Why sensible gun legislation and everything else popular with the American people fails to pass:

[Moonbeam]

The Real Reason America Doesn’t Have Gun Control

The basic rules of American democracy provide a veto over national policy to a minority of the states.

www.theatlantic.com

How about we liberals stop falling for the delusion that guns themselves are the problem and go after why nothing sensible ever can get done. In my opinion it is time to go after the filibuster and any and all who try to preserve it and explain to the American people who it is who is killing their hopes and their dreams.

Should we thank God for the small mercies two Democratic senators will give us when they are responsible for the destruction of Democracy? I think it is time that the Democrats stare telling the American people who is destroying their dreams. I think the party should kick them out as the reason why nothing gets done on anything. Put the blame and accountability at the feet of the real problem and then maybe something good and rational will happen on gun legislation.

Agree or no?

 

[Greenman]

The issue with ending the filibuster is that sooner or later the other team gains the majority. So you get what you want today, then lose it all in a few years.
I agree something needs to change, but making it easy for the majority party to do whatever they want isn't a solution, it's another layer of problems.

 

[ivwshane]

What’s the problem with that? If the American people vote for something today and the GOP take it away when they get power then the American people have a very clear choice to make and can vote out the people that didn’t do what they wanted.

Right now when nothing is guaranteed to happen, people can go to their teams and hide behind inaction. However when you give the people what they want or take away what they want you’ll generally pay for it at the voting booth.

I say bring it!

 

[Fanatical Meat]

The issue with ending the filibuster is that sooner or later the other team gains the majority. So you get what you want today, then lose it all in a few years.
I agree something needs to change, but making it easy for the majority party to do whatever they want isn't a solution, it's another layer of problems.

I look at it as accountability. Sure at some point a bunch of people you or I or someone else won’t want and that group will have a majority. Now it is the time to pass or repeal legislation. Doing so or not doing so makes them accountable for the outcome. They no longer will be able to point to the same Senators over and over and say the same thing we’ve heard “That person won’t budge and they are in a safe district” which is basically saying “I can’t do anything thus I am not accountable”

 

[cytg111]

The issue with ending the filibuster is that sooner or later the other team gains the majority. So you get what you want today, then lose it all in a few years.
I agree something needs to change, but making it easy for the majority party to do whatever they want isn't a solution, it's another layer of problems.

No. Democracy is already losing you are in this fight for dear life. This must pan out and when its done the other side you are talking about is “Manchin level democrats” vs the Bernie side. As it should fucking be.
Your alternative is a Vlad like Russia. Good luck with that.
Ps. I know your brain is fried and you dont get any of this so lulz.

 

[rommelrommel]

I might have agreed a few years ago, but now with a stacked Supreme Court those issues are mostly DOA. The current makeup will probably push Heller further.

 

[dank69]

The issue with ending the filibuster is that sooner or later the other team gains the majority. So you get what you want today, then lose it all in a few years.
I agree something needs to change, but making it easy for the majority party to do whatever they want isn't a solution, it's another layer of problems.

This exact scenario has been gamed out for you and other conservatives on here several times just in the past year or so. The Republicans don't need 60 to enact their only actual "policy" changes they want: seating judges and cutting taxes. They had full control for Trumps first 2 years and the Dems didn't have to filibuster any major legislation because the GOP didn't even have the 50 needed to pass anything.

Plus, if they ever did have something, Mitch would eliminate the filibuster in a heartbeat without a second thought. There is literally no upside to the Dems leaving it in place.

 

[nickqt]

Sensible gun legislation isn't going to work for god damn near 50% of the country, and maybe more...in more ways than most people are willing to honestly discuss. So, getting to that minute detail is way more complicated than any conversation that can be had on a free-for-all forum. That said a meta reason for the inability for this country to have sensible policies on HUNDREDS of issues is due to how the very government is set up.

The US Constitution was a wonderful document for 18th century elites, and is literally anachronistic for the 21st century. Almost every single political problem we have is structurally related to the Constitution itself.

Now, before anyone starts up their performative patriotism, I am not saying that the US Constitution should be scrapped, because ultimately the right-wing authoritarians who control more states would be able to fashion up something even fucking worse. So, put your bullhorn down and let your pulse drop a few dozen points before continuing on.

First. The Senate is fucking trash.
1. Best option would be to trashbin that piece of shit and increase the House from the hilariously terrible 435 members to around 2000 members. Right now, 435 members "represent" 758,000 people each. That's laugh out loud fucking funny, because no it fucking doesn't represent actual discernible people/groups. If the House was made up of around 2,000, at least each member would 'represent" 165,000 people, which is still pretty laughable, but is definitively less terrible.
a. You know how Gerrymandering is just terrible? Well, with 2000 members instead of 435, that problem will be mitigated by, well, a fucking lot.
b. By having 2,000 members, "more parties" are possible, and the whole "first past the post" garbage might even allow more parties than the "duopoly" that BothSidesDoIt™ liars like to bring up.
c. By 2040 or so, it's been estimated that 30% of the population will control 70% of the Senate, because of stupid arbitrary lines and the inherent dogshitedness of the Senate. You think it's "bad" now if you aren't a fascism supporter, wait until 2040.

2. If we can't trashbin the Senate because of reasons, we could at least vastly expand the Senate. Each state gets a standard 2 Senators. And then additional Senators are apportioned by population. No longer will Wyoming have equal say as California, as California will have 2 Senators like Wyoming, along with another 55 Senators based on population. Yeah, that's right, now the Senate will actually be a representative body and not just a post for rich fucks who want more power than they deserve.
a. In 2040 or whatever, we won't be literally subjugated by rural White Christian Nationalists who hate anything that their pastor and Fox News doesn't approve of.

Second. The Electoral College is fucking trash.
1. Best option, yet again, is trashbin that piece of shit. Just make it by popular vote. Entire city or state populations do not all vote with one ballot, so no, for fucks sake, the popular vote doesn't favor "urban" over rural, or certain states over other states. It fucking favors the god damn will of the people, end of story.

2. If we can't trashbin the Electoral College because of nonsense reasons, we could at least award the EC votes proportionally. And if we use the vastly expanded House and Senate numbers so that the Electoral College is not some hilariously low arbitrary number like 538, then even if we still cant just go with the popular vote for stupid nonsense reasons, it'll be less fucking dogshit stupid than it is now. At least the EC votes of states rewarded proportionally will actually be relatively decently proportional to the popular vote.

Third. The Supreme Court is absolutely political and always fucking has been.
1. Let's face it, it's an unelected political body and anyone who says they agree with it 100% probably disagreed with it 100% before their political team got selected to run the fucking thing.

And that's just the basics. There are plenty of built-in problems with the Constitution. Show me in the Constitution where women and men are equal, and the 19th Amendment ain't it. Look at the ERA for example, it's pretty fucking obvious why the ERA didn't pass "in time". Show me in the constitution where slavery is totally outlawed, because you're going to have a hell of a time explaining the entirety of the 13th Amendment. When 2040 is here and you're conveniently "a prisoner", it's going to be liberals and communist transsexuals' working in camps polishing artillery shells that are heading to the Canadian and Mexican front.

So, that's why the US Constitution is the structural problem underlying US politics being a flaming shitpile. It was great in 1803 for the elites who ran the country and didn't want to have to make hard decisions on slavery and what "freedom" actually entailed. And ever since then it has been failing to meet the demands of a modern country of 330,000,000 people.

And since it ain't going to get replaced with anything better, the last option is, as I've linked anywhere and everywhere remotely relevant...

Strong Federalism.

A soft "split". All Empires end up bifurcating or trifurcating or shattering into hundreds of pieces, eventually, and we have the opportunity to do it slowly and keep it relatively peaceful during the transition.

AND...it's basically allowed by the Constitution's 9th and 10th Amendments... if we just embrace Strong Federalism.

Democrats Should Weaponize Federalism

If Democrats truly believe in the power of their policies, they should be ready to weaponize federalism.

www.politicalorphans.com

There are threads on these very forums with lefties talking about how we should just split as a country. Let Texas/Republican States secede, etc. Well, I think that will end up a lot more violent than just embracing Strong Federalism, and letting Blue States do their thing, and Red States do their thing. Make the President's Powers Limited Again. Let California experiment with statewide UBI as Idaho abandons minimum wage. Laboratories of democracy and whatnot.

The harder you try to grip the handful of sand that is this country, the more slips out.

Let's use two hands instead.

 

[eelw]

The US Constitution was a wonderful document for 18th century elites, and is literally anachronistic for the 21st century. Almost every single political problem we have is structurally related to the Constitution itself.

Best thing is many would agree that following rules drafted 300 years ago is stupid, but they still clutch those pearls called the 2nd amendment

 

[nickqt]

Best thing is many would agree that following rules drafted 300 years ago is stupid, but they still clutch those pearls called the 2nd amendment

What's you opinion on people who "clutch those pearls" called the 1st amendment? Dummy heads, or is that Amendment OK as long as it's interpreted in a way you agree with?

Unlike people who think we can confiscate 400 million firearms because they're upset over children being murdered, I believe that there should be stronger regulations on who can purchase a firearm, because it will literally be impossible to undo the private ownership of 400 million firearms that are all almost entirely untraceable. Unless you're actually proposing that individuals go door-to-door demanding people give up their firearms. That's a pretty big ask, and I bet you wouldn't be the one going door-to-door.

I'm also of the belief that when the fascists come to murder me, my family and/or my community, I should have the right to defend myself and my community.

Pearls and the First Amendment are absolutely useless when a fascist is armed and ready to take away my freedoms. That stupid 2nd Amendment isn't as useless in that situation. And the people who for some reason are just whistling right past that scenario confound me and others who are your political allies, often to your political left. Just because you can't imagine right-wing death squads rolling up to your neighborhood under the color of law doesn't mean there aren't those of us who can.

 

[ivwshane]

Best thing is many would agree that following rules drafted 300 years ago is stupid, but they still clutch those pearls called the 2nd amendment

I disagree. The constitution was written pretty well but with some glaring flaws. The biggest one being that the founders put way more trust into the elite than they did the people (white land owners as the only voters, the electoral college as the backstop to a strong man). As a result they failed when it came to equality.

The biggest failure though has been allowing the minority to control the majority. This has happened because bad laws passed by congress (see the law capping how many US representatives there are), and by bad appointments to the Supreme Court throughout history and especially with this latest bunch of federal society extremists.

When you remove those factors (admittedly those as big factors) we have a pretty well functioning government. However I think those factors would be present in any system of government. So the solution isn’t to start over but to fix whats wrong.

 

[Zor Prime]

Leaving the filibuster alone right now would be the thing to do, Democrats are about to lose the house and senate for a generation. You do not want the Republicans running around doing whatever they want at their sole discretion.

 

[MrSquished]

I disagree. The constitution was written pretty well but with some glaring flaws. The biggest one being that the founders put way more trust into the elite than they did the people (white land owners as the only voters, the electoral college as the backstop to a strong man). As a result they failed when it came to equality.

The biggest failure though has been allowing the minority to control the majority. This has happened because bad laws passed by congress (see the law capping how many US representatives there are), and by bad appointments to the Supreme Court throughout history and especially with this latest bunch of federal society extremists.

When you remove those factors (admittedly those as big factors) we have a pretty well functioning government. However I think those factors would be present in any system of government. So the solution isn’t to start over but to fix whats wrong.

you glossed over the Senate being designed so poorly where so many little states now have such oversized representation. It's a lot of fuck ups that have just compounded upon each other as the country grew. at this point it is completely not functional as the last 4 years have taught us.

 

[ivwshane]

you glossed over the Senate being designed so poorly where so many little states now have such oversized representation. It's a lot of fuck ups that have just compounded upon each other as the country grew. at this point it is completely not functional as the last 4 years have taught us.

That’s because I don’t agree with what you are saying. Other than the filibuster, which is completely undemocratic, I’m totally fine with how the senate was created. In fact I’d be ok with the states still choosing their senators (but having the people pick them is fine too).

The purpose of the senate was to be a more deliberative body where policy changes were meant to be slow. Unfortunately the filibuster not only has forced the minority party to not compromise on anything but it also has kept the majority party from enacting anything.

Once the filibuster is removed we will see some “extreme” legislation pass and removed as the parties switch power, eventually though we will see compromise again because both parties will tire of losing power every couple of years.

 

[Greenman]

No. Democracy is already losing you are in this fight for dear life. This must pan out and when its done the other side you are talking about is “Manchin level democrats” vs the Bernie side. As it should fucking be.
Your alternative is a Vlad like Russia. Good luck with that.
Ps. I know your brain is fried and you dont get any of this so lulz.

This is an outstanding example of the fundamental issue. Because we disagree politically, there must be something wrong with me, so that justifies establishing rules that negate my wishes while calling it democracy.

 

[nickqt]

This is an outstanding example of the fundamental issue. Because we disagree politically, there must be something wrong with me, so that justifies establishing rules that negate my wishes while calling it democracy.

So you're pro-choice now?

 

[MrSquished]

That’s because I don’t agree with what you are saying. Other than the filibuster, which is completely undemocratic, I’m totally fine with how the senate was created. In fact I’d be ok with the states still choosing their senators (but having the people pick them is fine too).

The purpose of the senate was to be a more deliberative body where policy changes were meant to be slow. Unfortunately the filibuster not only has forced the minority party to not compromise on anything but it also has kept the majority party from enacting anything.

Once the filibuster is removed we will see some “extreme” legislation pass and removed as the parties switch power, eventually though we will see compromise again because both parties will tire of losing power every couple of years.

It takes approximately 20 states to equal the population of California and yet have 20X the representation in the Senate. I'm sorry, your position is insane.

 

[MrSquished]

Literally every single branch of government is broken - the Senate is fubared, the House cap is nuts, the Executive is unfair due to the EC, and the SC is just totally imbalanced because of lifetime appointments and the ability of the Senate to steal a seat and now we have three Trump appointees - and we are stuck in a perpetual two party system, also fucked. The whole system is fubared at this point.

I don't think that sounds like the Constitution worked out all that great.

 

[ivwshane]

It takes approximately 20 states to equal the population of California and yet have 20X the representation in the Senate. I'm sorry, your position is insane.

That’s what the house is for or did you not learn that civics lesson. Why have the senate if you are just going to have more representatives anyway? So what you are really for is abolishing the senate, good luck with that.

 

[MrSquished]

That’s what the house is for or did you not learn that civics lesson. Why have the senate if you are just going to have more representatives anyway? So what you are really for is abolishing the senate, good luck with that.

I never said to abolish the Senate but the formula right now is clearly broken. Also I listed above how literally every branch of the government is really lopsided. I dunno how you can say the Constitution is so great when literally every branch is not functioning well and we got about 2 inches from Democracy being overthrown last year just because a guy could lie a lot.

 

[ivwshane]

Literally every single branch of government is broken - the Senate is fubared, the House cap is nuts, the Executive is unfair due to the EC, and the SC is just totally imbalanced because of lifetime appointments and the ability of the Senate to steal a seat and now we have three Trump appointees - and we are stuck in a perpetual two party system, also fucked. The whole system is fubared at this point.

I don't think that sounds like the Constitution worked out all that great.

Hardly.

Vote out enough politicians who don’t support removing the filibuster (that’s roughly two senators).

Remove the filibuster.

Increase the number of house seats so people are better represented.

Expand the courts.

Or we can do it your way:

Pass a constitutional amendment abolishing the electoral college or have every state agree that the majority vote get the EC votes.

Pass a constitutional amendment limiting how long a Justice can serve.

Pass a constitutional amendment abolishing or changing how many senators per state there are.

You tell me which options has a better chance.

 

[ivwshane]

I never said to abolish the Senate but the formula right now is clearly broken. Also I listed above how literally every branch of the government is really lopsided. I dunno how you can say the Constitution is so great when literally every branch is not functioning well and we got about 2 inches from Democracy being overthrown last year just because a guy could lie a lot.

I explained it to you. Several rules/laws were enacted that broke the system. Seems like the easy solution would be to undo those rules/laws rather than start from scratch, don’t you think?

 

[DaaQ]

It's supposed to be a living Document, Amended as needed, yet a minority will not let it be Amended.

 

[MrSquished]

Hardly.

Vote out enough politicians who don’t support removing the filibuster (that’s roughly two senators).

Remove the filibuster.

Increase the number of house seats so people are better represented.

Expand the courts.

Or we can do it your way:

Pass a constitutional amendment abolishing the electoral college or have every state agree that the majority vote get the EC votes.

Pass a constitutional amendment limiting how long a Justice can serve.

Pass a constitutional amendment abolishing or changing how many senators per state there are.

You tell me which options has a better chance.

Your options have zero chances. Neither of our option's has a chance - the problem is I at least I acknowledge how fucked the system is.

 

[ivwshane]

It's supposed to be a living Document, Amended as needed, yet a minority will not let it be Amended.

There is more than one way to have the constitution amend to the times besides a constitutional amendment.