• clgoh
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      3 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…

      • clgoh
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Ok. Start with Mississippi.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 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
        • Gabu@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 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.mlM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            3 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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  3 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.mlM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                3 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

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

        • _NoName_@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 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.

    • crusa187@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 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.

            • crusa187@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 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.

      • 100_kg_90_de_belin @feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        Ah! The mythical supermajority that never really was.

          • clgoh
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

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