Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

1.2K

Cast as a "temper tantrum" by breitbart (breitbart.com)

The rep in question, some women, claimed all her own bills had been ignored in committee.

But really this is the GOP playbook of grandstanding for its union bosses in the DNC.

Any new party formed should pass a bill that allows them to earmark some bill as "censurable".

Those going to sign, agree beforehand. Those who fail or change their mind last minute get an automatic censure.

Party makes anyone accepted into the party, agree to step down/retire if they're censured.

Stops this shit cold.

Cast as a "temper tantrum" by [breitbart](https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/04/23/lone-gop-state-senator-stops-arizona-bill-to-limit-automatic-mailing-of-absentee-ballots-in-temper-tantrum/) The rep in question, some women, claimed all her own bills had been ignored in committee. But really this is the GOP playbook of grandstanding for its union bosses in the DNC. Any new party formed should pass a bill that allows them to earmark some bill as "censurable". Those going to sign, agree *beforehand*. Those who fail or change their mind last minute get an automatic censure. Party makes anyone accepted into the party, agree to step down/retire if they're censured. Stops this shit cold.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (53).
[–] • 0 pt

Removing first past the post voting and replacing it with preferential voting,

I agree because all things being equal people will, if given the mechanism, tend toward moderation. And that complicates the process of controlling elections. Maybe I'm mistaken though.

Limiting voting to only citizens with a significant stake in the future (adult men, possibly only granted with military service)

The adult men issue will be cast as misogynist, and also racist, and used as an out for GOP to vote no, in addition to the left voting no. Which, even if this had a snowballs chance, would be dead on arrival anyway. And theres no way to force it. But it does split a small percentage of the military into hardliners.

Removing illegal immigrants and revoking birthright citizenship to remove anchor babies and their families.

Doesn't solve the problem. Removing them is what most of us on the right wanted with trump, and obviously was never going to happen (thank the chamber of commerce). Birthright citizenship removal is a backdoor for the state to remove citizenship from anyone that criticizes it, so they can deny rights entirely to political opponents in the public. Anchor babies statuetes we do need, and chain migration needs to not only be stopped, but actively reversed.

Revoking the state's ability to limit tax exempt status on churchs that engage in politics, might help, or might not. The tax system has been weaponized against small businesses, speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association (go ask the waco members about their tax stamped machine guns. Oh wait, they're dead), privacy, right to engage in commerce, right to travel, right to collect rain water, property, and firearms and self defense rights.

Tax system has to be abolished as it currently exists.

[–] • 1 pt

Birthright citizenship is much more specific: It's a relatively modern invention where the mother just has to give birth here. Every other country requires more stake than that to be a citizen, like one or both parents also being citizens and/or renouncing any alternate citizenships upon reaching adulthood.

Problem is a lot of people here don't have any loyalty to this country. They'll flee as soon as shit goes south. All of the illegal immigrants definitely will, and quite a few of their anchor babies will too. Then there's the jews and their escape plan...

[–] • 0 pt

I'm just not convinced birthright citizenship is the source of problems.

They're gonna come regardless.

And removing birthright citizenship opens up a can worms that will be misused, and is likely intended for misuse.

That said I don't see why it shouldn't be massively reinforced:

Both parents have to be birthright citizens. And both of their parents have to be birth right citizens.

And we only apply it retroactively, starting in say, 1980-1990. So if someone was born here in say, 2015, and both their parents are citizens, but one of their grandparents came here in 1981, then its a no go, then still a foreigner.

Of course all of this assumes we'd be deporting a significant number of people beforehand.

Or that immigration in its current form is remotely okay, when its not.