Message from @Tonight at 11 - DOOM
Discord ID: 620936023379148830
If fascism wins, we'll soon all be Fascist
if it is so, don be a fascist-phobe
@ETBrooD, the logical progression of that argument is to defend a change antithetical toward serving whatever formal norms and values of the nation. In the context of the U.S., I could see a Starbucks Marxist making that claim, in pursuit of whatever nonsense they're espousing. Our Republic has formal, democratic processes, though radical changes were never intended to come about without many years of reflective deliberations, which is one of the reasons why I advocate for stepping back toward Federalism, at the most repealing the 17th Amendment. It'd be an intention return to a mechanic meant to prevent expedient revisions.
We're already in something approaching fascism
You guys move too fast.
I can barely keep up.
What is the 17th ammendment?
Uzalu's voice is so good
Yeah still doesn't make sense to me, but thanks for tryig
I'm having to skim cos i'm working iaw, Jeremy, but what are you proposing you replace the american federal voting system with?
Replace it with swiss cheese
A Monarch crowned by God 👑 @Eccles 😉
May be better or worse, Doom
@Weez, well, if you examine their economic model, they've embraced varying behaviors consistent with Capitalist nations to survive. Fascism always wore the veneer, combining both Socialism and Capitalism in their economic models.
Nah, the argument that a monarchy is only as good as the monarch is gay cringe. It's only really true of extreme forms of despotic monarchy with little to no formal institutions.
I'm not proposing any replacements, rather reverting back to appointive Senators, @Eccles.
Appointed by whom, Jeremy?
The House.
As I said
The State house?
@ETBrooD, I'm saying the reason for the statement is for expedient progression toward some kind of change, the individual making the statement only embracing the heart of their argument when suiting their political objective. I once made that very statement.
No, the House of Representatives. They'd select peers among them to ascend.
That sounds like a terrible idea
Why do you think that's the case?
You would see the likes of California and Washington State and New York trounce over the flyover states?
You would be a failed socilaist state in a heartbeat
Of course not, as that's the case as it were now.
You'll have to read through my post.
Explain how neutering the senate improves the situation
If I were looking to solve Americas political issues, i'd be stripped power away from the federal government, not cementing it
Neutering the Senate? This doesn't neuter the Senate, rather it returns a degree of their sovereignty from the daily whims that should remain at the level of the House. It would, in fact, empowering them to carry out their constitutional duties without regard for popular sentiments, which seems to be something we should aim toward protecting ourselves from, these days.
It gives more room for Palpatine's personal decision making ofc @Eccles
That does strip power away from the Federal government, @Eccles, as it would return power to the district in appointing their Senators. Popular political sentiment sides with expansionary power.
The Senate was never meant to be subject to those sentiments.
That's arse backwards - the representatives are elected essentially proportional to the population
If you then give the power to select senators to those representatives, you're stripping away the protections built into the system for less-populace states
No, the amount of seats available to a State is proportional to that basis.
Yes, and there are precisely 2 senators per states