America

[GreatLakes]

I think a lot of women in the US would say we have less freedom than ever in this country right now.

Ever? Like even prior to the 19th and 13th amendment ever? I disagree with most of the recent Supreme Court rulings but I'm not going to pretend they sent us back to some of the low points of the past.

There was a time no woman could vote and some women were considered property. I think that would be less free than today. YMMV of course.

 

[White Cat]

I think a lot of women in the US would say we have less freedom than ever in this country right now.

They would be wrong. But they are free to say that.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Slightly outdated, but the most current data I could find. The 2020 census was delayed by Covid-19 and other factors. The gains and losses of electoral vote count by those states you mentioned and others still don’t make a significant difference, enough that would have changed the results of the 2020 election.


Then maybe you don’t understand my last post. We can agree to disagree. Without getting political, there is unequal representation in the Senate due to the disproportionate distribution in population and diversity between rural and urban/suburban metropolitan areas.

(Difficult to cite source material that some may disregard as biased.)

Unequal representation in raw numbers not by action. You can't make a statement about representatives per population with the point that lower populated states have more influence and not expect pushback. Just because a state is lower in population doesn't mean they have more influence because they have the same number of representatives. What clout do you think WY has over CA? Or NE for that matter or MT.

As far as electoral college just because there is more updated information out there doesn't mean you get to just say it holds no significance when your whole point was population. The losses and gains and no change reflect population changes which follows your point about number of residents. And you're welcome to see the full list. I found it on Ballotpedia IIRC.

 

[AustinTink]

Ever? Like even prior to the 19th and 13th amendment ever? I disagree with most of the recent Supreme Court rulings but I'm not going to pretend they sent us back to some of the low points of the past.

There was a time no woman could vote and some women were considered property. I think that would be less free than today. YMMV of course.

“Ever” as in ever in their lifetime as a citizen of the United States of America. Good grief.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

From Kenya

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...orced-strip-period-Kenyan-cheese-factory.html

 

[DCLMP]

“Ever” as in ever in their lifetime as a citizen of the United States of America. Good grief.

I haven’t lost any freedom in my lifetime.

 

[focusondisney]

I have a friend who was born in South Africa, grew up in South Africa, spent the majority of her life in South Africa and has recently moved to America where she plans to become a citizen eventually. How would you identify her? I never have heard anyone identified as a South African American.

Why wouldn’t she be referred to as a South African American? South Africa is the country she came from, the same way Irish American, Italian American, Polish American, Mexican American etc etc is used.

 

[Neapolitan Ice Cream]

Although I'm not 100% on board with every law laid down in the country, I would be proud to be an American

 

[luv2cheer92]

“Ever” as in ever in their lifetime as a citizen of the United States of America. Good grief.

Some people will just say anything they can to be purposely obtuse and ignorant.

Hard to avoid feeding these trolls that always pop up.

 

[DCLMP]

Instead of being passive aggressive can you tell me what freedoms have been takien away from me. If you’re referring to government over reach the last few decades that I can agree with, but that is not specific to me.

 

[NotUrsula]

On the flip side, there's really only a handful of states currently that decide who wins. I'm not sure what the best solution is. Maybe instead of a "winner take all" when it comes to a state's electors, doing a percentage? If a candidate gets 40% of the vote, then (s)he get 40% of the electors?

Certainly, an Originalist can't defend Winner-Take-All; it didn't become the norm until 1824. (And James Madison, at least, went on record against it.) If you're interested in the history, this one's rather good: https://fairvote.org/how-the-electoral-college-became-winner-take-all/

The most common alternative proposed is that electoral votes would be apportioned by who wins a particular Congressional district, with the 2 votes for the Senate seats going to the candidate who wins the most districts, unless there is a tie, in which case each candidate gets one of them. (If ranked-choice voting is used, the formula changes.) Obviously, that's not perfect, but it's a heck of lot fairer and closer to a popular vote than Winner-Take-All, and best of all, does not take a Constitutional Amendment to accomplish.

(And yes, I know that Winner-Take-All is now enshrined in many state constitutions, but in most states it is a much less onerous task to amend a state constitution than it is to amend the US Constitution.)

 

[Neapolitan Ice Cream]

I know some countries have the Right to a roof over your head; the UK had this until recently. Does the USA enjoy this freedom? Enquiring minds want to know!

 

[DCLMP]

Although I'm not 100% on board with every law laid down in the country, I would be proud to be an American

I think most people feel the same. Nothings perfect, but it’s pretty good place to live.

 

[Buzz Rules]

I know some countries have the Right to a roof over your head; the UK had this until recently. Does the USA enjoy this freedom? Enquiring minds want to know!

We do not have right to housing/shelter in our constitution (it's a hot button issue in cities and suburbs right now). We do have religious and non religious charity groups that try to help the issue get resolved and some government entities that try to reduce the homeless issue. Affordable housing is a problem that ends with some action but mostly arguments in most states from what I have seen.

Although I'm not 100% on board with every law laid down in the country, I would be proud to be an American

Feel free to immigrate here in the future if you and your family feel it would be the right decision for them. We welcome everyone.

 

[DCLMP]

We do not have right to housing/shelter in our constitution (it's a hot button issue in cities and suburbs right now). We do have religious and non religious charity groups that try to help the issue get resolved and some government entities that try to reduce the homeless issue. Affordable housing is a problem that ends with some action but mostly arguments in most states from what I have seen.

Feel free to immigrate here in the future if you and your family feel it would be the right decision for them. We welcome everyone.

Mental illness and drug use is a huge contributing factor.

 

[Buzz Rules]

The Holocaust was "a really rough patch"?
Unbelievable!

ford family

As a side note, England singing 10 German bombers in the air during soccer matches, I personally find disrespectful to modern Germany but most English fans don't seem to care (not against you but just something I notice about English culture).

 

[Buzz Rules]

Mental illness and drug use is a huge contributing factor.

True.

 

[NotUrsula]

In America things are expensive, but if you walk in the hospital any hospital with a life threatening illness, you will be treated immediately regardless of if you can pay or not and regardless of sex, race, or citizenship level. The cost to the people who can pay is greatly inflated due to many people not paying for healthcare services.

Well, yes and no. In fact, there are a large number of hospitals in the US right now that will not treat a miscarriage patient in acute distress; they will turn her away for legal liability reasons. There is no situation in which a male will not receive immediate care, but it's not always so if you happen to be a pregnant woman.

Those who would seek to curtail our personal freedoms have developed a new and frighteningly effective strategy over the past 25 years or so. They know that the laws are unconstitutional, but are deliberately counting on money to be a deterrent to being challenged on it. They purposely write criminal laws that have very vague definitions of what constitutes a violation, so that people fear prosecution and self-limit what they will and will not do, just because they do not know where the red line truly lies. It's happening on the health-care front and on the censorship front. People are afraid of challenging unfair laws because they fear having their lives further ruined by poverty caused by legal fees, or harassment, or losing their jobs because of taking a particular position on a controversial issue. (That is not a partisan statement; it's true no matter who you are.)

 

[Buzz Rules]

Well, yes and no. In fact, there are a large number of hospitals in the US right now that will not treat a miscarriage patient in acute distress; they will turn her away for legal liability reasons. There is no situation in which a male will not receive immediate care, but it's not always so if you happen to be a pregnant woman.

Those who would seek to curtail our personal freedoms have developed a new and frighteningly effective strategy over the past 25 years or so. They know that the laws are unconstitutional, but are deliberately counting on money to be a deterrent to being challenged on it. They purposely write criminal laws that have very vague definitions of what constitutes a violation, so that people fear prosecution and self-limit what they will and will not do, just because they do not know where the red line truly lies. It's happening on the health-care front and on the censorship front. People are afraid of challenging unfair laws because they fear having their lives further ruined by poverty caused by legal fees, or harassment, or losing their jobs because of taking a particular position on a controversial issue. (That is not a partisan statement; it's true no matter who you are.)

The solution is for Congress to have the constitution be amended and add healthcare (in whatever compromise agreed too by both parties, limits or otherwise) so laws and rights are further solidified permanently.

 

[CdnCarrie]

From Kenya

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...orced-strip-period-Kenyan-cheese-factory.html

That reminds me of drug testing at work in the USA. Not heard of here - very foreign concept.
Or making women return to work 6 weeks postpartum rather than a year.

I’m being facetious as I’m trying to figure out why you’d bring up a random news article from Kenya.