Lindsey Graham to propose new national abortion restrictions bill

[fmw]

Wouldn't my idea also result in less federal legislation passed? Gridlock in today's case is usually a good thing, but not necessarily so in my perfect world.
The resulting compromise would result in things passed that benefit most of the country instead of the partisans that one side or the other is beholden to.
Ultimately I want the abolition of the 2 party system in favor of multiple ones that have to work together and compromise to get things passed.

Gridlock only stops partisan legislation. If the two sides can agree on what is best for the nation, then gridlock will not interfere.

 

[Lursa]

It is my beliefs that motivate it.

You didnt answer the question, but I already did for you.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Yes, what you just laid out is eugenics.

And what you're doing is name-calling. Eugenics is not repellent to me IF the woman has the final say. She literally MAKES a child with her body, so she gets the say of whether that child will be disabled or not. It seems a very rational choice to me, to abort immediately on finding out, and starting again. But it's not my choice to make and so, being a liberal, I would permit it.

Eugenics WOULD be repellent to me, if anyone but the woman decided. But you refuse to recognize that distinction, I guess.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Being a "good eugenicist" is actually a compromise position. It displeases me that a blind woman would actually choose to have a blind child, but I have to permit it if I would also permit her to abort at any stage. I would support free screening of embryos (for women with a history of genetic disease, or whose partner has that) and to be consistent in it being purely the woman's choice, I must allow her to choose a known disability for her child. I don't have to like it, though.

 

[Parrish]

To paraphrase what a woman carrying a child with half a skull with no chance of survival after birth said, she'd " have to carry it to bury it." How cruel to the child and it's mother.

 

[basionok]

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is peculiarly unwilling to help MAGA candidates. Voters want them, but Mitch McConnell doesn’t. McConnell prefers rather to be Senate minority leader than risk getting ousted from that position by a MAGA Republican majority.

Lindsey Graham, although not the majority leader, also prefers the way things are compared to the way they could be if the MAGA team triumphs. He’d be a much less important senator with a more conservative Senate.

Exactly what game is Lindsey Graham playing with his abortion bill?

On Tuesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham unexpectedly came out as an ostensibly pro-life leader when he announced that, if Republicans take Congress, he plans a bill banning abortions across America after the fifteenth week of pregnancy. For Democr...

www.americanthinker.com

 

[dockside]

You don't have to believe in Jesus to be against abortion.

20 weeks for most women is enough time to figure it out.

I could agree with that if it was only a case of women figuring it out. But, late-term abortions are about something totally beyond the control of any human being - deformed fetuses who will die a painful death shortly after birth, health or death probabilities if the woman is forced to continue the pregnancy are the two most prominent ones. Those are very emotional and medical decisions. And, they should be decisions, not forced upon them by archaic and/or religious laws/beliefs. The state should have absolutely no right to interfere in those decisions.

 

[dockside]

Now, I'm not going to go and find a bunch of studies. In invalidate your claim, I only need one. Meet Victoria.

Why do women decide to get third-trimester abortions?

The reasons people need third-trimester abortions are not so different from why people need abortions before the third trimester: They received new information—including that they were pregnant—that made the pregnancy not (or no longer) one they wanted to continueThey tried to obtain an abortion...

www.ansirh.org

I have been very clear that I accept that elective late-term abortions are rare. I just don't understand why we can't come together and agree that while rare, they should be illegal. be

Do you believe that that woman in Texas (where else?) should have had to carry her fetus to birth in order to bury it because it only had half a skull? I ask this as a woman who almost died after giving birth to my second child from internal bleeding. Childbirth is many times more dangerous than abortion. My child was full-term and a healthy baby but I was not so lucky. Had I ever gotten pregnant again, I would chosen to abort because my doctor felt it would happen again with any subsequent childbirth. But, again, lucky for me that I didn't get pregnant again - thanks to the pill. But, these wacky religious conservatives are coming after contraception next.

 

[Torus34]

I believe that Congressman Lindsay Graham's anti-abortion bill has been, well, er, you know . . . aborted.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

 

[j brown's body]

Gridlock only stops partisan legislation. If the two sides can agree on what is best for the nation, then gridlock will not interfere.

Nice theory. But it doesn't work when the one party is afraid the other side's president will get credit for it.

 

[rhinefire]

Graham wears his mother's dresses and proudly so I might add.

 

[Plasmaball]

I could agree with that if it was only a case of women figuring it out. But, late-term abortions are about something totally beyond the control of any human being - deformed fetuses who will die a painful death shortly after birth, health or death probabilities if the woman is forced to continue the pregnancy are the two most prominent ones. Those are very emotional and medical decisions. And, they should be decisions, not forced upon them by archaic and/or religious laws/beliefs. The state should have absolutely no right to interfere in those decisions.

I don't have to be religious to be against those.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is peculiarly unwilling to help MAGA candidates. Voters want them,

Republican primary voters may want them, but we'll see in November.

but Mitch McConnell doesn’t. McConnell prefers rather to be Senate minority leader than risk getting ousted from that position by a MAGA Republican majority.

Lindsey Graham, although not the majority leader, also prefers the way things are compared to the way they could be if the MAGA team triumphs. He’d be a much less important senator with a more conservative Senate.

Exactly what game is Lindsey Graham playing with his abortion bill?

On Tuesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham unexpectedly came out as an ostensibly pro-life leader when he announced that, if Republicans take Congress, he plans a bill banning abortions across America after the fifteenth week of pregnancy. For Democr...

www.americanthinker.com

You could probably make a better guess yourself, than consulting articles on American "Thinker".

My take is that Graham is trying to establish himself as the Religious Right candidate in 2024. It's one of Trump's weaknesses. And frankly I wish him all possible luck against Trump, because Graham can't win.

Your ambition for Republicans to purge their party of "RINO's" is folly. You can't win moderate states with far right candidates, any more than Democrats can win them with far left candidates. Extremists of either side don't get this, they think it's about "leadership" or something, but they're just offering policies and stances the people of purple states do not want.

Hell, Sarah Palin even managed to lose the special election in Alaska. That's not even a purple state, it's R+8

 

[fmw]

Nice theory. But it doesn't work when the one party is afraid the other side's president will get credit for it.

Huh? It works very well. It prevents a lot of partisan bills passing. It is one of the few things that work well in government. You view it from a partisan lens. I view it from an anti-partisan lens.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Huh? It works very well. It prevents a lot of partisan bills passing. It is one of the few things that work well in government. You view it from a partisan lens. I view it from an anti-partisan lens.

You like the Farm Bill then. I can't think of anything else the two parties agree on, and there's some long-standing problems caused by gridlock.

Defense: both parties agree on Defense, which is the largest branch of the civil service, having about a third of all civil servants (not counting reserves). Pay and benefits is 39% of this total, which might surprise some people: procurements (2019) were only 21%

Health Care: probably the most expensive system in the world, though far from the best health outcomes. Republicans couldn't stop Obamacare because Dems had 60 in the Senate, but they also couldn't change it at all because ... dreadful though it is ... Obamacare is better than what came before. Where's the compromise?

Immigration: both sides say they want more immigrants to come legally, but only one side means it. What they DO agree on is locking up immigrants, and deporting any who never applied for asylum.

Energy: Biden is being beaten up by oil companies, over some fool pipeline that was going to decrease energy independence. Fuel is largely tied to world oil price, because of imports AND exports, but the export ban was bargained away in some 'bipartisan' nonsense back in Obama's time.

Social Security: well it's not broken yet. How it gets fixed is a lottery: which party is in power when it breaks. This isn't intractably partisan though: both sides have ideas and as the time approaches, may come up with a compromise to screw workers and guarantee continued payments to the elderly, some of whom really don't need any more money. Neither party represents my views on Social Security.

Puerto Rico: There are 5.8 million Puerto Rican US citizens living in the US (2019 est) and only 3.2 million still living in PR. This is both cause and effect of their terrible economic problems: the remaining PR's have to carry all the debt for the younger generations who have left. One of the best prospects PR has is tourism, which would be helped enormously if PR was a state. Republicans oppose because PR State would vote Democratic.


It's not just a partisan lens which makes gridlock seem like a problem. You don't get smaller government when government cannot legislate, you get the same size government but with spending priorities which made sense in the past, but no longer do. As I like to call it, Zombie Government.

 

[fmw]

You like the Farm Bill then. I can't think of anything else the two parties agree on, and there's some long-standing problems caused by gridlock.

I don't know anything about the farm bill. Sorry

Defense: both parties agree on Defense, which is the largest branch of the civil service, having about a third of all civil servants (not counting reserves). Pay and benefits is 39% of this total, which might surprise some people: procurements (2019) were only 21%

Agreement is good. I have no problem with non partisan laws.

Health Care: probably the most expensive system in the world, though far from the best health outcomes. Republicans couldn't stop Obamacare because Dems had 60 in the Senate, but they also couldn't change it at all because ... dreadful though it is ... Obamacare is better than what came before. Where's the compromise?

That is all politics and partisanship. The government shouldn't get anywhere near it.

Immigration: both sides say they want more immigrants to come legally, but only one side means it. What they DO agree on is locking up immigrants, and deporting any who never applied for asylum.

The usual partisan response. Both sides are for immigration, not ILLEGAL immigration. All illegals need to be turned back at the border. You know that is true.

Energy: Biden is being beaten up by oil companies, over some fool pipeline that was going to decrease energy independence. Fuel is largely tied to world oil price, because of imports AND exports, but the export ban was bargained away in some 'bipartisan' nonsense back in Obama's time.

Fuel prices result from supply and demand. When you get a reduction of supply you get higher prices.

Social Security: well it's not broken yet. How it gets fixed is a lottery: which party is in power when it breaks. This isn't intractably partisan though: both sides have ideas and as the time approaches, may come up with a compromise to screw workers and guarantee continued payments to the elderly, some of whom really don't need any more money. Neither party represents my views on Social Security.

While social security never should have happened, it is ingrained in the system and is theoretically paid by the recipients during their working life. It is what it is.

Puerto Rico: There are 5.8 million Puerto Rican US citizens living in the US (2019 est) and only 3.2 million still living in PR. This is both cause and effect of their terrible economic problems: the remaining PR's have to carry all the debt for the younger generations who have left. One of the best prospects PR has is tourism, which would be helped enormously if PR was a state. Republicans oppose because PR State would vote Democratic.

Yep. That is how politics works.

It's not just a partisan lens which makes gridlock seem like a problem. You don't get smaller government when government cannot legislate, you get the same size government but with spending priorities which made sense in the past, but no longer do. As I like to call it, Zombie Government.

I'll go with zombie government as well but partisan bills should never become law. Not ever. Period. Gridlock is the only solution. Sorryi, you are incorrect.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

I don't know anything about the farm bill. Sorry

Agreement is good. I have no problem with non partisan laws.

Well I do. They're stuffed full of pork, which is to say local spending that the Federal government shouldn't even be doing.

That is all politics and partisanship. The government shouldn't get anywhere near it.

The government shouldn't get anywhere near HEALTHCARE? Oh boy are you late to that issue. Half the funding for health care comes from State and Federal governments, and you can't reverse that because government insures the chronically sick and the elderly. Private insurers don't want those customers.

The usual partisan response. Both sides are for immigration, not ILLEGAL immigration. All illegals need to be turned back at the border. You know that is true.

Both sides are for immigration but somehow they can't agree even on citizenship for children of illegal immigrants. That's constitutional and yet they're so divided they can't legislate for a constitutional right.

Fuel prices result from supply and demand. When you get a reduction of supply you get higher prices.

That's obvious. But it's not so obvious why the US fuel price is so sensitive to world oil price. Consider for a moment what would happen if crude oil was banned from import or export. Prices would be a little higher on average, but they would be very steady because drillers would know months or years in advance what their product was worth.

The fuel price crisis which still isn't finished, was a big part of the inflation crisis which still isn't finished. The similarity with the 70's crises is very strong: the US economy more than any other, is permeated by fuel costs. Electric vehicles will help, if only by diversifying fuel needs (more gas and renewables, less oil) and there's no reason to think this will do to oil what it did to coal. Heavy trucks which have longer service life, trains, and jets will provide a market for oil into the foreseeable future.

Listen to the partisan rhetoric though, and you'd think Biden is proposing to nationalize the oil refineries and shut them down.

BTW, there is some flexibility in demand for oil. People do drive less when the price is high, but more importantly they make long term decisions about which vehicle to buy, based on future expectations of the price. So there might be some benefit for all consumers, coming from the otherwise terrible price spike earlier this year.

While social security never should have happened, it is ingrained in the system and is theoretically paid by the recipients during their working life. It is what it is.

"Theoretically" indeed. I would simply abolish it, and replace it by a generous age pension for those who need it. I would also institute a government purchase-and-re-lease scheme so old people can enjoy an income stream instead of owning a house. They'd be guaranteed a lease on (what used to be) their house, for life. Any banks who thought they could offer a more attractive scheme, would be welcome, but given how lean government schemes like Social Security or Medicare run, I doubt they'd be interested.

Still, the point is that I have very little faith in the parties to do anything but scaremongering and name calling, because reforming Social Security is the "third rail" and neither party (even with supermajority in Congress) will do anything until they absolutely have to.

I'll go with zombie government as well but partisan bills should never become law. Not ever. Period. Gridlock is the only solution. Sorryi, you are incorrect.

Obamacare. Sorry, but it's you who is incorrect.

 

[fmw]

Well I do. They're stuffed full of pork, which is to say local spending that the Federal government shouldn't even be doing.

Different issue. Pork should be illegal. In fact multipurpose bills should be illegal. Write a law with a single purpose and expected outcome and vote on it.

The government shouldn't get anywhere near HEALTHCARE? Oh boy are you late to that issue. Half the funding for health care comes from State and Federal governments, and you can't reverse that because government insures the chronically sick and the elderly. Private insurers don't want those customers.

Actually I have followed the nationalization of health care since the 1960's. I'm hardly late to the party. You want government to abandon equality and allow some people to pay for the benefits of someone else. It isn't what federal government should do. Do it in the states where there is competition.

Both sides are for immigration but somehow they can't agree even on citizenship for children of illegal immigrants. That's constitutional and yet they're so divided they can't legislate for a constitutional right.

I agree that people born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens. That is pretty simple. The problem was allowing the illegal immigration in the first place. Apparently we want to punish offspring for what their parents did. It makes no sense to me either.

That's obvious. But it's not so obvious why the US fuel price is so sensitive to world oil price. Consider for a moment what would happen if crude oil was banned from import or export. Prices would be a little higher on average, but they would be very steady because drillers would know months or years in advance what their product was worth.

It is an issue of supply demand regardless of the global scope of the problem.

The fuel price crisis which still isn't finished, was a big part of the inflation crisis which still isn't finished. The similarity with the 70's crises is very strong: the US economy more than any other, is permeated by fuel costs. Electric vehicles will help, if only by diversifying fuel needs (more gas and renewables, less oil) and there's no reason to think this will do to oil what it did to coal. Heavy trucks which have longer service life, trains, and jets will provide a market for oil into the foreseeable future.

Electric vehicles will help when they are ready for prime time. They seem to do more harm than good at this time.

Listen to the partisan rhetoric though, and you'd think Biden is proposing to nationalize the oil refineries and shut them down.

I think he would do that if he could. The situation is completely nuts.

BTW, there is some flexibility in demand for oil. People do drive less when the price is high, but more importantly they make long term decisions about which vehicle to buy, based on future expectations of the price. So there might be some benefit for all consumers, coming from the otherwise terrible price spike earlier this year.

By driving less, demand is reduced and prices fall. That is what has been happening. Supply and demand. It is what it is.

"Theoretically" indeed. I would simply abolish it, and replace it by a generous age pension for those who need it. I would also institute a government purchase-and-re-lease scheme so old people can enjoy an income stream instead of owning a house. They'd be guaranteed a lease on (what used to be) their house, for life. Any banks who thought they could offer a more attractive scheme, would be welcome, but given how lean government schemes like Social Security or Medicare run, I doubt they'd be interested.

Sorry, I prefer the concept of equality over the concept of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Still, the point is that I have very little faith in the parties to do anything but scaremongering and name calling, because reforming Social Security is the "third rail" and neither party (even with supermajority in Congress) will do anything until they absolutely have to.

Government will always do what is in its best interests. Every time.

Obamacare. Sorry, but it's you who is incorrect.

I can't be incorrect. I offered an opinion. Opinions cannot be right or wrong. They are just opinions.

 

[element94]

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is peculiarly unwilling to help MAGA candidates. Voters want them, but Mitch McConnell doesn’t. McConnell prefers rather to be Senate minority leader than risk getting ousted from that position by a MAGA Republican majority.

Lindsey Graham, although not the majority leader, also prefers the way things are compared to the way they could be if the MAGA team triumphs. He’d be a much less important senator with a more conservative Senate.

Exactly what game is Lindsey Graham playing with his abortion bill?

On Tuesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham unexpectedly came out as an ostensibly pro-life leader when he announced that, if Republicans take Congress, he plans a bill banning abortions across America after the fifteenth week of pregnancy. For Democr...

www.americanthinker.com

Lindsey Graham, dumpster fire. It's almost over. Bye bye.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Different issue. Pork should be illegal. In fact multipurpose bills should be illegal. Write a law with a single purpose and expected outcome and vote on it.

"Illegal" means in the constitution, I presume. House and Senate have their rules, they mean nothing since they can change their own rules by a majority vote.

In the constitution it specifies that bills will originate in the House. So far as I know, this and impeachment are the only unique powers of the House. BUT the Senate just by changing its own rules, has gotten around that. They strip everything but the bill number out of some bill the House sent them (and which they wouldn't pass) and write a whole new bill in there.

Just so you know what you're up against if you try to outlaw pork by a constitutional amendment.

Actually I have followed the nationalization of health care since the 1960's. I'm hardly late to the party. You want government to abandon equality and allow some people to pay for the benefits of someone else. It isn't what federal government should do. Do it in the states where there is competition.

Insurance is "some people paying for the benefits of someone else". Health insurance would be nothing but a savings account, if you could never claim more back than you had paid in.

I repeat: government covers a lot of people (chronically ill, elderly) which private insurance wants nothing to do with. I want government to continue caring for those who can't pay their own way. What you're for, I shudder to think.

I agree that people born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens. That is pretty simple. The problem was allowing the illegal immigration in the first place. Apparently we want to punish offspring for what their parents did. It makes no sense to me either.

It is an issue of supply demand regardless of the global scope of the problem.

Electric vehicles will help when they are ready for prime time. They seem to do more harm than good at this time.

Any technology needs consumers to buy early versions (with problems) in order to advance. Scientists don't make commercial products: engineers do. We wouldn't have flat screens or even phones, if early adopters in the 70's and 80's hadn't paid vanity prices for laptops. And we won't have electric vehicle charging stations across the country if there aren't enough people who (for whatever reason) bought an electric car.

"Waiting for prime time" is a fundamentally wrong approach to technology. It's just playing into the hands of vested interests, who by the way are not motivated by any of the things which motivate a car buyer: cheap fuel, saving the planet, national energy independence. Energy companies would be polluting groundwater and soil, and atmosphere, if we hadn't put a stop to that shit way back in the 60's.

Pollution is a prime example of consumers being more responsible than manufacturers. I'm not asking you to buy an electric vehicle, in fact I'm laying out how YOU WOULD BENEFIT while still driving a petrol car, if other drivers invested their own money in electric vehicles instead.

I think he would do that if he could. The situation is completely nuts.

Yeah, well Trump wanted to ban all Muslims from immigrating, but that turned out not to be legal.

By driving less, demand is reduced and prices fall. That is what has been happening. Supply and demand. It is what it is.

Sorry, I prefer the concept of equality over the concept of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

"Equality" being leave it to the market ... with its long history of producing equal or near-equal outcomes /sarc

Government will always do what is in its best interests. Every time.

That's not necessarily bad. In a democracy, what is in the government's interests is to please the majority of the people.

I can't be incorrect. I offered an opinion. Opinions cannot be right or wrong. They are just opinions.

You said I was incorrect first. I was just giving one example of a completely partisan bill which was better than nothing, and since that rebuts your "partisan bills should never become law" claim, I think I have given a better reason than you did.

 

[fmw]

"Illegal" means in the constitution, I presume. House and Senate have their rules, they mean nothing since they can change their own rules by a majority vote.

In the constitution it specifies that bills will originate in the House. So far as I know, this and impeachment are the only unique powers of the House. BUT the Senate just by changing its own rules, has gotten around that. They strip everything but the bill number out of some bill the House sent them (and which they wouldn't pass) and write a whole new bill in there.

Just so you know what you're up against if you try to outlaw pork by a constitutional amendment.

You presume wrong. A constitutional amendment isn't necessary to pass a law.

Insurance is "some people paying for the benefits of someone else". Health insurance would be nothing but a savings account, if you could never claim more back than you had paid in.

I repeat: government covers a lot of people (chronically ill, elderly) which private insurance wants nothing to do with. I want government to continue caring for those who can't pay their own way. What you're for, I shudder to think.

I am for equality. Shudder away.

Any technology needs consumers to buy early versions (with problems) in order to advance. Scientists don't make commercial products: engineers do. We wouldn't have flat screens or even phones, if early adopters in the 70's and 80's hadn't paid vanity prices for laptops. And we won't have electric vehicle charging stations across the country if there aren't enough people who (for whatever reason) bought an electric car.

"Waiting for prime time" is a fundamentally wrong approach to technology. It's just playing into the hands of vested interests, who by the way are not motivated by any of the things which motivate a car buyer: cheap fuel, saving the planet, national energy independence. Energy companies would be polluting groundwater and soil, and atmosphere, if we hadn't put a stop to that shit way back in the 60's.

Pollution is a prime example of consumers being more responsible than manufacturers. I'm not asking you to buy an electric vehicle, in fact I'm laying out how YOU WOULD BENEFIT while still driving a petrol car, if other drivers invested their own money in electric vehicles instead.

You are comparing optional embracement of technology against government mandated embracement. Apples and oranges.

Yeah, well Trump wanted to ban all Muslims from immigrating, but that turned out not to be legal.

Heading off into a new direction I see. You win my red herring of the week award

"Equality" being leave it to the market ... with its long history of producing equal or near-equal outcomes /sarc

The market isn't about equality or equity. Those are the realm of government. If government can't treat people equally then it shouldn't act.

That's not necessarily bad. In a democracy, what is in the government's interests is to please the majority of the people.

No the government's interests are not to please the majority of the people. it is is to consolidate and increase its power and control. This is true of all governments. They please people in order to prevent a loss of power and control. They need to please people equally.

You said I was incorrect first. I was just giving one example of a completely partisan bill which was better than nothing, and since that rebuts your "partisan bills should never become law" claim, I think I have given a better reason than you did.

OK. score one for you.

 

[basionok]

Swing-state Republicans on defense over Graham’s abortion ban

Swing-state Republicans on defense over Graham’s abortion ban

Democrats are working to take full advantage on the campaign trail of Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) proposed 15-week abortion ban, looking to back their opponents into a corner on an issue Republi…

thehill.com

 

[mrdeltoid]

Hypothetical - Congress somehow passes a law banning abortion. Would Trump's SCOTUS uphold it or overturn it after they struck down Roe?

A National ban?

 

[Lycanthrope]

A National ban?

Yes

 

[The Stars Tremble]

You presume wrong. A constitutional amendment isn't necessary to pass a law.

So you want the House, Senate and President to pass a law which is binding on the House and Senate.
They're not going to do that, and even if they did they would find ways around it. "Every bill should be about one thing" can't be put in legal language, I'm afraid.

I am for equality. Shudder away.

You're for sick people getting no care, because they can't afford it.

Equality is a worthless principle when the subject is disease. Whether government or private sector, insurance is essential, and insurance does not work on the principle of "equality".

You are comparing optional embracement of technology against government mandated embracement. Apples and oranges.

Heading off into a new direction I see. You win my red herring of the week award

The market isn't about equality or equity. Those are the realm of government. If government can't treat people equally then it shouldn't act.

Government already pays half the medical costs, for a minority of people with very high needs. The obvious next step is for government to pay more of the medical costs, for people of low or moderate needs who just can't afford private-sector insurance. That is partly in place already, it's called the "medicare expansion" but not all States have signed up.

But you don't think government should be doing that, because it's not providing the same public insurance to everyone ("equality"). Government should in fact do that, but it's a huge reform which can only happen by stages.

No the government's interests are not to please the majority of the people. it is is to consolidate and increase its power and control.

In a democracy, government gains power by the majority vote, and exerts control by consent of the governed. I'm aware of the "social contract" argument, but I don't rely on it. The majority of people do consent, and I don't question their reasons.

This is true of all governments. They please people in order to prevent a loss of power and control. They need to please people equally.

OK. score one for you.

Nice. Thankyou.