Let's look at some possible long-term results of today's SCOTUS decison(s). Statehood for Washington, D.C. is definitely on the table. Yes, it will take a number of Senate votes. Exactly how pissed off are American women? I guess we will see.

Washington D.C. has long claimed, "No taxation without representation." Sound familiar? The District has more citizens than either Vermont or Wyoming.

Will it happen? I sure hope so!

Also -- no more Electoral College. Let the majority rule.

Discuss. Good idea or bad idea?

There's a distinction between what is morally right and what is politically possible. Regarding the latter, the following chart is compelling.

https://www.vividmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/US-density.jpg

As a non US citizen, I've always thought the electoral college a curious if not bizarre way to elect your president given that all other offices are elected based on simple majority. Correct me if I am in error.

You are correct.

The electoral college was one of the political compromises necessary to ensure the adoption of the constitution. There were three such compromises: the principle that African Americans were only worth 3/5 of white people, the 10th amendment and its reservation of enumerated powers to the states, and the electoral college. Understood in the constitution's historical context, all of these were designed to protect southern slavery as the price of southern accession to the union.

Over time the undemocratic elements of the electoral process appealed to other groups, including Mormons wanting to practice polygamy. But the founders did not intend those elements, or at least not all of them, to survive. Several of those statesmen had freed, or would soon free, their slaves; and some of them said that they hoped the amendment provision of the constitution would iron out the glaring wrinkles in the fabric of American democracy.

But that never happened. To the contrary, the draining of wealth and education from more backward states has reinforced the EC and the states rights institutions, for the citizens of those states have an ever greater incentive to maintain their increasingly disproportionate power. Thus the US has reached the point where the minority party can--and not infrequently does--win power with fewer votes.

That's the story. While the origins of the system are readily comprehensible, the EC's survival through the present is both "bizarre" and tragic.

If memory serves, in the original U.S. Constitution, while members of the U.S. House of Representatives were directly elected by the voters, the members of the U.S. Senate were not; rather, they were chosen by the legislatures of each individual state. It took a Constitutional Amendment (I believe it passed in the early 1900s) to allow the direct election of U.S. senators by voters.

The whole truth is that when the U.S. Constitution was being created in 1787, many of the members of the Constitutional Convention, especially those from the South, were actually ambivalent towards democracy. They saw it as being "mob rule", and, of course, the issues surrounding slavery didn't help matters.

17th amendment. Yes.

So it’s the college where everyone is Bluto Blutarski?

"Seven years of college down the drain!"

In Canada, is it a simple majority for national offices? Does this create any problems in certain regions or subgroups of the country?

The Electoral College has worked pretty well. Without it the large states would always choose the president. The founding fathers wanted a republic and not a democracy because in a democracy the minority never has any say.

It’s the United States and how do you have united states when only a few states choose the president? Because of the Electoral College not one party totally dominates the Executive Branch every election.

Our system is set up to avoid monopolies on power.

One reason Washington DC is a district and not a state was so no state would have an unfair political advantage over others by having the federal Capitol based there. Again a safeguard on power.

In response to that -- my rights (and by extension, the rights of all women who seek reproductive choice,) have been taken away. I no longer care about the minority. I care about having my rights restored.

Rubicon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Electoral College has worked pretty well.
> Without it the large states would always choose
> the president.

Yes, like in a democracy.


------------------
> The founding fathers wanted a
> republic and not a democracy because in a
> democracy the minority never has any say.

Correct. And they put up the firewalls not on a geographical basis as you assert but through the separation of powers and the Bill of Rights. The subjects of the federal government are the citizens, not the states per se. The rights inhere in the citizens.

Your prescription lets small states decide the presidency and impose their will on the majority. That was not the intention of the founders. They were willing to tolerate some disproportion but not the sort of debacle we see today.


------------------
> It’s the United States and how do you have
> united states when only a few states choose the
> president?

Your preferred system does stop a "few states" from choosing the president. What it does instead is let a "few people" wield disproportionate power over the presidency. That is not what the founders wanted.


------------------
> Because of the Electoral College not
> one party totally dominates the Executive Branch
> every election.

First of all, the constitution did not envision "parties;" and Washington warned against them. You are anachronistically imposing your own priorities on a system that was designed for entirely different purposes.

Secondly, today's electoral college does indeed allow one party to dominate the executive branch. The GOP has won multiple elections despite the fact that its candidates lost the popular vote. Moreover, that disproportion has allowed the GOP to dominate the supreme court--something that did not enter into the electoral college discussions in the 177os and 1780s.




--------------------
> Our system is set up to avoid monopolies on
> power.

Which is why the electoral college has become a detriment: in today's circumstances it achieves precisely what it was meant to prevent.


-----------
> One reason Washington DC is a district and not a
> state was so no state would have an unfair
> political advantage over others by having the
> federal Capitol based there. Again a safeguard on
> power.

One that made a lot more sense when states had more military power in their militias--the National Guard--than the federal government did. For it was over a century before the US established a permanent army.


-------------
The question I have for you is what degree of disproportion do you think is appropriate. Your arguments auger in favor of any degree of minority rule, the natural extreme of which is dictatorship.

Where would you draw the line?

‘Large states would determine the outcome of presidential elections’..

This is a fabrication - exaggeration if not an outright LIE!

Cali had the largest number of presidential votes: 63.48 % for Biden, NOT 100%;

N.Y.: 60.8 % NOT 100%

We now have State by State Presidential Bingo. Candidates focus their time -efforts - $ on only a few states, Not on voters everywhere

Right now, Wyoming voters have more proportional say than voters in any other state!

I Support NPVIC



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2022 02:29AM by GNPE.

Our primary process is skewed, too. Perhaps we should have regional primaries that rotate for every presidential election cycle.

Texas is the Second largest state (38 electoral votes)but the election went to Biden;

The largest state, Cali, only provided 14 % of Bidens votes, a mere 7% of the total popular votes

The Texas vote was 52% R, 46.5 % D, a difference of approximately 600,000 votes out of 11,315,056

Texas Trump votes were an unspectacular 3.7 % of total 2020 popular presidential votes

Your argument / reasoning Failed.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2022 10:21PM by GNPE.

The Sleeping Killer of U.S. politics is the lack of a proportional House of Representatives size, it was last set in 1913 when the population was 97,225,000;

If we have that proportion today it would be 1,4xx.

What this means is that the focus of members is to lobbyists who represent narrow special interests … and not coincidentally fund election campaign finances.

That's wrong.

In 1913 the total number of representatives was set. They are reallocated every ten years, in accordance with the latest census. If a state's population increases, it gets more House seats; if a state's population decreases, it loses seats.

20% of 435 is the equivalent of 20% of 435,000 when it comes to electoral influence.

But 435 hasn’t changed since 1913 while the U.S. population is now 332,403,650

This has markedly reduced individual access to and influence with our representatives



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2022 11:07PM by GNPE.

That makes no sense.

The only thing that matters is proportion. If you have ten representatives and ten dollars, you get exactly as much influence as if you divided your ten dollars among 100 representatives.

LW

You could say that you disagree rather than suggesting your reasoning - argument is somehow better than mine..

Just how tRump calls people who disagree with him “enemies” to denigrate / dehumanize them.

GNPE,

You and I have a history.

After years of courteous interaction, you came after me with all sorts of false claims about the Daybell-Vallow judicial proceedings. When I pointed out your mistakes, you replied with precisely the sort of denigration and condescension you now attribute to me. Apparently you were convinced that your one or two semesters of law school, or implicitly your male gender, rendered you inherently better versed in the law and legal reasoning than I.

Eventually you backed down, I recognized that, and I stopped speaking harshly to you. But twice in the last several days you've gone back on the offensive. For example,


-------------
"LW's objections to the NPVIC are seriously if not fatally Flawed both in philosophy & in application!

. . .

* She (?) tells us that states would be "compelled to adapt the all or nothing formula" THIS IS FALSE because each state decides whether or not to adopt NPV.

-------------

In that post you spoke in strident terms as well as questioning my gender identity. Perhaps you consider that a moderate approach, but I do not. Then here you compare me to Trump. If you are going to address me in that fashion, you'd better be right on the facts because otherwise I will not hesitate to reply in kind.

And you are not right on the facts in this thread. As long as seats are allocated in proportion to population, increasing the number of representatives in the house will in no way give individual Americans more influence over policy.

States don't vote, people do. For decades we've had relative ease of relocation and mobility unforeseen by the founding fathers. I've lived in 5 states and 7 counties in 10 years, my political views are my own. I've brought them from blue city/red state to red city/red state, on to red city/red state, back to blue, so on and so forth. I've never once wavered from being a democrat. That's the way it is for most people. If you're a democrat from San Francisco, you don't become a republican just because you relocate to Utah or Iowa.

States should not be voting blocks for the president of the entire country. We've already seen what happens when a scruples-challenged president decides he's only the president of red states.

I Agree

Wyoming went nearly 70% for trump, the 73,491 votes for Biden were utterly Wasted,

Why would Democratic voters bother to vote there ???



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/04/2022 12:53AM by GNPE.

And this is from a conservative think tank

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/12/09/how-to-get-rid-of-the-electoral-college/

However, a constitutional amendment is not the only means by which an alternative to the current Electoral College can be implemented. The most popular alternative is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). Started in the mid-2000s, the NPVIC is a fairly straightforward system that capitalizes on the constitutional guarantee that states are free to determine the manner in which they award their electoral votes. The compact requires states to pass laws that would award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote nationally. Under the current plan, states that join will not activate the compact until enough states have joined to total 270 electoral votes. That is, the compact does not go into effect until there is a critical mass of states for it to be effective.

Currently, 15 states and DC have approved the NPVIC. These states currently total 196 electoral votes, although after the 2020 census is completed, projections suggest a net loss of two seats, lowering that number to 194. Each of those states has Democratic control of the state legislature. If the remaining states with Democratic control of the legislature (Maine, Nevada, and Virginia) were to sign on, it would add an additional 23 Electoral College votes.[2] The compact would then be 43 Electoral College votes short of going into effect. It should be noted, there is debate about the permissibility of such a proposal and its going into effect would likely face a flurry of lawsuits. Nonetheless, it is likely the most viable alternative to the current Electoral College system.

The NPVIC is no improvement.

The problem is that the EC enables a minority of national voters to win presidential elections. It stems from the fact that states' electoral votes are generally awarded on an all-or-nothing basis. Say that Candidate X wins the much more populated coastal states by a margin of 60/40 but loses the more less populated inland states to Candidate Y by a margin of 49.8/50.2.

Nationally Ms. X would win the popular vote by a large margin of, say, 55/45. But because the EC advantages the inland states, and those states generally cast all their votes in the EC for the winner in their domestic races, Ms. Y walks away with 100% of the inland votes and wins the presidency.

All the NPVIC would do is compel a few more states to adopt the all-or-nothing formula. At best that is irrelevant because most states already do it, at worst it gives the inland states even more power.

The flaw in the system is not the need for MORE all-or-nothing votes. It is the need for LESS all-or-nothing systems, so that in the example above a state's EC votes are distributed in accordance with the state's popular vote. She who wins by 50.2/49.8 should get half of a state's total ballots, not all of them. That would come very close to giving each American citizen an equally weighted vote; it would render the EC almost fully neutral.

Most college educated people who are liberal have to live in or near cities for work. What if they didn't have to?

There are multiple reasons liberal, educated, productive people want to live in or near cities: one of them is the attractions of urban centers, including the arts.

Moreover remote work is not going to be the wave of the future. If anything, we've seen the peak. The bottom line is that if you want to get promotions, you need face time and people who opt to stay at home will not advance. That will keep the bulk of employment in urban and conurbation areas.

Ultimately the best system would be one person, one vote. Then the location of the individual voter would not matter. If that is not possible, the next best thing would be a revised EC that apportioned state ballots in accordance with state votes, which would be a huge step in the right direction. Indeed, it would greatly reduce the divergence between people's express preferences as expressed in presidential elections and the EC count that really matters.

In short, there's a reason that the NPVIC is promoted by conservatives: it would reinforce the present system, with its massive overweighting of conservative votes.

I could live with a revised electoral college. The NPVIC does not sound like an improvement to me.

Agreed. Anything that moves the country closer to democracy.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ultimately the best system would be one person,
> one vote.
===============================

Sure -- if the aspiration is true democracy.
But that's not what they're gunning for.

Mormonism is an autocracy; their objective is to overlay this system on the entire country.
Democracy is for these an anathema.

Reason and ethics/fairness have nothing to do with power.
None of this is anything ye/we do not already thoroughly know; but here it is in bald relief.
When we see what truly we are up against, it focuses the mind.

I would say one vote one person poses a lot of problems namely that urban centers tend to attract a lot of strange people which puts country folk at a disadvantage especially when it's country people that provide the food amd and the water sources and the mining for all the 'artists' and post industrial people in the city. Perhaps a compromise such as any state with over 25 million is required to split their electrol college votes according to the actual popular vote. This would protect the conservative smaller population states like Wyoming.

Another problem with popular vote is that without the 49-51 winner take all electoral college, the fringe parties would have more power rather than in the center, because which ever radical nut group that can get the most believers would win, our current system is far superior to anything in Leftist Europe, even Izrael.

Another problem with DC51 is that it doesn't have its own water sourse but uses the Chesapeake bay and James River that delaware Maryland Virginia, Pennsylvania, jersey, all come together at this river.

I could list more problems with the demographics as well.

In a lot of ways, NYC *is* a small town. I lived there for eight years, and I came across so many people who had grown up, and lived all their lives in Queens, or the Bronx, Staten Island, etc. They hadn't been to college (or only went to a local college,) had never lived anywhere else, and didn't travel much. They were not terribly sophisticated. They reminded me of small town people from just about anywhere.

Yes, NYC has its share of artists, designers, actors, etc. It also has very high-powered businessmen, lawyers, physicians, investment specialists, etc. But it also has a lot of "small town folk" who hold many of the average jobs in the city. Many of them are very nice people, too. Some of the very nicest people that I've met are native New Yorkers.

Maryland has zero problem getting water, and I'll bet the same holds true for surrounding states and the District. It's not like the west with constant droughts.

Maca Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would say one vote one person poses a lot of
> problems . . .

I know you would. That's why you should move to a country that thinks democracy is a bad idea.


-----------------
> . . . namely that urban centers tend to attract
> a lot of strange people

The point being that only people you agree with should be allowed to vote, right? "Strange people" are "evil" and should not be given an equal voice in national politics.

The question then becomes whether you are the model of an American citizen, the sort who contributes disproportionately to the nation's well-being.


----------------
>. . .which puts country folk at
> a disadvantage especially when it's country people
> that provide the food amd and the water sources

There it is again: the ineluctable ignorance. The food in the US is produced with massive federal subsidies. And "country folk" do NOT provide water to the rest of us. Federal and state infrastructure does that. Water for farmers is massively subsidized--the average farmer pays 1/200 what homeowners do. Agriculture in the US is, on balance, a welfare system.

You just identify with farmers and therefore think that they should be subsidized by educated people who are economically productive through the power of the state. You dislike welfare moms but are in fact a welfare dad.


---------------
> Perhaps a
> compromise such as any state with over 25 million
> is required to split their electrol college votes
> according to the actual popular vote. This would
> protect the conservative smaller population states
> like Wyoming.

In other words, make the country more democratic but only to the extent that that can be managed without jeopardizing your prerogatives.


------------------
> Another problem with popular vote is that without
> the 49-51 winner take all electoral college, the
> fringe parties would have more power rather than
> in the center, because which ever radical nut
> group that can get the most believers would win,
> our current system is far superior to anything in
> Leftist Europe, even Izrael.

There it is again: the utter lack of comprehension. What fringe party" is going to gain a disproportionate share of political power in the US?

In the unlikely event that you are interested in facts, the root of the problem in Israel is that the constitution explicitly ensures that fringe parties are represented in the Knesset even if their strength at the polls is inadequate otherwise to win seats. It's a terrible idea--and it does not exist in the US.

In fact, the Israeli system functions like the electoral college insofar as it gives minority parties too much power. That won't influence your thinking, though, because while you think minority dominance is a bad idea anywhere else you additionally, and inconsistently, reckon that it is appropriate to the United States.


----------------
> Another problem with DC51 is that it doesn't have
> its own water sourse but uses the Chesapeake bay
> and James River that delaware Maryland Virginia,
> Pennsylvania, jersey, all come together at this
> river.

The availability of water is not a prerequisite for statehood. Economic Stalinism was based on the notion that every political entity should have its own sustainable resources and industry, but that didn't work out well then and would not a good idea for the US.
Second, DC already has a water supply. The rights to that water supply are legally enshrined and would not change if the district became a state. Why would you think otherwise?


-----------------
> I could list more problems with the demographics
> as well.

Ah yes, here we get to the core of your argument. White people will soon be a minority in the overall national population--and you and many others think the government should not allow that to happen. But that is NOT a democratic or a constitutional argument: it is cultural, ethnocentrist, and racist, and it is a key plank in what has become a fascist agenda.

Ultimately, your arguments always boil down to "what is best for me?" That's your politics.

Maca Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would say one vote one person poses a lot of
> problems namely that urban centers tend to attract
> a lot of strange people which puts country folk at
> a disadvantage especially when it's country people
> that provide the food amd and the water sources
> and the mining for all the 'artists' and post
> industrial people in the city. Perhaps a
> compromise such as any state with over 25 million
> is required to split their electrol college votes
> according to the actual popular vote. This would
> protect the conservative smaller population states
> like Wyoming.

First of all, whether somebody is "strange" or not depends entirely upon your frame of reference. Frankly, many city dwellers see country folks as being "strange people," though I'm not one of them. Second, as LW has correctly pointed out, the current system is weighted heavily towards a rural white population that is shrinking, meaning that their votes count more heavily than they should given the size of that population. When a vote count is weighted heavily towards a group with a shrinking population base, then you stand losing both the democracy (which you don't believe we have) and republic (which you do) to a dictatorship by a minority group.
>
> Another problem with popular vote is that without
> the 49-51 winner take all electoral college, the
> fringe parties would have more power rather than
> in the center, because which ever radical nut
> group that can get the most believers would win,
> our current system is far superior to anything in
> Leftist Europe, even Izrael.

There are advantages and disadvantages to what the United States does and what most European countries do. Because the U.S. has been basically a two-party system since almost its founding, I don't really foresee a massive growth in "fringe" parties if the proposed "one person, one vote" were to go into effect, at least not in the short run.

That said, I will say this (and I noted this on another thread a couple of days ago). Both France and Israel who use parliamentary systems are now facing the same problem as we are: namely the growing polarization of their voters. Yes, the current Russian leader has taken advantage of this but he didn't start it. Some of the blame can also be laid at the feet of our social sites (such as Facebook) for giving people more of what they wanted to see and hear and less of what they needed to see and hear.
>
> Another problem with DC51 is that it doesn't have
> its own water sourse but uses the Chesapeake bay
> and James River that delaware Maryland Virginia,
> Pennsylvania, jersey, all come together at this
> river.

I don't see a problem with that. As Summer noted in an above post, there isn't a drought problem in the East like there is in the West. If D.C. became a state, they would have to negotiate water rights with the surrounding states--but that applys to much of the rest of the country as well.

While we may feel like we live in individual cocoons with nobody else around us affecting what we do and the decisions we make, that just isn't true for us as individuals or the communities, states, and countries we live in. We live in one world and what we do here has ripple effects elsewhere and vice versa.
>
> I could list more problems with the demographics
> as well.

Maca, you realize that life is good in 'Leftist Europe', don't you? I mean, we have great universal healthcare free or at rates Americans could only dream of, great infrastructure, we don't have gun crime, we don't have religious wingnuts deciding for other people,...

I could go on...

Why would they have a greater challenge than they do now? City dwellers don't undermine the voting access or ability of rural people. I can understand if your issue is state representation at the national level, but the president is the president of all the states. If 20 million people vote, and one candidate gets 14 million votes, that's how many the popular candidate would have received from each individual no matter where they are living. How does it make sense, in a democracy, that the presidency repeatedly goes to the candidate with the fewest votes?

Turn all the states purple and count each person's vote. We don't vote by county or district majority rule for state legislature or national representatives. That would solve the inequity you're describing, as it only matters on a local/state level. If one person one vote is good enough for that, then it's good enough for the presidential election.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are multiple reasons liberal, educated,
> productive people want to live in or near cities:
> one of them is the attractions of urban centers,
> including the arts.
>
I remember my mother having to drive 75-80 miles to go to the mall or two hundred and fifty to get to the big city to go to the theatre or the symphony...

LW's objections to the NPVIC are seriously if not fatally Flawed both in philosophy & in application!

What we have now is 'all or nothing' states, the presidential selection is reduced to a state-by-state BINGO.

It's as if votes other than for the winner in each state are Worthless!

* She (?) tells us that states would be "compelled to adapt the all or nothing formula" THIS IS FALSE because each state decides whether or not to adopt NPV.

All U.S. eligible voters should have an equal say in determining who the POTUS is, NPV is the quickest, easiest way to achieve that.

I'll look past your pompous verbiage and your projected gender insecurity and get right to the point.

Philosophically, a democracy should give each vote equal weight. Your NPVIC would transform one system of artificial prioritization to another, thereby reinforcing the anti-democratic presumptions of the existing EC mechanism. Philosophically, you are promoting the very problem you claim to solve.

In terms of application, your NPVIC proposition doesn't stand a chance. You'd know that if you had taken the obvious step of considering why Dem states have signed up for it and GOP states have not.

In short, their decisions mirror their interests. GOP states like the present system because it gives them disproportionate power; Dems want to reform the present system so that they no longer suffer a disadvantage. There's a clue in that.

How exactly do you plan to persuade tiny GOP states to adopt a system that reduces their influence nationally and decreases the value of their citizens' votes? Would a governor of Wyoming or Arizona win re-election having done that?

And what would prevent the states that acceded to your cherished NPVIC from changing their mind if they wanted different outcomes nationally? Would the Dems still support NPVIC if they were the ones who benefited from the EC distortions?

So to summarize, philosophically you are advocating an undemocratic scheme as a solution to a lack of democracy; and practically, you run aground on the shoals of state self-interest. Your proposal is basically, "if states would agree to stop acting selfishly we would no longer have to worry about selfish state behavior."

You haven't advanced the reform process at all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2022 05:17PM by Lot's Wife.

No....statehood for D.C. is NOT a good idea. And is not constitutional as well...

So, it's okay with you that the citizens of Washington, D.C. are subject to the same taxes as you, but cannot get the same level of representation? Didn't we fight a war over that back in the day?

You are making a rather tortured reading of the Constitution. The federal district can be resized to include only the main government buildings along the National Mall, the remainder made into a state. Since the name "Washington" is already take, suggestion have been "Columbia" or "Emerson", among others.

The suggestion gets made that it should just be made part of Maryland. Maryland, much of which is rural, is already not all that thrilled with the conurbation surrounding Washington (including Baltimore), even though its taxes pays for much of the rest of the state.

Seven hundred thousand white ranchers being their own state, hey, no problem. Severn hundred thousand people who are either Black, or college educated, or in many cases both, nah-uh. It's not like anyone actually believes that blather about protecting the rights of small states. It is really about protecting the rights of red states.

Well, I'm a Marylander. Yes, the more rural parts of Maryland are solidly conservative. But there is a reason that we are known overall as a blue state.

Washington, D.C. has a unique culture as a city and a district. I don't see it being absorbed by either Maryland or Virginia.

Puerto Rico should invade D.C., annex it, and then together run for statehood in the next election!!

Even as a kid I was puzzled why Hawaii was made a state and Puerto Rico was not. Better resorts? Volcanoes? Grass skirts? Whiter?

I think that Puerto Ricans have always been mixed about it, although now a very narrow majority (52% in the 2020 referendum) favor statehood. If they want it, I'm in favor of it.

In contrast, 86% of Washington, D.C.'s residents favored statehood in the 2016 referendum. Many District residents have sported "Taxation Without Representation" car license plates over the years. They are very clear about what they want.

Pineapples & Sugar Cane

Is this politics?

Apparently ‘Man’ is a political animal.

I thought that such political debates, where not related to Mormonism, were outlawed by the board rules. Am I wrong?

Vortigern, you seem very upset. When is the last time you swung by here? What is your normal exmo hangout? Because evidently, this isn't it.

ETA: Feel free to start a post that relates to Mormonism or religion in general. How is your recovery going?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/28/2022 08:16AM by summer.

Are you going to ask this in every darn thread? Jesus, quit reading them already.

Yes, in the opinion of many of us, the things that are currently political are ALSO about religion and Mormonism. There is nothing more upsetting to me living an exmo life than religion (any) being overtly shoved upon us and suppression of women. It is important to discuss how religion is being used that impacts our lives.

I just had a right taken away that I have had my entire life. This is a huge issue, along with how certain religious thinking is aiding those who seek to uproot democracy.

There are some unpresented issues in play. It is alarming to realize how many people are fine with letting religion encroach more and more with every court ruling. Admin seems to see the angst and urgency in these topics thankfully, but they do stop discussions when they feel it is time. They own the board and can fluctuate however they think is needed.

I think the rules have changed

The general rule is regarding Party politics, not politics in a general sense