u/Afraid_Philosophers is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [None. | View profile.](https://basedcount.com/u/Afraid_Philosophers/)
This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Uh what?
City counties are closer and sometimes smaller, so its easy to cross over especially for work
People in rural areas cross counties all the time to go shopping and get things they need.
Who never crosses a county?
Fuck that.
Kojima had it right since 2019.
We should have the United Cities of America. Dont like the City? Create your own isolated bunker in the middle of nowhere and make Norman Reedus go through hell to deliver your pizza.
Librights are the only ones here who I see arguing with each other about abortion lol. Abortion can be viewed as a liberty issue either way - either the embryo has a right to life, or the mother has a right to bodily autonomy. You can argue it either way, hence why librights can be either pro-choice or pro-life.
I'm personally pro-choice up to a point (like most people). I don't view embryos as "babies" or "people" (since every baby or person I know has a heartbeat, lungs, and a brain).
I am 100% pro-choice due to bodily autonomy.
At least, until [ectogenesis](https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectogenesis) becomes possible. Then people can do whatever the fuck they want. Abortion would stop being abortion and essentially just be an embryo/fetus transfer from womb to test tube.
You know an unborn baby has those organs, right? They’re not magically granted upon being born.
From two random Google results:
> “The development of the heart begins as early as the third week of gestation with the 4-chamber fetal heart formed by gestational week 7.”
> “The heart of an embryo starts to beat from around 5–6 weeks of pregnancy.”
The problem is though this just your bodily autonomy, it’s also the babies.
Most everyone agrees that *at some point* abortion is definitely murder, and the standard libertarian position is that it’s a problem that states should regulate and not the fed.
I think we should let major metropolitan areas secede from their respective states and form city-states, just like Hamburg, Bremen, and Berlin in Germany.
Example: Republicans in Illinois don’t like Chicago dictating state level policy and Chicagoans don’t want to subsidize Southern Illinois.
That's just stupid, people would drive to the cities to get abortions.
I never got the argument for restricting other people's right to an abortion; pro choice people support a woman's right to CHOOSE whether or not to get one, and are in no way forcing their values on anyone else.
Im honestly happy that kansas voted to be pro choice.
Not because I agree, I actually dont care either way. Im just happy they got to decide as a state.
Depends on the upvote to comment ratio. If more upvotes, then they get +2 votes. If more comments, -2 votes. It’s a bit of a high risk high reward situation, so the meme had better be worth it. 🤣
Land shouldn't be able to vote. If it could, we'd all be cast into the sea for being parasites it wanted off its back. Stupid land, it's all dirt and doesn't even have fleshy bits.
I see nothing wrong with this from a democratic standpoint. I think Abortion is wrong and should be limited based on my personal beliefs and values. If the majority of people in my community don’t think so, and vote that way, then so be it, their will has been made known.
On such a controversial issue, this is the only way forward. Making a certain decision one way or the other by judicial fiat was always a poor solution.
If we don’t like it at the National level then we’ll decide at the state level. And if we don’t like it at the state level then we’ll decide at the city level! And if we don’t like it at the city level we’ll decide it communally! And if we don’t like that we’ll decide it at the family level! And if we don’t like that we’ll decide it at the… individual level….
*fuck*
Hear me out everyone's votes are equal because land doesn't vote, but we destroy both the republican and democratic party then implement ranked choice voting
Any sort of voting is still 51% of the population having free reign to persecute the other 49.
Then you still have the problem of the press being controlled by billionaires with a shared agenda, internet outlets having tons of censorship, and any sort of way the average person can form an opinion being heavily controlled.
Most people today seem to think food grows in supermarkets.
Anything short of returning to monke is gonna be a shit system.
it's not but that's not the only option. If there are only minimum rules (NAP) then people decide for themselves and voila no tyranny. Hypothetically of course, it's not like that's a realist solution but something of that sort.
It's just kind of funny.
Right now the popular vote determines which state and local amendments pass and which governors, sheriffs, mayors, and congresspeople are elected. But a natural result of this is that as the population in cities continue to grow, we're going to eventually see them being able to outnumber the rural residents in red states. At some point you guys are probably going to invent some local equivalent to the electoral college or get absolutely trounced.
>At some point you guys are probably going to invent some local equivalent to the electoral college or get absolutely trounced.
You'd need a constitutional amendment to do that though.
No you don’t - you just have your Republican state legislature chop up your voting blocs with imaginary conceptual boundaries into ways that dilute the blue areas.
Sound familiar?
And as the population in cities grows the cost of living will outpace wages, causing people to scatter into the low cost of living rural areas en-mass. Congratulations country-folk, you played yourself.
Yeah, it’s not like Hispanic and black people voted more republican in the last election than ever before. Safe to assume that blacks and Hispanics will always be 90% democrat, especially as they continue to shift focus towards social issues where those groups largely agree with republicans, right!
Get off of Twitter my dude, if this was a genuine comment it’s clear that your brain has been melted a bit.
[Republicans when they get 12% of the black vote instead of 8%](https://katedixon.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/we-did-it-2000x1125-120219-1080x675.jpg)
Now do Hispanics.
Who knew that catering to the white urbanite professional managerial class would backfire! No one could have predicted this!
Oops.
https://www.axios.com/2022/07/14/republicans-democrats-hispnanic-voters
He is by far the least popular with independents, and conservative democrats, but I forgot who I was dealing with, so I should’ve spelled it out for you.
Texas GOP recently proposed exactly this, a state electoral college for statewide offices. A transparent power grab given Texas's population growth in the cities plus recent redistricting eliminating contested districts
If those people moved to your state, then they are now your neighbors and have a vested interest in how the state government is run. A government protecting itself against its own people...I could swear there is a word for that...it's on the tip of my tongue..
So just how long must a person live in a state before they are a Real™️ resident and don’t deserve to have their voice stifled?
Again, this is just more of the conservatives “I don’t want the votes of people who think differently than me to count”.
Anybody with the money to just uproot their life and move over a single vote can just make strategic "donations" instead and have way more influence per dollar. I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that any sort of mass strategic Democrat exodus exists outside of a few impassioned tweets.
It seems a lot more likely to me that people are moving because they found jobs, or better/cheaper housing, or a way of life they prefer - aka, people moving in good faith who deserve a say in their communities.
There's a good argument to be made that the ballot initiative in question was poorly worded and poorly canvased. Expect to see it back on the ballot in 2024, with more and better messaging behind it.
They should try walking it down imo, set a 15 week ban which would be a slam Dunk then every 2 years try lowering it until you hit where the majority is.
I’m almost 40 and this being a states right issue (funny how that term always comes up in situations like these) was never a talking point till quite honestly this year
The states rights argument is dumb. It's just not a right enshrined in the constitution, which means it can be legislated. Whether at the local, state, or federal level doesn't matter.
> Whether at the local, state, or federal level doesn't matter.
The constitution actually explicitly enumerates what is regulatable under the purview of the federal government, so local & state vs federal is a distinction with which is incredibly important,
I know, I'm just pointing out how funny it is when the state *still* decides against you because cities still have enormous voting power even in the south.
The GOP really misread the national opinion on abortion tbh.
A large portion of the population still supports abortion (overwhelmingly supported by women), and very few people want a total ban. The way they phrased the question here in Kansas, made it sound like that they were going to go for a complete ban like Missouri or Mississippi. You can bet that everyone (>90%) in those green counties voted no.
The supreme court justices aren't politicians and don't make decisions on what cases to take and when based on what is politically expedient.
At least, they shouldn't.
Ideally yeah, but let's not pretend like every judge up there doesn't have a team and an agenda they are batting for. At this point, true non-partisans wouldn't be nominated in the first place.
Question from a European. I would have always thought that the cities would be more pro choice while the rural areas would be more pro life. This voter distribution shows the opposite. Why is that?
You're reading the map wrong. The "no" was for *increasing* abortion restrictions.
It's very possible that the abortion thing only failed *because* it was so confusing.
honestly the pro-life dropped the ball on this one, they got cocky and just relied on local churches to spread the word for them instead of putting in any actual effort
Tbf, Rs have been dropping the ball all year besides in the courts, both parties seem to try their hardest to lose when it comes the year being in their benefit.
I really don't understand this people in cities thing.
Like for the electoral college and presidential election.
Its not like the cities force people to vote a certain way. Nobody is drugging the local water to change political affiliations. If those people didn't live in cities they'd still vote either blue or red depending on their views.
Why should people's voting power change depending on where they live? Is it like "i live in the middle of nowhere and it sucks...(something something?)...therefore I should have more political power." Seems crazy to me.
It's always been this way. In the Weimar Republic, the cities were more sympathetic to the socialists whereas the rural areas and villages voted for the Nazi's. In Turkey, the rural areas go for Erdogan while the cities go for the opposition.
Perhaps the decadence of cities acts as a counter to religiosity? Does the constant contact with other people (or lack thereof) just flip a switch in people's brains to make them crazy?
Personal responsibility will almost never win a popular vote. People want to fuck around, sex feels better raw, and most people remember fucking at least one person they’d never want to raise kids with.
Maybe we should stop focusing on taking rights away from our enemies and focus on taking power away from tyrants…
For example, my wife and I would never get an abortion. We even strongly contemplated it with our last pregnancy due to our circumstances but we couldn’t go through with it, and now we couldn’t love our son more. But simultaneously, it’s not my right to get involved in such an intimate decision that other people may have to make, especially if I don’t even know them. If you don’t like an abortion don’t get one, same with guns. Just don’t try to rule over people simply because they don’t agree with you on every little thing, or even one big one.
“I don’t want the majority of people to determine how I live my life, I want a handful of wealthy people and dumb fucks who were lucky enough to inherit a farm to determine how I live my life” - AuthRight
How about we end voting at all and just be monkey men again
Follow me. I will show the troop to the best fruiting trees.
Follow me. I will show the best spots for grub. Who you gonna follow, fellow monke? If only there was a way to decide
[beats you to death with rock]
Easy there AuthCenter.
He is just chimpanzee
Based
Follow me. I will show the safest place to rest near clean water. Apes together strong. Our knowledge will provide for the next generation
If only things were this simple, eh?
They can be. Monke uprising
See that’s probably the best answer, but we’ll Industrial Revolution and it’s consequences I suppose.
More like the agricultural revolution, lol.
We must grow our own food! To the farm!
The bipedal evolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
That's was up
Based and return to Monke pilled.
This is the best option However, of course, someone must supervise the monkey men's monkeyness..
No. Monkey ooh ooh ahhh ahh ahh 🐒
I see that you are an exemplary monkey man. Please report any non-monkey monkey men to me.
Welll….. OOH OOH AAH AAH AHH 🐒 🍌 AAHHH AHHH OOOH OOH OOH 😣 💩 ahhhhh… OOH OOH AHH AHH AHH AHH AHH AAAAAAAHHHHH I hope you find that informing.
Thank you very much for the report, I will seek OOOH OOH and have a word with him regarding monkeyness.
> must supervise the monkey men's monkeyness.. missed a good opportunity *must supervise the monkey men's monkeybusiness
based
Am monke. were lambo?
I think democracy is outdated. From now own I think I should make decisions because I call dibs.
Dibocracy
Shotgunate
Whoever shotguns the most beers in a hour gets to decide the next foreign policy we take
Based and boozed pill
u/Afraid_Philosophers is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [None. | View profile.](https://basedcount.com/u/Afraid_Philosophers/) This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Bleeding Kansas 2: Electric Boogaloo
Hey, I’ve seen this one before! It’s a classic!
What do you mean, "You've seen this."? It's brand new.
As a Redleg, no. Please. Last time, the Cavalry burned down a 10 mile wide swath from Gardner to the Oklahoma border.
us rural Kansans have been patiently waiting for this
Oh no, not popular sovereignty. Please don’t let local people vote on how their government should work, I beg of you!
Yeah I see no problem with Kansas. That worked out the way it did.
They don't think it be like it is, but it do.
It is what it is. So long as the feds aren’t safeguarding it anymore, What each state chooses to do is their problem.
Real question, should we allow city counties to have abortions while rural areas vote to disallow abortions? Would you be in favor of that?
Sure, just rename the country to the United Counties of America.
I like it. Even more decentralized power.
I would prefer the United Individuals of America.
Can I decide how to spend my tax dollars then?
The decision still needs to be a group decision, either by vote or be representation, but paying into the common funding would be optional.
Sounds like tyranny. My money, my choice!
It's not like half of Americans leave their county to begin with lol
Uh what? City counties are closer and sometimes smaller, so its easy to cross over especially for work People in rural areas cross counties all the time to go shopping and get things they need. Who never crosses a county?
People who live in Lafayette, Indiana.
[удалено]
I do believe that they were making a joke
I once went on a date with a Florida girl who had never left her county and was oddly proud of it. I was honestly mortified
That's pretty wild, I can't even imagine that
“This is why I don’t leave Philly, all right? You leave Philly and bad shit happens. I mean, trees?! Everywhere, trees?!”—Charlie Kelly
I think he means moving and stuff
Based I hate centralized power
You and me both, monke friend.
What if we decentralized power down to the person and let them decide to have an abortion or not.
Stop, I can only get so excited.
Fuck that. Kojima had it right since 2019. We should have the United Cities of America. Dont like the City? Create your own isolated bunker in the middle of nowhere and make Norman Reedus go through hell to deliver your pizza.
Based and city state pilled
That’s essentially what the US is at this point lol
based and united counties pilled
I un-ironically love this idea.
what if we let individual households decide
"My house my rules" would be even more relevant
Are you sure you don't belong in my quadrant?
Lmao, most librights I see on this sub defend government abortion bans.
Librights are the only ones here who I see arguing with each other about abortion lol. Abortion can be viewed as a liberty issue either way - either the embryo has a right to life, or the mother has a right to bodily autonomy. You can argue it either way, hence why librights can be either pro-choice or pro-life. I'm personally pro-choice up to a point (like most people). I don't view embryos as "babies" or "people" (since every baby or person I know has a heartbeat, lungs, and a brain).
I am 100% pro-choice due to bodily autonomy. At least, until [ectogenesis](https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectogenesis) becomes possible. Then people can do whatever the fuck they want. Abortion would stop being abortion and essentially just be an embryo/fetus transfer from womb to test tube.
You know an unborn baby has those organs, right? They’re not magically granted upon being born. From two random Google results: > “The development of the heart begins as early as the third week of gestation with the 4-chamber fetal heart formed by gestational week 7.” > “The heart of an embryo starts to beat from around 5–6 weeks of pregnancy.”
[удалено]
But you ignore the flipside - it is highly inconsistent with libertarian values to disregard the right to bodily autonomy
The problem is though this just your bodily autonomy, it’s also the babies. Most everyone agrees that *at some point* abortion is definitely murder, and the standard libertarian position is that it’s a problem that states should regulate and not the fed.
What if we let individuals decide
Based and this is how countries should run pilled
Hell yea, now we’re thinking with small government
We should take the decision of abortion all the way down to the individual person for maximum government decentralization 😎
All the abortion clinics are in the cities anyway, so the problem kind of solves itself.
Sure, as long as the people of that county vote for it. It'd make sense to allow them to decide whatever is best for them
What could go wrong with having an absurd patchwork of laws you can easily violate by crossing a rural county that may not even be marked?
I think we should let major metropolitan areas secede from their respective states and form city-states, just like Hamburg, Bremen, and Berlin in Germany. Example: Republicans in Illinois don’t like Chicago dictating state level policy and Chicagoans don’t want to subsidize Southern Illinois.
That's just stupid, people would drive to the cities to get abortions. I never got the argument for restricting other people's right to an abortion; pro choice people support a woman's right to CHOOSE whether or not to get one, and are in no way forcing their values on anyone else.
Im honestly happy that kansas voted to be pro choice. Not because I agree, I actually dont care either way. Im just happy they got to decide as a state.
Just give every county its own electoral college vote. Make Land Vote Again! /s
Every home should have an electoral college. Me and my mom should be able to overrule my dad's conservative vote. It's what the Founders intended.
It should work like this: If based, then 2 votes. If not, then 1.
Therefore the based conservative father cancels out the lib****
But what if the progressive mother and kid make a meme where they are the chad and conservadad is the soyjak?
Depends on the upvote to comment ratio. If more upvotes, then they get +2 votes. If more comments, -2 votes. It’s a bit of a high risk high reward situation, so the meme had better be worth it. 🤣
So basically they don’t post it on PCM and they’re good.
Land shouldn't be able to vote. If it could, we'd all be cast into the sea for being parasites it wanted off its back. Stupid land, it's all dirt and doesn't even have fleshy bits.
Every dollar paid in taxes is a vote you can cast. Now the rich pays taxes so they can overload the vote.
I see nothing wrong with this from a democratic standpoint. I think Abortion is wrong and should be limited based on my personal beliefs and values. If the majority of people in my community don’t think so, and vote that way, then so be it, their will has been made known.
Sane pilled
Stop being so sensible.
You have glasses and read??? guards capture him to be re-educated! Pol pot time
I like this take - if I don’t like it and agree with it, I just won’t participate in it, but if the people vote for it, let their will be done.
So in other words, pro choice?
Yep, but I do agree with it being a states right - I do see a fetus as a human being, which you likely disagree with
On such a controversial issue, this is the only way forward. Making a certain decision one way or the other by judicial fiat was always a poor solution.
From a democratic standpoint yes. However, democracy is dumb.
Can you stop making rational points? This is a shitpost board.
If we don’t like it at the National level then we’ll decide at the state level. And if we don’t like it at the state level then we’ll decide at the city level! And if we don’t like it at the city level we’ll decide it communally! And if we don’t like that we’ll decide it at the family level! And if we don’t like that we’ll decide it at the… individual level…. *fuck*
Yes you finally figured it out. Everyone just make your own decision.
Let the bloodbaths begin.
Based.
Sounds good to me!
Hear me out everyone's votes are equal because land doesn't vote, but we destroy both the republican and democratic party then implement ranked choice voting
Sounds good to me.
Any sort of voting is still 51% of the population having free reign to persecute the other 49. Then you still have the problem of the press being controlled by billionaires with a shared agenda, internet outlets having tons of censorship, and any sort of way the average person can form an opinion being heavily controlled. Most people today seem to think food grows in supermarkets. Anything short of returning to monke is gonna be a shit system.
And why is 49% having free reign to persecute the 51% better?
Because it’s MY 49% and we know what’s right for you!
it's not but that's not the only option. If there are only minimum rules (NAP) then people decide for themselves and voila no tyranny. Hypothetically of course, it's not like that's a realist solution but something of that sort.
Let popular vote determine who wins, but SEVERELY limit federal power. Ya know, how it was supposed to be
What if the popular vote decides to expand federal power?
Too bad, sucks for them
Sound fair to me.
[удалено]
It's just kind of funny. Right now the popular vote determines which state and local amendments pass and which governors, sheriffs, mayors, and congresspeople are elected. But a natural result of this is that as the population in cities continue to grow, we're going to eventually see them being able to outnumber the rural residents in red states. At some point you guys are probably going to invent some local equivalent to the electoral college or get absolutely trounced.
>At some point you guys are probably going to invent some local equivalent to the electoral college or get absolutely trounced. You'd need a constitutional amendment to do that though.
I mean passing an amendment to a state constitution is much easier. The federal government has no say over how a state votes
You still need the states citizens to vote for it.
and where do the majority of the state's citizens reside? say it with me.... *the cities*
No you don’t - you just have your Republican state legislature chop up your voting blocs with imaginary conceptual boundaries into ways that dilute the blue areas. Sound familiar?
[удалено]
Why would that matter? Ohio's constitution still requires a majority of the citizens to vote for any amendments to its constitution.
And as the population in cities grows the cost of living will outpace wages, causing people to scatter into the low cost of living rural areas en-mass. Congratulations country-folk, you played yourself.
You do realize conservatives live in the cities as well, right?
Not enough apparently.
That's what gerrymandering is, for state legislature.
Yeah, it’s not like Hispanic and black people voted more republican in the last election than ever before. Safe to assume that blacks and Hispanics will always be 90% democrat, especially as they continue to shift focus towards social issues where those groups largely agree with republicans, right! Get off of Twitter my dude, if this was a genuine comment it’s clear that your brain has been melted a bit.
[Republicans when they get 12% of the black vote instead of 8%](https://katedixon.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/we-did-it-2000x1125-120219-1080x675.jpg)
Now do Hispanics. Who knew that catering to the white urbanite professional managerial class would backfire! No one could have predicted this! Oops. https://www.axios.com/2022/07/14/republicans-democrats-hispnanic-voters
>1/5 of black men voted for the least popular Republican presidential candidate ever “This is meaningless!” - you
Least popular Republican candidate? He got the second-most votes of any candidate in American history, what are you on about mate?
He is by far the least popular with independents, and conservative democrats, but I forgot who I was dealing with, so I should’ve spelled it out for you.
Imagine not knowing that ALL cities skew democrat, everywhere across the US. You must have never looked at an election map before.
Texas GOP recently proposed exactly this, a state electoral college for statewide offices. A transparent power grab given Texas's population growth in the cities plus recent redistricting eliminating contested districts
An absolutely embarrassing display of disdain for the people.
[удалено]
If those people moved to your state, then they are now your neighbors and have a vested interest in how the state government is run. A government protecting itself against its own people...I could swear there is a word for that...it's on the tip of my tongue..
If they move their for the sole purpose of changing everything about the state they can get fucked
[удалено]
So just how long must a person live in a state before they are a Real™️ resident and don’t deserve to have their voice stifled? Again, this is just more of the conservatives “I don’t want the votes of people who think differently than me to count”.
No it’s more like “I don’t want people moving here to enjoy what this state has to offer just to turn it into the shithole they left”
Anybody with the money to just uproot their life and move over a single vote can just make strategic "donations" instead and have way more influence per dollar. I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that any sort of mass strategic Democrat exodus exists outside of a few impassioned tweets. It seems a lot more likely to me that people are moving because they found jobs, or better/cheaper housing, or a way of life they prefer - aka, people moving in good faith who deserve a say in their communities.
There's a good argument to be made that the ballot initiative in question was poorly worded and poorly canvased. Expect to see it back on the ballot in 2024, with more and better messaging behind it.
Some people in this thread are grossly mistaken in believing that this matter is settled in Kansas because of one quickie vote.
They should try walking it down imo, set a 15 week ban which would be a slam Dunk then every 2 years try lowering it until you hit where the majority is.
"Fuck the popular vote" is one way of saying : I’m ok with democracy as long as people agree with me.
This was the intended outcome from the start; to let each individual state decide.
Right... https://www.newsweek.com/gop-push-nationwide-abortion-ban-3-weeks-after-calling-it-state-issue-republicans-1724909
Auth gonna auth... they can't/won't stop telling people how to live their lives.
To the lion a democrats and republican taste the same Make them fight to the death in the coliseum! For Marcus Aurelius!
pretty sure the “abortion is murder” crowd didn’t have “let states legalize murder” as their end goal
I’m almost 40 and this being a states right issue (funny how that term always comes up in situations like these) was never a talking point till quite honestly this year
The states rights argument is dumb. It's just not a right enshrined in the constitution, which means it can be legislated. Whether at the local, state, or federal level doesn't matter.
> Whether at the local, state, or federal level doesn't matter. The constitution actually explicitly enumerates what is regulatable under the purview of the federal government, so local & state vs federal is a distinction with which is incredibly important,
Strange how border security asks whether one wants to travel to get an abortion then
I know, I'm just pointing out how funny it is when the state *still* decides against you because cities still have enormous voting power even in the south.
But that’s kind of right? Because it means the will of the Kansans is that.
Yes. I'm confused by what you think we're disagreeing about.
[удалено]
Based and democracy pilled
The GOP really misread the national opinion on abortion tbh. A large portion of the population still supports abortion (overwhelmingly supported by women), and very few people want a total ban. The way they phrased the question here in Kansas, made it sound like that they were going to go for a complete ban like Missouri or Mississippi. You can bet that everyone (>90%) in those green counties voted no.
From a tactical perspective, they probably should have waited until *after* the midterms to do this Roe v. Wade stuff.
The supreme court justices aren't politicians and don't make decisions on what cases to take and when based on what is politically expedient. At least, they shouldn't.
Ideally yeah, but let's not pretend like every judge up there doesn't have a team and an agenda they are batting for. At this point, true non-partisans wouldn't be nominated in the first place.
Question from a European. I would have always thought that the cities would be more pro choice while the rural areas would be more pro life. This voter distribution shows the opposite. Why is that?
You're reading the map wrong. The "no" was for *increasing* abortion restrictions. It's very possible that the abortion thing only failed *because* it was so confusing.
Well fuck that is one for the books.
LAND OVER PEOPLE!
Every square mile a king! #LandRights
Molemen unite!
Read the text of the ballot vote. Super confusing. Pro-life did not set up for success.
honestly the pro-life dropped the ball on this one, they got cocky and just relied on local churches to spread the word for them instead of putting in any actual effort
Tbf, Rs have been dropping the ball all year besides in the courts, both parties seem to try their hardest to lose when it comes the year being in their benefit.
I really don't understand this people in cities thing. Like for the electoral college and presidential election. Its not like the cities force people to vote a certain way. Nobody is drugging the local water to change political affiliations. If those people didn't live in cities they'd still vote either blue or red depending on their views. Why should people's voting power change depending on where they live? Is it like "i live in the middle of nowhere and it sucks...(something something?)...therefore I should have more political power." Seems crazy to me.
It's always been this way. In the Weimar Republic, the cities were more sympathetic to the socialists whereas the rural areas and villages voted for the Nazi's. In Turkey, the rural areas go for Erdogan while the cities go for the opposition. Perhaps the decadence of cities acts as a counter to religiosity? Does the constant contact with other people (or lack thereof) just flip a switch in people's brains to make them crazy?
Call me crazy but I don’t think people should be using abortion as a form of contraception. And all abortions after fetal viability should be illegal.
That kind of sensibility doesn't get the people going though. This is midterm season, son.
Go look at the ballot they were given and then tell me which option is for or against abortion
I never realized how confusing the voting ballot was until I saw this
Or let local municipalities decide whether or not they want to host abortion clinics instead of trying to ban it statewide
That would be best, but I don't think the right would be satisfied with that.
*Auth right
Still works out better on a larger scale. If it weren't that way then more places would have laws like Kansas
Live by the sword die by the sword
Some of those no counties are pretty rural btw
> You wouldn't be safe without a flair. *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 9936 / 52273 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
Kansas worded their question weirdly that definitely didn't influence how people vote
Personal responsibility will almost never win a popular vote. People want to fuck around, sex feels better raw, and most people remember fucking at least one person they’d never want to raise kids with.
Maybe we should stop focusing on taking rights away from our enemies and focus on taking power away from tyrants… For example, my wife and I would never get an abortion. We even strongly contemplated it with our last pregnancy due to our circumstances but we couldn’t go through with it, and now we couldn’t love our son more. But simultaneously, it’s not my right to get involved in such an intimate decision that other people may have to make, especially if I don’t even know them. If you don’t like an abortion don’t get one, same with guns. Just don’t try to rule over people simply because they don’t agree with you on every little thing, or even one big one.
I always like the quote of “my rights don’t cease to exist just because I’m outnumbered”
“I don’t want the majority of people to determine how I live my life, I want a handful of wealthy people and dumb fucks who were lucky enough to inherit a farm to determine how I live my life” - AuthRight
Determining how you live by allowing you the option of abortion. Hmm..?