Will the US become permanently Democrat-controlled?

[San Lumen]

Yeah they could basically do anything

How? Getting the states to agree on literally anything nowadays is an exercise in pain and frustration, how would anything be agreed on if they all had to meet up to write a new American Constitution?

They have a horrific agenda in mind.

[Katganistan]

If the Democrats become the sole party of a new one-party phase, internal divisions within the party will eventually lead some to split off and join with other groups to form some new party.

Why hasnt that happened in Wyoming or South Dakota which have been a one party states for decades?

Do you notice it's just one side that's screaming about civil war if they don't get their way?

[Thermodolia]

Your hate of the working class and the people in favor of corporations is moreso

When did I ever express A hatred for the working class?

When you said that you agreed with Reagan that striking workers should be fired, when you said that some workers shouldn’t be allowed to strike or have a voice, when you said that you would have personally fired striking workers if you where in a position of power to do so, when you derided the unions as getting union goodies, when you complained about workers getting better pay and benefits would lead to a price increase.

You are no friend of the working class. You probably hate the meaning behind Solidarity Forever

Atlanta metro area will soon control Georgia and republicans will have to moderate if they want to win statewide again

The Atlanta metro is more conservative than you realize. They are just more Business conservatives than not

[Ors Might]

God I hope not. I’d rather not live under a corporatist state. Then again this would only fuel the revolution so yes

Your obsession with coups and revolutions is frightening

if you ain’t revolting against corrupt oligarchs and statist tyrants tbh what are you even doing

[Katganistan]

Your making grandiose claims with no evidence to back it up. I think this has undertones if not liking changing demographics and urban areas outvoting rural ones. I’ve seen the argument before but prove me wrong

Changing demographics and the position of removing the electoral college would functionally destroy republican representation based on minority voting patterns

The answer would be for republicans to”change” themselves and abandond their own morales to adjust.

Thus we will see more problems and tyranny, ethnic conflict, and mass ignorance and infighting.

Blacks, asians, whites and latinos will then begin to tribalize. I imagine south texas and california turning into currupt narco areas mixed with ethnic betrayal to mexico. Many of these immigrants are coming under economic conditions not the “want” for american values or rights, that is not priority.

Okay, that's just unsubstantiated nonsense with more than a dash of racism thrown in.

[VoVoDoCo]

Theoretically, even if every elected official in America and court justice was a Democrat, eventually the democratic party would schism with the moderate market Democrats and “radical” social Democrats running against each other.

Now do I actually think the Democrats will ever control the US perpetually? No. But I do think the days of the Republicans are numbered. I don’t know if I’ll ever see that day myself,But the political climate and social norms change too frequently and quickly to sustain a party which advocates such outdated Social and economic policies.

[San Lumen]

Theoretically, even if every elected official in America and court justice was a Democrat, eventually the democratic party would schism with the moderate market Democrats and “radical” social Democrats running against each other.

Now do I actually think the Democrats will ever control the US perpetually? No. But I do think the days of the Republicans are numbered. I don’t know if I’ll ever see that day myself,But the political climate and social norms change too frequently and quickly to sustain a party which advocates such outdated Social and economic policies.

That’s why republicans cheat to win with voter suppression and drawing district lines so they can win without getting the most votes

[VoVoDoCo]

Theoretically, even if every elected official in America and court justice was a Democrat, eventually the democratic party would schism with the moderate market Democrats and “radical” social Democrats running against each other.

Now do I actually think the Democrats will ever control the US perpetually? No. But I do think the days of the Republicans are numbered. I don’t know if I’ll ever see that day myself,But the political climate and social norms change too frequently and quickly to sustain a party which advocates such outdated Social and economic policies.

That’s why republicans cheat to win with voter suppression and drawing district lines so they can win without getting the most votes

Yeah I’ve heard that they haven’t won a presidential election with the popular vote in two decades. I have an actually looked it up myself, but I wouldn’t be surprised.

[San Lumen]

That’s why republicans cheat to win with voter suppression and drawing district lines so they can win without getting the most votes

Yeah I’ve heard that they haven’t won a presidential election with the popular vote in two decades. I have an actually looked it up myself, but I wouldn’t be surprised.

It’s true. George Bush was the last back in 2004 and he won narrowly

[Discourse Ourobros]

But Karl Rove's wet dream of a permanent Republican majority was just peachy apparently.

It was a dumb idea then, and it's a dumb idea now when the other guys are doing it.

Creepy demographic triumphalism on the part of the Democrats is empowering the "crazy racist uncle" within the Democratic party. It seems that a number of SJ Progressives believe in repayment of harms between collective groups rather than individuals, on the timespan of generations, on the basis of race and ethnicity (in particular, land claims - the kind of thing that can result in atrocities).

That's the fundamental moral basis for ethnic blood feuds.

And nearly every mechanism of their belief system is designed to be one-way, and aimed at one particular demographic group, who they reflexively criticize on the basis of non-exitable identity markers.

When this was confined to some university campuses, it was cringey. Now, with people getting fired and with plenty of institutional power to back them (cancelling conferences, changing CoCs, etc), it's creepy.

With that in mind, almost no other policy from the Democrats matters.

As for open borders... only someone who thinks the whole world is already America would support such a policy. This is an illusion caused by America's relative dominance, and the support for it comes from economists who view human beings as identical, replaceable cogs, and thus fails to account even for existing violent ethnic conflict, much new ethnic conflict that would arise.

[Munkcestrian Republic]

Yeah they could basically do anything

How? Getting the states to agree on literally anything nowadays is an exercise in pain and frustration, how would anything be agreed on if they all had to meet up to write a new American Constitution?

You can't think of anything the Republicans might agree on?

"There is no way to effectively limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda."

"The Constitution provides no guidance whatsoever on the ground rules for a convention. This leaves wide open to political considerations and pressures such fundamental questions as how the delegates would be chosen, how many delegates each state would have, and whether a supermajority vote would be required to approve amendments. To illustrate the importance of these issues, consider that if every state had one vote in the convention and the convention could approve amendments with a simple majority vote, the 26 least populous states — which contain less than 18 percent of the nation’s people — could approve an amendment for ratification."

"The only constitutional convention in U.S. history, in 1787, went far beyond its mandate. Charged with amending the Articles of Confederation to promote trade among the states, the convention instead wrote an entirely new governing document. A convention held today could set its own agenda, too. There is no guarantee that a convention could be limited to a particular set of issues, such as those related to balancing the federal budget. As a result, powerful, well-funded interest groups would surely seek to influence the process and press for changes to the agenda, seeing a constitutional convention as an opportunity to enact major policy changes. As former Chief Justice Burger wrote, a “Constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all for special interest groups.” Further, the broad language contained in many of the resolutions that states have passed recently might increase the likelihood of a convention enacting changes that are far more sweeping than many legislators supporting these resolutions envision."

"The 1787 convention ignored the ratification process under which it was established and created a new process, lowering the number of states needed to approve the new Constitution and removing Congress from the approval process. The states then ignored the pre-existing ratification procedures and adopted the Constitution under the new ratification procedures that the convention proposed. Given these facts, it would be unwise to assume that ratification of the convention’s pro­posals would necessarily require the approval of 38 states, as the Constitution currently specifies. For example, a convention might remove the states from the approval process entirely and pro­pose a national referendum instead. Or it could follow the example of the 1787 convention and lower the required fraction of the states needed to approve its proposals from three-quarters to two-thirds."

"The Constitution provides for no authority above that of a constitutional convention, so it is not clear that the courts — or any other institution — could intervene if a convention did not limit itself to the language of the state resolutions calling for a convention. Article V contains no restrictions on the scope of constitutional amendments (other than those denying states equal representation in the Senate), and the courts generally leave such “political questions” to the elected branches. Moreover, delegates to the 1787 convention ignored their state legislatures’ instructions. Thus, the courts likely would not intervene in a dispute between a state and a delegate and, if they did, they likely would not back state efforts to constrain delegates given that delegates to the 1787 convention ignored their state legislatures’ instructions."

[Munkcestrian Republic]

How? Getting the states to agree on literally anything nowadays is an exercise in pain and frustration, how would anything be agreed on if they all had to meet up to write a new American Constitution?

You can't think of anything the Republicans might agree on?

"There is no way to effectively limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda."

"The Constitution provides no guidance whatsoever on the ground rules for a convention. This leaves wide open to political considerations and pressures such fundamental questions as how the delegates would be chosen, how many delegates each state would have, and whether a supermajority vote would be required to approve amendments. To illustrate the importance of these issues, consider that if every state had one vote in the convention and the convention could approve amendments with a simple majority vote, the 26 least populous states — which contain less than 18 percent of the nation’s people — could approve an amendment for ratification."

"The only constitutional convention in U.S. history, in 1787, went far beyond its mandate. Charged with amending the Articles of Confederation to promote trade among the states, the convention instead wrote an entirely new governing document. A convention held today could set its own agenda, too. There is no guarantee that a convention could be limited to a particular set of issues, such as those related to balancing the federal budget. As a result, powerful, well-funded interest groups would surely seek to influence the process and press for changes to the agenda, seeing a constitutional convention as an opportunity to enact major policy changes. As former Chief Justice Burger wrote, a “Constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all for special interest groups.” Further, the broad language contained in many of the resolutions that states have passed recently might increase the likelihood of a convention enacting changes that are far more sweeping than many legislators supporting these resolutions envision."

"The 1787 convention ignored the ratification process under which it was established and created a new process, lowering the number of states needed to approve the new Constitution and removing Congress from the approval process. The states then ignored the pre-existing ratification procedures and adopted the Constitution under the new ratification procedures that the convention proposed. Given these facts, it would be unwise to assume that ratification of the convention’s pro­posals would necessarily require the approval of 38 states, as the Constitution currently specifies. For example, a convention might remove the states from the approval process entirely and pro­pose a national referendum instead. Or it could follow the example of the 1787 convention and lower the required fraction of the states needed to approve its proposals from three-quarters to two-thirds."

"The Constitution provides for no authority above that of a constitutional convention, so it is not clear that the courts — or any other institution — could intervene if a convention did not limit itself to the language of the state resolutions calling for a convention. Article V contains no restrictions on the scope of constitutional amendments (other than those denying states equal representation in the Senate), and the courts generally leave such “political questions” to the elected branches. Moreover, delegates to the 1787 convention ignored their state legislatures’ instructions. Thus, the courts likely would not intervene in a dispute between a state and a delegate and, if they did, they likely would not back state efforts to constrain delegates given that delegates to the 1787 convention ignored their state legislatures’ instructions."

tl;dr: when it happens, you're fucked

[San Lumen]

You can't think of anything the Republicans might agree on?

"There is no way to effectively limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda."

"The Constitution provides no guidance whatsoever on the ground rules for a convention. This leaves wide open to political considerations and pressures such fundamental questions as how the delegates would be chosen, how many delegates each state would have, and whether a supermajority vote would be required to approve amendments. To illustrate the importance of these issues, consider that if every state had one vote in the convention and the convention could approve amendments with a simple majority vote, the 26 least populous states — which contain less than 18 percent of the nation’s people — could approve an amendment for ratification."

"The only constitutional convention in U.S. history, in 1787, went far beyond its mandate. Charged with amending the Articles of Confederation to promote trade among the states, the convention instead wrote an entirely new governing document. A convention held today could set its own agenda, too. There is no guarantee that a convention could be limited to a particular set of issues, such as those related to balancing the federal budget. As a result, powerful, well-funded interest groups would surely seek to influence the process and press for changes to the agenda, seeing a constitutional convention as an opportunity to enact major policy changes. As former Chief Justice Burger wrote, a “Constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all for special interest groups.” Further, the broad language contained in many of the resolutions that states have passed recently might increase the likelihood of a convention enacting changes that are far more sweeping than many legislators supporting these resolutions envision."

"The 1787 convention ignored the ratification process under which it was established and created a new process, lowering the number of states needed to approve the new Constitution and removing Congress from the approval process. The states then ignored the pre-existing ratification procedures and adopted the Constitution under the new ratification procedures that the convention proposed. Given these facts, it would be unwise to assume that ratification of the convention’s pro­posals would necessarily require the approval of 38 states, as the Constitution currently specifies. For example, a convention might remove the states from the approval process entirely and pro­pose a national referendum instead. Or it could follow the example of the 1787 convention and lower the required fraction of the states needed to approve its proposals from three-quarters to two-thirds."

"The Constitution provides for no authority above that of a constitutional convention, so it is not clear that the courts — or any other institution — could intervene if a convention did not limit itself to the language of the state resolutions calling for a convention. Article V contains no restrictions on the scope of constitutional amendments (other than those denying states equal representation in the Senate), and the courts generally leave such “political questions” to the elected branches. Moreover, delegates to the 1787 convention ignored their state legislatures’ instructions. Thus, the courts likely would not intervene in a dispute between a state and a delegate and, if they did, they likely would not back state efforts to constrain delegates given that delegates to the 1787 convention ignored their state legislatures’ instructions."

tl;dr: when it happens, you're fucked

Last year Republicans lost several states and its quite likely they will lose more state legislatures next year.

[Munkcestrian Republic]

tl;dr: when it happens, you're fucked

Last year Republicans lost several states and its quite likely they will lose more state legislatures next year.

And?

[Heloin]

You can't think of anything the Republicans might agree on?

"There is no way to effectively limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda."

"The Constitution provides no guidance whatsoever on the ground rules for a convention. This leaves wide open to political considerations and pressures such fundamental questions as how the delegates would be chosen, how many delegates each state would have, and whether a supermajority vote would be required to approve amendments. To illustrate the importance of these issues, consider that if every state had one vote in the convention and the convention could approve amendments with a simple majority vote, the 26 least populous states — which contain less than 18 percent of the nation’s people — could approve an amendment for ratification."

"The only constitutional convention in U.S. history, in 1787, went far beyond its mandate. Charged with amending the Articles of Confederation to promote trade among the states, the convention instead wrote an entirely new governing document. A convention held today could set its own agenda, too. There is no guarantee that a convention could be limited to a particular set of issues, such as those related to balancing the federal budget. As a result, powerful, well-funded interest groups would surely seek to influence the process and press for changes to the agenda, seeing a constitutional convention as an opportunity to enact major policy changes. As former Chief Justice Burger wrote, a “Constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all for special interest groups.” Further, the broad language contained in many of the resolutions that states have passed recently might increase the likelihood of a convention enacting changes that are far more sweeping than many legislators supporting these resolutions envision."

"The 1787 convention ignored the ratification process under which it was established and created a new process, lowering the number of states needed to approve the new Constitution and removing Congress from the approval process. The states then ignored the pre-existing ratification procedures and adopted the Constitution under the new ratification procedures that the convention proposed. Given these facts, it would be unwise to assume that ratification of the convention’s pro­posals would necessarily require the approval of 38 states, as the Constitution currently specifies. For example, a convention might remove the states from the approval process entirely and pro­pose a national referendum instead. Or it could follow the example of the 1787 convention and lower the required fraction of the states needed to approve its proposals from three-quarters to two-thirds."

"The Constitution provides for no authority above that of a constitutional convention, so it is not clear that the courts — or any other institution — could intervene if a convention did not limit itself to the language of the state resolutions calling for a convention. Article V contains no restrictions on the scope of constitutional amendments (other than those denying states equal representation in the Senate), and the courts generally leave such “political questions” to the elected branches. Moreover, delegates to the 1787 convention ignored their state legislatures’ instructions. Thus, the courts likely would not intervene in a dispute between a state and a delegate and, if they did, they likely would not back state efforts to constrain delegates given that delegates to the 1787 convention ignored their state legislatures’ instructions."

tl;dr: when it happens, you're fucked

The Republican Party held majority for both Houses of Congress and the Presidency for two years. Remember how quickly the Affordable Care Act was repelled and Trumps wall was built?

[San Lumen]

Last year Republicans lost several states and its quite likely they will lose more state legislatures next year.

And?

Therefore a constitutional convention isnt going to happen soon.

[Munkcestrian Republic]

tl;dr: when it happens, you're fucked

The Republican Party held majority for both Houses of Congress and the Presidency for two years. Remember how quickly the Affordable Care Act was repelled and Trumps wall was built?

The base doesn't give a fuck about the wall, and the Republicans had a very small majority in the Senate.

[San Lumen]

The Republican Party held majority for both Houses of Congress and the Presidency for two years. Remember how quickly the Affordable Care Act was repelled and Trumps wall was built?

The base doesn't give a fuck about the wall, and the Republicans had a very small majority in the Senate.

and they still do have a small majority in the senate. It is very possible they lose the Senate next year.

[Munkcestrian Republic]

And?

Therefore a constitutional convention isnt going to happen soon.

Really?

[San Lumen]

Therefore a constitutional convention isnt going to happen soon.

Really?

That is outdated

[Munkcestrian Republic]

The base doesn't give a fuck about the wall, and the Republicans had a very small majority in the Senate.

and they still do have a small majority in the senate. It is very possible they lose the Senate next year.

And it's very possible that they take it back.

[San Lumen]

and they still do have a small majority in the senate. It is very possible they lose the Senate next year.

And it's very possible that they take it back.

in 2022 yes although like in 2020 there are more Republican than Democratic seats up

[Heloin]

The Republican Party held majority for both Houses of Congress and the Presidency for two years. Remember how quickly the Affordable Care Act was repelled and Trumps wall was built?

The base doesn't give a fuck about the wall, and the Republicans had a very small majority in the Senate.

What the fuck are you talking about. A new constitutional convention would be one of the most difficult pieces of political decision making since the American Civil War, and you think a party that can't get anything done with total control will have unlimited power to do what it wants even in the case of one?

[Munkcestrian Republic]

Really?

That is outdated

Yeah sorry it's now 29 Republican to 19 Democrat with one divided

[Munkcestrian Republic]

The base doesn't give a fuck about the wall, and the Republicans had a very small majority in the Senate.

What the fuck are you talking about. A new constitutional convention would be one of the most difficult pieces of political decision making since the American Civil War, and you think a party that can't get anything done with total control will have unlimited power to do what it wants even in the case of one?

"total control"

A majority depending on Collins and Murkowski is not "total control".

And again:

"The Constitution provides no guidance whatsoever on the ground rules for a convention. This leaves wide open to political considerations and pressures such fundamental questions as how the delegates would be chosen, how many delegates each state would have, and whether a supermajority vote would be required to approve amendments. To illustrate the importance of these issues, consider that if every state had one vote in the convention and the convention could approve amendments with a simple majority vote, the 26 least populous states — which contain less than 18 percent of the nation’s people — could approve an amendment for ratification."