> Second, you are ONE country, you have ONE president.
We also have fifty governors, 100 senators, 435 house reps, nine supreme court justices, and countless state legislators. We do not live in a dictatorship. Yet.
Of these, it's the court that has changed most wildly over the past 8 years.
> soon it will be much less diverse than you can imagine right now.
I think it's possible to say "overturning Roe v. Wade didn't make abortion illegal in California, as your worst case presumption might assume" and still believe that GOP gerrymandering, Supreme Court appointments, and attempted coups are an existential threat to majority rule.
Of course nuance is important when thinking about solutions to the problem. But if a substantial portion of the country (I don't know, is it 30%?) is basically not democratic anymore, you better be quick with coming up and implementing a solution. And how exactly is a solution to look like then without a civil war?
As a point of clarity, those state laws are all passed by democratically elected representatives. Gerrymandering may impact outcomes, but Ds are every bit as good at it as Rs. For example, Oregon's legislative districts are comically gerrymandered by Democrats.
We also have fifty governors, 100 senators, 435 house reps, nine supreme court justices, and countless state legislators. We do not live in a dictatorship. Yet.
Of these, it's the court that has changed most wildly over the past 8 years.
> soon it will be much less diverse than you can imagine right now.
I think it's possible to say "overturning Roe v. Wade didn't make abortion illegal in California, as your worst case presumption might assume" and still believe that GOP gerrymandering, Supreme Court appointments, and attempted coups are an existential threat to majority rule.