divided

Saying Kansas having proportional power is “no power” is highly disingenuous. When you rephrase your question to something that isn’t clearly loaded with bias:

How would it be fair for Kansas to have power proportional to its population federally?

Well. That sounds like a very silly question, doesn’t it?

This has always been a weird belief to me. California is the US’s best economy and a leader in science, art, technology, education, trade, manufacturing, and agriculture. It has led the way on many civil rights issues which later end up being adopted by the nation as a whole.

So much value for the US and it should be disfavored over those that provide so much less? Sure it has its problems, but just looking at results it’s clear California is the most successful state we have.

So you want to overrepresent the unsuccessful states?

I think it’s very worthwhile to want to find a methodology behind this, but I think it’s naive to believe most Americans wouldn’t support this.

The popular vote is 7-1 in the previous 8 elections for one party, although the electoral college went 5-3 during that time.

Your statement implies this popular majority favors their side losing? They walk away from those 2 elections feeling this is how things should work? That’s a little silly of a belief.

The “tyranny of the majority” makes people feel smart when they say it.

I think this might be an argument based on fantasy. The best parallel might be the end of colonialism in different nations, but that’s a stretch. Those territories which declared their independence were often unrepresented (not proportionally represented) and typically gained their independence through war. I don’t think any state or territory of the US would truly dare to face the US military alone.

You mention Maine and Alaska which I imagine you believe would join Canada? Canada doesn’t give each territory equal representation. They’ve also not suffered a territory leaving despite the various secession campaigns (US has those too even with the Senate, strange).

I think there’s just very little evidence the Senate is some magic fairy dust that keeps our country together when many, many other countries don’t have such a similar body and they’re not all falling to pieces.

The only thing worse than the tyranny of the majority is the tyranny of the minority, which we see happening today around bodily autonomy and LGBTQ.

Also this fear of tyranny of the majority is widely ignorant of US history. It has happened countless times in different contexts, what value is there in treating the urban/rural divide special?

The white majority supported enslavement of black people.

And destroying or expelling Native Americans.

And the banning of immigration from China.

And Jim Crow.

Then Japanese internment.

Christian majority pushed for criminalizing homosexuality.

And banning gay marriage.

And criminalizing drug use.

Or the capitalist majority sought to destroy communists in the McCarthy era.

All throughout US history we have examples of a majority exerting their power over a minority. It’s just really weird that the urban/rural divide is where you and others draw the line. Should black people’s votes be counted twice? Should communists get 40 votes? Should gay people get 10? Then why is it rural Kansas farmer gets 2?

In my experience, news programs are very precise over using “alleged” or “suspected” when describing defendants until they’ve been proven guilty. And they quickly issue corrections when known facts change.

Opinion programs, however, can be much more loose with their language. Tucker Carlson famously avoided repercussions from his speech with this defense.

This isn’t a new thing. People still call OJ Simpson a murderer despite being declared not guilty in his criminal trial. People call George W Bush a murderer despite never even being charged with a crime.

Colloquially, murderer can also be used to mean killer. Rittenhouse is a killer.

I don’t see his lawsuits going anywhere, but I’m open to there being actual good evidence and argument for it. Maybe you can provide some great clips or articles with the slander, but otherwise I think the comparison with what Jones did is laughable.

Yes, Justice Thomas mentions some of the most major 14th amendment rulings and says they were ruled wrongly. One conspicuously missing ruling was Loving v Virginia. The one that prevented states from banning interracial marriage. Does this sound like someone standing on principle? Or perhaps more like someone who doesn’t care about others’ rights but don’t touch his own?

Several states have already had debates in their state houses about outlawing some forms of birth control (Louisiana and Missouri off the top of my head). This was prior to the decision, now they will be more emboldened.

The Texas governor when asked if he could go further and outlaw birth control simply responded “I don’t know.” You wildly underestimate how extreme these people are and how little they care about what the majority want.

To answer your final paragraph, there is a very long history of _certain_ particular states in a _certain_ region in America with a _certain_ evangelical Christian makeup who has been trampling rights for centuries. These people argued states should decide slavery and Jim Crow laws as well. Being blunt, history has proven over and over you’re on the wrong side of this.

And, for what it’s worth, until gerrymandering is fixed there is a tremendous problem with letting the minority political party in the state govern.

For instance, in Wisconsin over the last 3 elections, Democrats have been +4%, +8%, -3%. One would expect their state house to slightly favor Democrats. Republicans have held a +29%, +27%, and +23% edge.

Almost every red state is like this. This is how you have relatively purple states like North Carolina, Texas, and Florida take absurdly hard right positions that in no way represents their populations.

The Texas GOP just days ago released their platform calling for a state-level electoral college for all state-wide positions so they can maintain control of governor, secretary of state, attorney general, etc. without coming remotely close to winning the popular vote.

Hope that helps explain how it is very much the DEFINITION of undemocratic and what’s wrong with it.

The "bubble" tends to claim the numbers are 60-70% (and higher in tech companies). Polling shows the numbers between 60-70%.

No, most self described progressives would not be surprised that the numbers are where they say they are.

Literally all throughout this thread people are using these same numbers. I'm curious how far off your perception of progressives is from reality. What numbers do you think we believe are accurate?

Further, _you_ should reference the first chart you linked. It should clearly indicate to you that many who identify as pro-life do indeed support at least partial abortion rights.

85% believe abortions should be allowed in all or some circumstances. 13% believe illegal in all circumstances. Many states under conservative control will go to illegal in all circumstances, so that's the opinion of 13% controlling the freedoms of the other 85%. Not so close to 50/50, huh?

That feels like a distinction without a difference. If he and 4 others rule that the court overstepped its bounds, states will determine those behaviors to be illegal.

So if you admit he's willing to overthrow the precedent, and you agree that some states would then make those behaviors illegal, then how can you square that circle in your brain to claim it's scaremongering?

Oh sorta like how people in restaurants don't have to wash their hands. Or doctors don't have to wash their hands. And others don't have to pass their drivers license test to drive on the roads. And public school students don't have to get vaccines. And people who serve in the military don't have to get their vaccines. And factories don't have to provide safe working conditions. And landlords don't have to inspect and maintain their properties. And drivers don't have to replace their tail lights when they're busted. And you don't need to clear your sidewalk after snowstorms. And McDonald's doesn't need to keep their coffee below a certain temperature and display hot warnings on their cups.

If you'd consider for a second, you can come up with some of your own to debunk your own previous hypothesis.

There are _countless_ examples where when you want to exist within society, you must act in order to prevent harms to others.

I accept your apology, though.

I admire that you have such a loving connection to your children.

And I get what you mean with survival, it’s a commonly discussed point in these debates. I think for the pro-choice side, if the technology existed to incubate outside the womb or to transplant from one person to another who wanted to give birth, we’d be for it. We are not pro-termination. But when it comes to the pregnant person’s autonomy, that takes precedence.

After viability and birth, others besides the mother and father can care for the child. And society owes its children that.

I believe the vast majority of pro-choice supports a limit at viability except when the mother’s life is in danger. Only 1% of abortions happen in the third trimester and nearly all of those are due to a threat to the mother’s life.

On the other side, I believe the majority of pro-life supporters want a complete ban.

If your beliefs are between the extremes, I think only one side represents that.

On face value sure it may look more restrictive, but it’s not a simple comparison. The exceptions for their 12 week limit are some of the PRIMARY reasons to get an abortion. In that regard, the soft 12 week limit could be more permissive of 20+ week abortions than our statutes.

Second, Denmark citizens have universal healthcare making it easier to access procedures, pregnancy testing, etc.

Third, prior to the ruling some states only had 1 abortion center state-wide. As well as rules requiring day long waiting periods, anti-abortion counseling, etc.

Imagine how access looks different when you must save up for months, travel 3 hours to visit a clinic, rent a motel for the night for the waiting period, and all while trying to not miss any days at work.

Hope that helps convey that rather dry comparisons of the weeks of various international statutes is a far cry from determining whether one system is “a lot more restrictive” than another.

…the entire time?

I think you’re trying to ask a poignant question, but it misses the point.

The fetus’ body is not the mother’s body, and bodily autonomy dictates one isn’t obligated to give their body for another’s survival.

Removing the fetus from the womb results in termination of the fetus if done prior to viability, but at no point does any violation of the fetus’ body need to occur for this outcome to happen.

Yes, a poor 15 year old in Mississippi can SIMPLY cross three or four states to get her abortion done. Problem solved, folks.

There is a lot of misinformation packed in two small paragraphs. Let’s try to unpack.

First, are you aware that the right for individuals to bear arms was not considered a right by judicial opinion for most of US history until 2008? For instance, in US v Miller 1939 it was decided one didn’t have a right to own sawed off shotguns because it bore no “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” You see, many read the amendment as the right for states to have a militia, not the right for individuals to bear arms for self defense. In fact, I believe most founding father documents support that interpretation. Interpretation matters as much as the document itself.

Second, the US government hasn’t tried to force injections of experimental immunotherapies. It was no longer experimental after it achieved approval. No US government mandated the vaccine besides in situations where vaccines are already mandated. They strongly encouraged through rewards, but they always provided alternatives to requiring vaccination. For example, masking and testing have been at times adequate alternatives. The government has required vaccines for public school and the military for decades (centuries?), and it has been widely regarded as saving millions of lives, so it’s very weird that it’s an issue now. Oh right, culture war.

I’d like to engage, but I’m unsure what your point is.

Adding exceptions is antithetical to the belief it is murder. One does not get to murder another person because they were a child of incest. On the other hand, not adding an exception for abortion is monstrous.

If you agree that forcing a woman to give birth to a child of rape or incest is monstrous, then maybe you’ll agree abortion isn’t murder. If you think it’s not monstrous, I hope it never happens to you or someone you love just to be taught a hard lesson in empathy for others.

I’m unsure why you’re quoting the definition of a legally induced abortion and why you feel it important to your argument.

You’ve missed the point in the quote you pulled. Assault is hardly an unknown circumstance.

To draw the parallel to a newborn, some pass away from SIDS, some from abuse, some from malnutrition. Investigations are performed in suspicious circumstances. Sometimes it truly happens to be random or unknown or unpreventable.

If one were to treat fetuses the same, wouldn’t one want to verify there was no abuse or neglect? I.E. the causes are unknown, it could be a random natural event, it could be due to someone’s actions, the only way to know is to investigate. To my knowledge, nobody currently gets investigated for a miscarriage of unknown cause. One can only hope it stays that way.

I’m aware and it’s terrifying. Traditionally most anti-abortion advocates supported the exception, and I still believe most Republican voters support the exception.

But they elect extremists to govern.

I’d like to believe being more aware of the extremism would temper voters towards moderation, but I fear instead history proves the voters are more likely to have their views shift towards extremism.

Do you really believe all miscarriages are random and that none are due to alcohol, drugs, malnutrition, or other reasons?

Now hopefully in the future the argument won’t strike you as odd.

Abortion is clearly not murder. Treating it as such has horrible implications.

Let’s start with the belief that life starts at conception. With this belief, a fetus is equivalent in protection to a newborn. Following this, voluntarily ending it is murder.

Then what about miscarriage? If a newborn were to die under unknown circumstances, there should be an investigation. Should then all pregnant people be investigated for potential negligence or abuse for this already traumatizing situation? 1/3 to 1/2 of all fertilized eggs never implant. Should these be scrutinized? I cannot see how one can say a fetus and newborn deserve equivalent protections and then fail to give them.

Further, what about support for abortion exceptions for incest or rape? If the pregnancy in this scenario went to term and the child was born, one wouldn’t then support that murdering the newborn was OK.

If you don’t believe these things, then you don’t believe newborns and fetuses deserve equal protection. You only happen to believe specific fetuses deserve one specific protection.

Wrong and naive.

Wrong because Roe v Wade was decided in 1973, the rate went from roughly 14 to 23 (a 64% increase).

Naive because as Jim said, the article clearly states the numbers are voluntarily given and therefore would not include illegal abortions. And the recording started in 1969, so it wouldn’t be surprising for it to take time before clinics even began reporting. In other words, abortions in states where it was legal probably didn’t DOUBLE between 1970 and 1971, but rather reporting of them improved.

Right, they can. Undoubtedly kicking someone off a private platform can cause them harm, sometimes significant harm. We agree there.

Where I disagree is the term goverment-like enforcement implies more than de-platforming. Seizing assets is closer, but banks and apartments and landlords have seized assets for hundreds (thousands?) of years. It would also be a stretch to call rules and enforcements of those rules by banks, apartments, and landlords government-like. These tech monopoly rules and enforcement don’t seem outside the norm for a private entity.

I don’t disagree that the scale of the companies present problems that need to be addressed. But businesses having rules and enforcing them are not problems alone.

I’m interested in examples of where breaking a company’s rules has led to fines or imprisonment—particularly ones _enforced_ by the tech monopoly—that didn’t also involve breaking laws. Not talking about the flaws in technology (your example of misidentification for instance). You may just be making a separate point, but my response was in regards to the sentiment of its parent.

Your other comments I agree with, but the root cause isn’t government-like rules and enforcement; but rather government-like services being owned by broadly unregulated private entities.

It is a stretch to call enforcing terms of service “government-like” rules and enforcement. This is like calling a restaurant hanging up a “no shirt, no shoes, no service” sign the same. And thus far I haven’t seen them issue fines or imprisonment over breaking their rules.