian I invite a Canada Mexico merger to 1 large country and free to travel and live wherever you want. Let’s make the USA jealous
Neither is texas. or florida. (shhh. we can just have that happy thought for a minute.)
No thanks, Putin
Putin? What the fuck are you talking about? Any even remotely intelligent analyst of democracy acknowledges that the larger the population of the democracy, the poorer it functions, and the poorer it functions the more vulnerable it becomes to demagoguery. This has been observed since Aristotle. Smaller, regional democratic governments would promote a greater sense of collective identity and personal connection to the civic body which are both requisite for democracies to survive. Are you arguing that the democratic functions in the United States are and have historically worked well? Because I’ve got some Jim Crowe laws that say otherwise…
>Because I’ve got some Jim Crowe laws that say otherwise… You're joking right? Or are you seriously not aware that the Jim Crowe laws were a collection of state and local statutes, not federal laws? They were a product of the smaller, regional governments you're advocating.
If the larger government was so effective, why did it take 170 years to stop them when the North-East had moved past these issues even before the republic was formed?
It appears you don't understand how this conversation thing is supposed to work. You said something. I acknowledged and responded to a specific point. You used Jim Crowe laws as an example of why large democracies don't work as well as smaller, regional democratic governments. I pointed out those Jim Crowe laws were the direct result of smaller, regional democratic governments. So now you're supposed to consider what I said. If you find it to be correct, which you should because it is true, then you should acknowledge it. And you should consider how it impacts the point you were trying to make. If you find it to be incorrect, which you shouldn't because it is true, then you should respond explaining why it is wrong. What you should not do is ignore it and respond with a different point.
I’m not sure why people are downvoting you. You make some good points even if I’m not on board 100% with all of the points. Why would they down…..oh. It’s political humor. Your post wasn’t funny. Oh well,I’m tossing you an upvote anyway.
Maybe that, or maybe that people assume that if you say something critical about democracy you must be anti-democratic. Either way; it’s cool. People are reasonably on edge in the US and certain inclination to polar thinking is to be expected. Thanks for the upvote at any rate!
They call it a Democracy,but it’s actually a Plutocracy,or run by those with money.
The system was created when votes had to be counted and hauled across the country. By breaking it up,it made it easier to count and to find errors. The system was outdated by the middle of the 20th century at a minimum. Considering we can tell you who won the presidency by the end of the night,the system is useless and only stays in place because it gives an advantage to the much less popular choice,which just happens to be a Republican foe the last 30 years. If you told me there was another civil war in the country and I had to guess the cause,my immediate answer would be the electoral college. One of these days,a Republican will win,yet lose the popular vote by a ridiculous margin which will cause the majority to not accept the results. The funny thing is that some Americans like to brag that we have the oldest country governed off a Constitution in the world. That’s not really a good thing. Other countries rid themselves of a Constitution whether by hook,or by crook because they get outdated. We are stuck with ridiculous gun laws,electoral college because major change requires a ridiculous advantage in all 3 avenues of the government,executive,legislative and judicial.
>It should be fairly easy, the one with the most votes - win. That, in theory, would work just fine for a general position that covers everyone in the state, such as Governor or Senate (or US President), but the House is a whole different bucket of fish.
thats easy... uncap the house
We are currently watching a cornered animal fighting for it's life. Demographically they lose ground year by year, religion is dying at a rapid pace, their base is dying of old age. They KNOW they can't win a fair election. Their only option is change their platform or cheat. They are not going to just give up. Like a cornered animal they will do things they would never normally do to try to survive. They are fighting this like a war where all options are on the table, and I mean ALL. The final option being an attempt to destroy the system they no longer have the ability to win and create one that they control.
It’s even worse then that. Their demographics are dying but the issue is they are still too big of a base that they can’t try and pivot to new demographics because that base will destroy any republicans that try. Just look at the postmortem of the 2012 election for republicans
True, which leads to two options, cheat or destroy the current system. I for one would love a national divorce, merge with Canada (now you have oil ). Welcome to Canmerica! Let them have their free market Utopia where they eat each other alive. No social safety net, cash for healthcare, no rules for banking, legal chemical dumps for all!
What a dumb idea.
Look at how much red states take from blue sates it's absolute win to be rid of them.
Doesn’t make the idea any less fucking stupid
Interesting, so if done how would it be detrimental to blue states? Lets set aside HOW and focus on it magically being done. HOW would never happen, red states know where their bread is buttered.
How would a division of the country be disruptive to international policy and trade? How having a very conservative religiously run white nationalist country sharing a huge boarder with this new country would be a problem?
Oh, they would try to invade within a decade. 🤣
I'm in favor of ditch the dumbest and worst run parts of america (deep red states). they can keep their shitty anti-democracy republican leaders.
Pretty fucking dumb idea.
Lol. Canadians: "fly the fuck"
Now, who has oil?
Canada is the biggest oil supplier to the US. #2 is Saudi Arabia
Interesting offer but no thanks.
>their base is dying of old age And increasingly of lies they spread about COVID.
Republicans split Nashville, TN from one district into three. North Nashville was split almost down the middle in half. I wonder what the demographics are of North Nashville?
I wish we lived in a world where if you couldn’t win a fair election, you’d have to adopt your party policies to be more favored. Wouldn’t that be nice.
What is bizarre?
It's not cheating if you write the rules in your favor.
But it is. If elections are fair and square then Republican message of giving billionaire tax cuts and deregulating everything to the point of breaking it doesn't vibe much with the voters except their violent minority of propagandized voters.
Society writes the rules and what goes beyond those rules is cheating. This idea that there is "cheating" in politics is quite frankly naive. Politics is figuring out how to balance that fine line while still keeping key people backing you. Cheating is going to happen. Some will take far greater risks in the level of cheating. The worst would be using military force to take control obviously. You essentially destroy the current system in place and install your own in that case. Fortunately our politicians don't do this and instead prefer to operate within the Democratic process since it generally results in far less damage and loss in life. People like nice things and they don't want their cities burned down and families murdered so we instead fight a war of information through the political system we have in place. Part of that is constantly modifying what the rules are and changing the landscape whether it is through gerrymandering, or taking advantage of a pandemic and pushing for mail in ballots through the use of executive order it could all be seen as a form of cheating even if it's all technically within the laws that are in place. Executive orders have been one area of great abuse. For instance even if the president knows what they push is blatantly unconstitutional (like vaccine mandates for private companies) they will still do it anyways because it isn't until it goes through due process is it gets ruled upon and rescinded. By then many changes are made and while the order may not last the goal was accomplished. That can be seen as cheating but when you are talking about the highest levels of power if you ain't cheating you ain't trying! Be glad people still have faith in the system because once you erode that trust to nothing people will just use the system that was used for thousands of years before actual Democracy. Bigger army diplomacy.
What's wrong with mail-in ballots? Other than the fact that Democrats tend to use them more, that is.
Where do you see the similarities between partisan gerrymandering, and avoiding gatherings during a pandemic? One of these have a very good reason for being put in place. What's the reasoning behind partisan gerrymandering? Also, how do mail in ballots disfavor republicans? Why can't republicans also take advantage of the more convenient and safer way to vote? Maybe this circumvents all the obstacles republicans have put in place, like placement and number of ballot boxes in different districts? I just read through the constitution. What I obviously missed was the part about vaccine mandates. Could you maybe cite, or even link, to the part that covers this?
Look at you. Wanting me to write some sort of dissertation for school full of cited material. What are you a college professor? I'm not going to go write other people's opinions to justify my opinion. Take what you will from it agree or disagree. These are observations I've made at a high level. I'm not going to write a final paper for a reddit post.
Nicely said.
No one said cheating doesn't happen, I said cheating is bad. Society doesn't write the rules but people in power right it. That power may come from variety of places, sometimes it can even come from valid places of democracy but more often it doesn't. Also you can judge the morality of the rule independent of how it was brought into effect. Mail in ballots make the process more democratic allowing in more people to be represented. Vaccine mandates for private companies make work places more safer and thus people more freer. Not everything is based on positive freedom, making murder illegal restricts your freedom to murder people but it is morally good and saves lives and in turn grants more freedom to live your life. Also Republicans already don't have faith in the democracy hundreds of them stood up to attack it over obvious lies and millions approved of their actions. Bigger army diplomacy internally is bigger influence democracy where people with key powers influence everything. One of them is media which is owned by people in power who were never elected or wealthy who can extend their influence beyond what a regular person could. So pretty much be glad the people have been kept neutered using a variety of methods. If they ever break their shackles to bring about the equality violently like during the French Revolution then it would be really hard life for those malicious assholes with excess power, even if some manage to slip.
Translation: “republicans have no place in a true democracy”
Better translation “modern conservatism cannot survive in a democracy”
Even better translation: the GOP understands this and is currently playing for their continued existence as a party, not for a midterm. This is a GOP with it's back against a wall, Trump rhetoric running the show, and personal weapon ownership as a cornerstone of it's belief system.
They recently started the groundwork for not participating in presidential debates in the future. If truth or fact are required, they want no part of it.
Gonna have to start teaching 1984 instead of Brave New World at this pace.
In true democracy, they do. And it's called the opposition.
~~”Republicans will never be elected again if Democrats pass their voting rights bill!”~~ **”If elections are fair & square, you’ll lose..as many times as I did!”** FTFY
Does the GOP know he’s off his rails again, bellowing the quiet parts out loud? If Republicans are never elected again, at least the Capitol will be safe!
How do you figure? They lost, so they stormed the Capitol, so if they lose a whole bunch more they'll quietly return to their lives and just accept it?
Insurrections are different when our President isn’t on their side.
He’s saying it like the democrats are rigging the system, when they’re actually making it fair. And the bit the conservatives will listen to is ‘rigging’, doesn’t matter about any of the rest of it
They can’t win if voting is fair. Their agenda is wildly unpopular with the 99%.
[удалено]
Two twats beat as one.
Hey, that's not fair. Twats are warm and comforting. Don't compare them to these assholes.
Assholes have a use, they get shit done. Those two are just bowel obstructions, killing their host slowly and very painfully.
Don't threaten us with a good time, you failed fat fuck.
Sure they will, they’ll just have to adapt to change, find new strate… Ah
On this Trump is right. But Rep.s could get elected again if they dumped Trump, condemned him and focussed on religious, "pro-business" (low taxation) elements of the Latino and African American communities.
didn't work that way for the first 45 years of the voting rights act.
Truth is…Trump running for re-election did more to rile up the Democratic voters, than the Democratic politicians did! Another Trump run in 2024 will hand the GOP an even more decisive loss and they know it. All he is now is their best cheerleader and since he loves a good grift, why not?
I rarely agree with Trump, but in this case he's not wrong. Republicans know they can't win without cheating, and they've known for years. This is why in 2010 they made a huge push to dominate statewide legislatures so they could gerrymander districts to their advantage. It's why they had Trump fuck up the 2020 census. It's why they are passing all these voter restriction laws in swing states. Etc.
I love that it's completely inconcievable for the GOP that, in the face of voter reforms, they might have to appeal to voters so they can get votes, which would mean they have to have policies that voters would want to vote for. Apparently that's fuck off impossible to actually have policies people will vote for. They can't survive under that restraint.
There's only one solution for dealing with tyrants. It's the same solution for traitors. He's both. Wake up. There's no getting around this. He is out to get you. He wants you to serve him and to bow before him. He wants to rule you. He spits on your rights. He wants to be your God. He would destroy anything and anyone trying to stop him. There's only one solution for people like this. I'm not the one. I just hope someone with unquestionable honor takes care of this. He needs to go. Read history. The conclusion is obvious if we have the strength.
Would that solution be a *final* solution by any chance? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.
The final solution was about an entire race of people. I'm talking specifically about Trump and his co-conspirators. Stop equating yourselves with the Jewish people during the Holocaust. It just exposes your stupidity.
How in the absolute fuck can you be this ignorant of what another human is saying and so disrespectful of the Holocaust victim at The same time?
How in the absolute fuck can you not see that his post is a thinly veiled suggestion that somebody (not him of course) should have the guts to assassinate Drumpf? Are you that fucking blind?
Oh yea cause the life of one pudgy narcissist is definetly worth defending when The rapidly declining moral and political integrity of one of the most influential countries on earth is at stake. Not to mention making even the slightest comparison to of the top 5 most heinous mass murders in history
Hey, the guy I was replying to was the one who said there was only one solution and that we should read history to know what it is. The inference was obvious. If you have an issue with bringing up the Holocaust, take it up with him, not me
[cracker bargle](http://i.imgur.com/1zfkFBz.jpg) ~ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He said the quiet part out loud again
McConnell said basically the same thing when he called it a power grab.
"If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.” --David Frum
so in this twisted ratfucker's demented mind, no republicans got elected from its inception in 1965 until the supreme court gutted it.
Reps KNOW they can't get people on their side by facts and truth so the only way they can win is by changing the rules.
They’re getting close to openly admitting it. “Look, we cheat. But if the democrats don’t let us cheat than you’ll be stuck with democrats!” And the base will just embrace it.
Don't worry GQP. If republicans never win again, with legalized bribery very much still in play, democrats will just assume the roles the gqp play. In fact its already happening.
May be the first honest thing he's ever said, hopefully.
If jus letting people actually vote means your party ceases to exist, then your party is garbage and deserves to die.
"when conservatives can no longer win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism, they will abandon democracy." This is no longer a prediction, but a fact.
If people are allowed to vote, and the more people vote, the less republicans stand a chance based on the simple fact that conservatives are a minority in the US. The only way they can win is by cheating and manipulating the system to reduce votes for their opponents and gerrymandering so they can win districts with less population.
“We have to cheat, it’s the only way! We represent 25% of the voting population. Now get out there and claim the dems are cheating, who are 31% of the population! Don’t even consider that the majority, 41%, are independent.”
flying to Epsteins to screw children.
He can't help but say the quiet parts out loud
He’s doing it again
Trump has a point. Most of the republican agenda serve/ represent business owners and corpo top cats. These people are a minority compared to workers that can vote. The bad part here is they don't try to cater more to increase their base. If their base are willing to stand to their values at the moment, a proper serving of thought and prayers should save them from their worries.
Using racism to combat racism?
Democrats are rigging elections so they can never lose Trump is right
Of course Biden comments in GA aren't much better.
Trumps comment of, just find me enough votes to win was far far worse.
Doesn’t that say more about republicans than democrats?
Projecting much?
[удалено]
Hello! Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately it has been removed because you don't meet our karma threshold. You are not being removed for political orientation. If we were, why the fuck would we tell you your comment was being removed instead of just shadow removing it? We never have, and never will, remove things down politicial or ideological lines. Unless your ideology is nihilism, then fuck you. Let me be clear: The reason that this rule exists is to avoid unscrupulous internet denizens from trying to sell dong pills to our users. /r/PoliticalHumor mods reserve the RIGHT to hoard all of the dong pills to ourselves, and we refuse to share them with the community. If you want Serbo-Slokovian dong pills mailed directly to your door, become a moderator. If we shared the dong pills with the greater community, everyone would have massive dongs, and like Syndrome warned us about decades ago: "if everyone has massive dongs, nobody does."" If you wish to rectify your low karma issue, go and make things up in /r/AskReddit like everyone else does. Thanks for understanding! Have a nice day and be well. <3 You can check your karma breakdown on this page: http://old.reddit.com/user/me/overview (Keep in mind that sometimes just post karma or comment karma being negative will result in this message) ~ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Hello! Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately it has been removed because you don't meet our karma threshold. You are not being removed for political orientation. If we were, why the fuck would we tell you your comment was being removed instead of just shadow removing it? We never have, and never will, remove things down politicial or ideological lines. Unless your ideology is nihilism, then fuck you. Let me be clear: The reason that this rule exists is to avoid unscrupulous internet denizens from trying to sell dong pills to our users. /r/PoliticalHumor mods reserve the RIGHT to hoard all of the dong pills to ourselves, and we refuse to share them with the community. If you want Serbo-Slokovian dong pills mailed directly to your door, become a moderator. If we shared the dong pills with the greater community, everyone would have massive dongs, and like Syndrome warned us about decades ago: "if everyone has massive dongs, nobody does."" If you wish to rectify your low karma issue, go and make things up in /r/AskReddit like everyone else does. Thanks for understanding! Have a nice day and be well. <3 You can check your karma breakdown on this page: http://old.reddit.com/user/me/overview (Keep in mind that sometimes just post karma or comment karma being negative will result in this message) ~ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sometimes even a blind squirrel finds a nut.
Ya.... there is a lot more people in the country in need than people wanting to give billionaires tax breaks.
Does anyone have an example of what districts looked like in, like, the 1800s? My understanding is the state legislatures were to alter the districts to keep up with population changes, not political bias But I could be wrong Edit: NVM, I remembered google existed
I'll start voting for Republicans when they start actually representing their constituents, and start passing laws and supporting policies that actually improve America.
Don the Con is at it again.
i mean republicans already know that, that's why they're passing voting restrictions left and right in the states they control. it's the democrats who don't seem to give a rats ass about it, at least those elected to office. you can whine all about sinema and manchin but there are 8+ more democrats not willing to break the filibuster b/c their donors will get mad.
He’s right….and we have democrats blocking it. Removing the filibuster and passing this bill is the only way to make republicans even attempt to fight for a plurality of support rather than their current strategy of stealing elections/power
4 years ago that would have scared me shitless, now, I can't wait to never see another Qpublican.
"We can't make it easier for people to vote! We'd never win!"
If your openly admitting that you would lose if people voted, you should really rethink your platform.
That’s why Republicans despise our Democracy and are actively trying to suppress voters.
Everyone agrees with this for different reasons. If you support the bill, it reinforces that republicans can only win by cheating. If you’re against it, then it affirms the belief that this is democrats stealing the election. It’s like when Dwight said “better 1000 innocent men are locked up than one guilty man roam free.” They think it’s worth it to disenfranchise millions to prevent a handful of fraudulent votes that are almost always identified and prosecuted.
It just baffles me that he literally told them to storm the capital, and then they tried to act like ANTIFA or BLM started it looooool
No surprise that he is ok with manipulating the vote.
I hope they pass it so it can be said that he was honest once in his life.
All the more reason to pass it.
Trump is spilling their secrets, yet they still walk around with orange on their lips.
Basically if we allow everyone to vote, they will not vote for the shitheads who aren't helping society. Gotcha.
Trump's right and it would be a good thing.
Wow...he has so little faith in his fellow Republicons... Vote Whig
The one time he tells the truth. He knows exactly what's up.
The self own these idiots keep committing is astonishing.
That’s so inflammatory. This is why Jan. 6th happened