966
submitted 9 months ago by naturalgasbad@lemmy.ca to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] clgoh@lemmy.ca 31 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

How? No way 75% of the states would agree.

An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 42 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

How? No way 75% of the states would agree.

By electing sane politicians and not a bunch of weak populists who bend for the loudest rightwingnuts...

[-] BioDriver@beehaw.org 8 points 9 months ago

Sir this is a Wendy’s

[-] clgoh@lemmy.ca 6 points 9 months ago

Ok. Start with Mississippi.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Yes but this continues to be true. The top level poster implied that at some point is was true, but it is no longer true. It's never been reasonably possibly in the us and nothing has changed recently to make it meaningfully less possible.

[-] ShadowRam@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Yeah, that isn't going to work, because either

  1. !>25% of your population doesn't believe women have that right

or

  1. Your countries existing laws give too much voting power to a minority
[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -2 points 9 months ago

Faux populists, populists are actually cool

[-] Gabu@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 months ago

No, they're not. Populism as a whole is a horrible political strategy which benefits only a few members of the political class.

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -1 points 9 months ago

Populism is literally focusing on the masses. Now elitists use it as a pejorative to refer to fascists when fascists are also elitist with faux populist rhetoric.

[-] Gabu@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 months ago

No, populism is a focus on electorally beneficial short term goals. Has been so since always. Political decisions taken with the intent and plan of benefitting the populous are simply called a "good political administration".

[-] go_go_gadget@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

No, populism is a focus on electorally beneficial short term goals.

I mean I've heard people accuse Bernie of being a populist but I don't think he's focused on short term goals. Are they using the term wrong?

[-] Gabu@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago

Quite clearly, yes. Bernie may rely on populism more than a hardline socialist, but as a relative metric against his rivals, he's not even close to a populist.

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -4 points 9 months ago

Political decisions taken with the intent and plan of benefitting the populous are simply called a “good political administration”.

That's populism.

[-] wewbull@feddit.uk 2 points 9 months ago

Populists just tell you what you want to hear so they get power. There's no intention to follow through.

[-] JayDee@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Populism is simply a political strategy where you appeal to the 'common voter.' It is neither good nor bad.

Pro-Union efforts are populist. So are most socialist movements.

The Nazis also ran on a populist campaign. As is Trump right now.

Stating a movement is populist is an in-the-moment observation. I would argue that trying to sort 'true populists' who are actually trying to help their supporter base from 'faux-populists' fundamentally misuses the term, which is simply noting who the politician is trying to appeal to.

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -1 points 9 months ago
[-] JayDee@lemmy.ml -2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Encyclopedia britannica:

political program or movement that champions, or claims to champion, the common person, usually by favourable contrast with a real or perceived elite or establishment. Populism usually combines elements of the left and the right, opposing large business and financial interests but also frequently being hostile to established liberal, socialist, and labour parties.

Wikipedia asserts a similar definition

History.com again corroborates this:

The style of politics that claims to speak for ordinary people and often stirs up distrust has risen up on both sides of the political spectrum throughout U.S. history.

Your definition is objectively not what the general populace means when they say 'populism'.

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago

or claims to champion, the common person

That seems to be the type of populists we have in the current decade.

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago

The brilliant minds behind ancient aliens have spoken people! Throw in the towel!

This is amusing, thank you for sharing.

[-] Venator@lemmy.nz 14 points 9 months ago

Just gotta have another civil war of course. EZ.

[-] Crikeste@lemm.ee 6 points 9 months ago

And that’s one of the major problems with America.

[-] crusa187@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago

When Dems had the supermajority during the first part of Obama’s term, Roe could have easily been codified into law. They slept on this at the time, saying there were “other priorities.”

So, while this doesn’t require a constitutional amendment to become the law of the land, with how incredibly dysfunctional Congress has become, it may be the case that Article V conventions are the only way to change the laws to suit the needs of the public over the desires of the elites.

[-] kandoh@reddthat.com 10 points 9 months ago

How old are you? That's was a very different demographic of democratic senators you were looking at back then.

In 2009, the Blue Dog Coalition, also known as the Blue Dogs or Blue Dog Democrats, was a caucus of moderate members from the Democratic Party in the United States. The Blue Dogs were characterized by their moderate to conservative views within the Democratic Party[1]. During that time, the Blue Dogs played a significant role in shaping policy and negotiations within the Democratic Party.

The Blue Dog Coalition peaked at 54 members in 2009 when Democrats held a large majority in the House of Representatives[3]. These members were influential in various policy discussions and were known for their moderate stance on many issues.

Some notable Blue Dog Democratic senators during that period included individuals like Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, who expressed optimism about reaching agreements on important issues like healthcare reform with a majority of the more than 50 Blue Dogs[5]. The Blue Dogs were recognized for their willingness to work across party lines and find bipartisan solutions to key legislative matters.

Citations: [1] Blue Dog Coalition - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition [2] The Blue Dogs bark - POLITICO https://www.politico.com/story/2009/02/the-blue-dogs-bark-018434 [3] What the Decline of Blue Dog Democrats Tells Us About ... https://www.theatlantic.com/membership/archive/2017/12/what-the-decline-of-blue-dog-democrats-tells-us-about-american-politics/548813/ [4] List of members of the Blue Dog Coalition - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Blue_Dog_Coalition [5] Conservative Democrats Expect a Health Deal - The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/02/us/politics/02bluedogs.html

[-] crusa187@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago

Hello friend. I’m old enough to recognize that the corporatist blue dog Dems are the same corporatists running the DNC now. The very same conservative neoliberals who refuse to deliver on any meaningful social reform that our people desperately need, because their donors don’t want them to. But, I’m young enough to still believe we can find a way to change that rigged system to instead represent us.

[-] kandoh@reddthat.com -1 points 9 months ago

You need to realize that outside of your internet bubble and in the real world people just want boring plain old boring liberalism & conservatism

[-] 100_kg_90_de_belin@feddit.it 3 points 9 months ago

Yeah, people usually go "thank god I have no food in my pantry, because I couldn't fix my teeth to chew it, but at least the stock exhange is looking good, I'm sure that this time some wealth will trickle down my way"

[-] kandoh@reddthat.com 2 points 9 months ago

The average American makes 60 to 90k per year. I hope that clarifies for you why normal boring political ideologies keep winning elections.

[-] 100_kg_90_de_belin@feddit.it 1 points 9 months ago

That data in a vacuum is as useful as a dick sprouting out of your elbow overnight.

[-] crusa187@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago

Respectfully disagree. As a habitual grass-toucher, I find the vast majority of people I discuss progressive policies with are massively in favor of all of them. Paid family leave, increased minimum wage, access to best quality healthcare outside of employers, universal federal background checks for firearms purchases…these are all massively popular. And it’s not just my anecdotal experiences here, polling data shows these all to be extremely popular, even on both sides of the liberal and conservative ”divide”. We are well within our rights to expect the government to do things for us, not just for the corporations.

It’s mostly mainstream media outlets such as msnbc, fox, cnn, etc that perpetuate this myth of how the status quo is so wonderful and we could never do better. According to them, the politicians in Washington are political geniuses who should be revered. And wouldn’t you know it - these same multinational companies rake in profits to the tune of billions due to the system favoring them.

Maybe as well, some boomers who never gave a shit about politics and were able to raise a family on a single income back in the day would think this. Most normal people know this is complete bs and that we’re being screwed, including the vast majority of those under 40 who tend to not consume the traditional news media and get it from varied other sources. You just don’t hear about how we’re all being robbed of our wealth and our dignity on tv.

[-] kandoh@reddthat.com 1 points 9 months ago

Yes that's the crux of it isn't it. Progressive ideas are popular but progressive candidates don't win. I think it's a Nixon opening China situation, voters want universal healthcare but they want a person like Ted Cruz to be the one to give it to them.

[-] underisk@lemmy.ml 6 points 9 months ago

their other priorities were arguing back and forth for months watering down a republican-written healthcare reform bill for the supposed benefit of republicans who still didn't vote for it.

[-] crusa187@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago
[-] 100_kg_90_de_belin@feddit.it 3 points 9 months ago

"Other priorities": if men needed abortion they would be able to get them at a fast-food drive through while they are waiting for their order

[-] clgoh@lemmy.ca -5 points 9 months ago

Ah! The mythical supermajority that never really was.

[-] crusa187@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago

It quite literally was that until Kennedy died.

[-] clgoh@lemmy.ca -1 points 9 months ago

With Franken not sworn in for months, Byrd hospitalized and Kennedy's death they never had 60 sitting senators.

this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2024
966 points (98.2% liked)

World News

32524 readers
894 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS