Right to LifeBoard

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .2,3452,3462,3472,3482,3492,3502,351. . .2,5072,508»
LodgedFromMessages
The Theocratic Republic of Os Adoradores de Deus

Phydios wrote:Os Adoradores de Deus

More to the point, here's an article that you might like to read:
https://secularprolife.org/2022/06/responding-to-16-pro-choice-claims-about-dobbs-the-pro-life-movement-and-abortion-bans/

Interesting

The Theocratic Republic of Os Adoradores de Deus

Phydios wrote:That definitely exists in conservative and Republican circles. But it's not as if no one has or continues to advocate for dignified treatment of all human beings. This story came to mind:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pro-abortion-democrat-tries-trolling-pro-lifers-by-requiring-dads-to-provide-for-moms-unborn-babies/

http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HB3129&Session=2200&Tab=0

This guy proposed a bill that would require the father of an unborn child to pay up to 50% of the mother's pregnancy expenses. His reasoning was essentially, "If a woman is forced to carry an unwanted child, the father should also be forced to pay for it."

https://www.twitter.com/ForrestBennett/status/1484643409130397702

After the bill received enthusiastic support from pro-life organizations and criticism from abortion advocates, he issued a lengthy public apology and said he wouldn't be moving forward with the bill "as written". Since then, it has gone no further, and he has proposed no replacement. I guess there is no point in passing a bill to help vulnerable women if you can't use it to affirm your own beliefs. With Republican support, this bill might actually pass and empower more women to keep their babies. That would deal a blow to the abortion industry and anger your donors. Much better to just sweep it under the rug and assure everyone that you still support "abortion access" and that you've realized what a bad idea this bill was.

https://www.okhouse.gov/Members/District.aspx?District=92

https://www.twitter.com/ForrestBennett/status/1484950972480823304

That’s actually kinda funny, in a sick way

The Desert Island full of Emus and Papayas

This region is kind of boring. I like the pro life bit. But there is not much else to do. Anyone here have any suggestions for regions?

The Christian Socialist Republic of Culture of Life

Emus and Papayas wrote:This region is kind of boring. I like the pro life bit. But there is not much else to do. Anyone here have any suggestions for regions?

I'll just point out that, unlike social media, this website allows you to have an unlimited number of profiles. A lot of players, including some players in this region, have multiple nations in multiple regions for multiple reasons.

Some of the largest regions try to be "one-stop shops." This region isn't a one-stop shop. For example, we've never had a vibrant roleplaying community. However, we have offered regular discussions on real-world topics. Hence, we're the fourth largest "generalite" region (meaning general discussion).

Horatius Cocles, Phydios, New Kiwis, Steel Belt Empire, and 2 othersSaptasindhavah, and Chromacorp

The Ancient Tellurian Union of The Gallant Old Republic

Well since Roborian hasn't provoked some discussion for a few days, permit our new poll to draw your attention.



The Theocratic Republic of Os Adoradores de Deus

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:Well since Roborian hasn't provoked some discussion for a few days, permit our new poll to draw your attention.

Get rid of the house! Also, bring us back to before Grant sold us to the UK and Vatican! #BringBack1870

The Desert Island full of Emus and Papayas

Culture of Life wrote:I'll just point out that, unlike social media, this website allows you to have an unlimited number of profiles. A lot of players, including some players in this region, have multiple nations in multiple regions for multiple reasons.

Some of the largest regions try to be "one-stop shops." This region isn't a one-stop shop. For example, we've never had a vibrant roleplaying community. However, we have offered regular discussions on real-world topics. Hence, we're the fourth largest "generalite" region (meaning general discussion).

I understand that. I enjoy this region, however, I feel as if it is either quiet or there is a debate. Nothing wrong with that especially when the debates are worthwhile. Just think I want to join one that has a little more excitement!

Piscatania

Good Day Everyone. I'm new to the region after my Alt got an invitation telegram. It's cool to have a region for this. I normally don't leave the feeders when I start a new nation, but since I think I will be sticking with this one as my main for a while, I figured I might as well try it given that I encountered one so agreeable.

The Neocontinental Empire of Piscatania is a primarily English-speaking Constitutional Monarchy set in an Alternate History US, Canada, Cuba, Bahamas, and Northern Mexico. Orthodox Christianity is the estabished church, Cajuns are Dutch, rather than French, and Native heritage is considerably more common. Its history largely resembles that of Brazil IRL, except the monarchy resisted the slaveholder attempts at a coup, having led the free states in a US-style civil war.



The Social Democracy of Horatius Cocles

Os Adoradores de Deus wrote:Get rid of the house! Also, bring us back to before Grant sold us to the UK and Vatican! #BringBack1870

Since when has the world’s leading Protestant/capitalist power in the world ever been “sold” to the Vatican? I hardly think Grant’s personal meeting with Pope Leo XIII qualifies.

The Federation of Roborian

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:Well since Roborian hasn't provoked some discussion for a few days, permit our new poll to draw your attention.

I should get an official regional office, Chief Rabble-Rauser of RtL.

The question is a very interesting one, though, and I think that, though this is a bit odd, the argument for returning to a system closer to the Founders in terms of the numbers of Representatives is best bolstered by the fact that we moved away from their plan for the Senate. In a world without a 17th Amendment, where Senators were still state-appointed, I think 435 would be a reasonable number to continue to operate as a functioning body and not just a crowd. With the Senate now popularly elected, however, the two are more or less doing the same kind of work and representing the same general interests in only slightly different ways, and I think in that context that an 8,000-member house could be taken as a closer holding-to of more specific regional interests and/or semi-direct democracy, as most committees and individual dealmaking would fall apart at that level, House votes would be closer to referendums.

Whether or not a mega-house would increase or decrease partisanship is an interesting question in itself, having that many seats would push the ability of national parties to meddle in individual races past its logistical breaking point, but very small districts and thus less broad attention on races would probably create even more of a low-information environment in which people just vote party line, and local, likely partisan, organizations have a stronger sway in primaries. The New Hampshire General Court would probably be the best example to view possible outcomes from, but I think it being both state-level and not a functional career for members probably make it look different than a mega-house would.

We could always, so long as we are shooting for unreasonably large numbers, set it at 144,000 and freak out some eschatologists.



The Theocratic Republic of Os Adoradores de Deus

Roborian wrote:I should get an official regional office, Chief Rabble-Rauser of RtL.

The question is a very interesting one, though, and I think that, though this is a bit odd, the argument for returning to a system closer to the Founders in terms of the numbers of Representatives is best bolstered by the fact that we moved away from their plan for the Senate. In a world without a 17th Amendment, where Senators were still state-appointed, I think 435 would be a reasonable number to continue to operate as a functioning body and not just a crowd. With the Senate now popularly elected, however, the two are more or less doing the same kind of work and representing the same general interests in only slightly different ways, and I think in that context that an 8,000-member house.

Whether or not a mega-house would increase or decrease partisanship is an interesting question in itself, having that many seats would push the ability of national parties to meddle in individual races past its logistical breaking point, but very small districts and thus less broad attention on races would probably create even more of a low-information environment in which people just vote party line, and local, likely partisan, organizations have a stronger sway in primaries. The New Hampshire General Court would probably be the best example to view possible outcomes from, but I think it being both state-level and not a functional career for members probably make it look different than a mega-house would.

We could always, so long as we are shooting for unreasonably large numbers, set it at 144,000 and freak out some eschatologists.

We’re going to need a bigger building….

The Ancient Tellurian Union of The Gallant Old Republic

While I would love to return to one member for 40,000, 8,000+ congressmen would become too much of a mob where members only know a few of each other. 435 is ridiculous though: 800,000 people cannot reasonably be represented by one person. I am really open to any proposal to increase the size of the House, but I guess I would lean towards establishing a rolling number that allocated a seat for approximately every 100,000.

Separately, I also think it should be mandatory that every district have a name. This could vary, but should be tied geographically, whether that's "Northern Wyoming" or "Jackson-Williams-Grand" (counties or cities) or "Permian Basin." It would be up to the legislature (or commissions...) to create the names. I think this would help people identify with their district, remember it, and even indirectly counteract gerrymandering.

The Theocratic Republic of Os Adoradores de Deus

Horatius Cocles wrote:Since when has the world’s leading Protestant/capitalist power in the world ever been “sold” to the Vatican? I hardly think Grant’s personal meeting with Pope Leo XIII qualifies.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Organic_Act_of_1871

The Christian Socialist Republic of Culture of Life

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:While I would love to return to one member for 40,000, 8,000+ congressmen would become too much of a mob where members only know a few of each other. 435 is ridiculous though: 800,000 people cannot reasonably be represented by one person. I am really open to any proposal to increase the size of the House, but I guess I would lean towards establishing a rolling number that allocated a seat for approximately every 100,000.

As I understand, the House was fixed at 435 members for budgetary and spatial reasons. Congress didn't want to pay more members and hire more staff, and it simply didn't have the physical capacity to house -- pun intended -- a lot of new members.

https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/buildings-grounds/house-office-buildings

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:Separately, I also think it should be mandatory that every district have a name. This could vary, but should be tied geographically, whether that's "Northern Wyoming" or "Jackson-Williams-Grand" (counties or cities) or "Permian Basin." It would be up to the legislature (or commissions...) to create the names. I think this would help people identify with their district, remember it, and even indirectly counteract gerrymandering.

I agree. If you occasionally watch C-SPAN, you'll notice that they already list the main cities in a congressman's district. It's simply too difficult to remember where each numbered district is located. See Google Images:

https://www.google.com/search?q=c-span+us+house&source=lnms&tbm=isch&bih=609&dpr=1.5



The Republic of Phydios

Os Adoradores de Deus wrote:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Organic_Act_of_1871

Someone please show me where the UK and the Vatican are mentioned here. It's literally an act to establish a single municipal government for the District of Columbia.

Is this related to the "sovereign citizen" conspiracy theories that the article also mentions?

The Theocratic Republic of Os Adoradores de Deus

Phydios wrote:Someone please show me where the UK and the Vatican are mentioned here. It's literally an act to establish a single municipal government for the District of Columbia.

Is this related to the "sovereign citizen" conspiracy theories that the article also mentions?

Yes. In the conspiracy theory part

The Republic of Phydios

Os Adoradores de Deus wrote:Yes. In the conspiracy theory part

Understood. So which conspiracy theory do you follow? The one that claims the United States is secretly a business corporation, or the one that claimed that Donald Trump would be sworn in as president of the "original" United States on 2021-03-04?



The Theocratic Republic of Os Adoradores de Deus

Phydios wrote:Understood. So which conspiracy theory do you follow? The one that claims the United States is secretly a business corporation, or the one that claimed that Donald Trump would be sworn in as president of the "original" United States on 2021-03-04?

The business corporation. I used to believe that trump messiah stuff, but after reading the QAnon main page thing, and all the stuff they got wrong, I’m done with it lol. I guess I’ll just wait for Jesus to return :)

The Ancient Tellurian Union of The Gallant Old Republic

Culture of Life wrote:As I understand, the House was fixed at 435 members for budgetary and spatial reasons. Congress didn't want to pay more members and hire more staff, and it simply didn't have the physical capacity to house -- pun intended -- a lot of new members.

https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/buildings-grounds/house-office-buildings

I agree. If you occasionally watch C-SPAN, you'll notice that they already list the main cities in a congressman's district. It's simply too difficult to remember where each numbered district is located. See Google Images:

https://www.google.com/search?q=c-span+us+house&source=lnms&tbm=isch&bih=609&dpr=1.5

Right, sure, but I think the logistics, while obviously worth considering, aren't that big of an obstacle. We just spent the GDP of Chile on a stinking CHIP bill, I think they can find room for it. The sheer number of personnel (and new building or facility) would be challenging but I'm sure we can make it work.



The Federation of Roborian

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:

Separately, I also think it should be mandatory that every district have a name. This could vary, but should be tied geographically, whether that's "Northern Wyoming" or "Jackson-Williams-Grand" (counties or cities) or "Permian Basin." It would be up to the legislature (or commissions...) to create the names. I think this would help people identify with their district, remember it, and even indirectly counteract gerrymandering.

Culture of Life wrote:

I agree. If you occasionally watch C-SPAN, you'll notice that they already list the main cities in a congressman's district. It's simply too difficult to remember where each numbered district is located. See Google Images:

https://www.google.com/search?q=c-span+us+house&source=lnms&tbm=isch&bih=609&dpr=1.5

I find myself going back and forth on this idea. As a general rule, I tend to favor greater devolution and focus towards lower-level government, but I am not really sure that, in an already highly top-heavy system, that looking to increase identity in a regional area would have any great effect. Insofar as it would reduce gerrymandering, I tend to agree, but it would seem to do so by reducing flexibility in redistricting generally, if a state lost or gained a seat or saw substantial population changes, trying to adjust around relatively calcified maps would be difficult. I am increasingly of the opinion that state-level devolution is the most realistic goal of shifting the balance of power, in that regard, something more along the lines of the geographical option over the city/region option (i.e., Northwest [state]) would seem a fair idea, but that would break down fairly quickly among the biggest states, and I do still see something in the alternative, as I said, mixed. I think that ultimately Representatives are not the strongest drivers in local politics and perhaps should not be, earmarking and pork-barrel always exists, but I would favor a political mindset where the loyalty was more to the general opinions of the voters of a district, and not the physical 'province' of it. I think that is reasonable on a state level with Senators, where the state is an independent entity, and less so looking for a bridge for Decatur-Urbana-Champaign, which next cycle becomes Decatur-Springfield-Peoria, or whatever.

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:While I would love to return to one member for 40,000, 8,000+ congressmen would become too much of a mob where members only know a few of each other. 435 is ridiculous though: 800,000 people cannot reasonably be represented by one person. I am really open to any proposal to increase the size of the House, but I guess I would lean towards establishing a rolling number that allocated a seat for approximately every 100,000.

I think that that may be more of a feature than a bug. Deliberation and deal-making based on individual interests and quirks would be the province of the Senate, longer terms, more time to get to know people, less people to know, and the House, where I think that is already mostly gone, would be much more of a voting body than a deliberative body. Turnover would likely be higher with incumbency perhaps less of an advantage, and party leadership weaker with a sufficiently diverse and amorphous group, more opportunity for niche interests to at least attempt to have a say, and a general operating process centered more around ideological take than partisan whipping. You would likely find more breaking from the party-line with things like Democrats representing a heavily rural, unionized district of that socially conservative fiscally liberal bent that would otherwise be swallowed up in a larger district, or the resurrection of some New England Republicans in pockets up there, perhaps even something as odd as a New York City conservative coming from a district largely made up of Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods, or college-town Democrats in red states, and legitimate chances for third-party candidates.

There are weaknesses to that as well, of course, as much as it is universally lampooned, the two-party system does do a fair job of reining in the most reckless impulses of ideological figures, but with the Senate still as a check, I could see something coming from a House that is far more of an actual 'People's House'.

The Ancient Tellurian Union of The Gallant Old Republic

Roborian wrote:I find myself going back and forth on this idea.

Have you looked into how naming is done in, say, Canada or the United Kingdom? That's basically what I would advocate for. If you know of any negative effects from their naming convention system though, let me know.

The Federation of Roborian

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:Have you looked into how naming is done in, say, Canada or the United Kingdom? That's basically what I would advocate for. If you know of any negative effects from their naming convention system though, let me know.

I cannot claim any particularly familiarity with either or their effects, but I will take a look.

Of course, knowing that Canada and the UK do it make me a little more sour on the idea, but that is just a bit of reflexive nationalism (and a touch of guilt by association).

The Free Territory of Christian Anarchists

It's not difficult to guess this nation's ownership.

(Although, can an anarchist nation actually be owned . . . ?)

The Ancient Tellurian Union of The Gallant Old Republic

After I recently read a book that simply listed the GDP of a particular country (Kyrgyzstan) and soon after read something about a bill being passed through congress (I forget which one) I have developed the unfortunate habit of comparing our spending on this or that thing to what country's GDP it equals. It's disturbing.

A few examples:
- the new IRS budget = entire economic output of Bosnia (#114)
- the entire IRA bill recently passed (noting it is 10 yrs worth of spending) = entire economic output of Belgium (#24)
- the new CHIPS bill = entire economic output of Chile (#41)
- total of improper payments by the US government from 2021 = Chile again.
- DoD budget = entire economic output of Saudi Arabia (#19) + a lot more
- entire federal budget = entire economic output of Japan (#3)
- total for the various 'covid relief' bills = Japan again, plus a lots more

The Federative Subsidarity of Distributist Republics
«12. . .2,3452,3462,3472,3482,3492,3502,351. . .2,5072,508»