US Election 2020 🇺🇸 🤯
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
I find him much more appealing than Bernie Sanders and he has some experience. Trump has a lot of good assets, but you may have noticed he never seems to expand his horizons or fine tune his ideas. Don't know if Walter notices those things!
Biden may be the answer to Trump but Sanders is the answer to what is was that put Trump in there.
America is broken and has been for quite a awhile.
“If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for ... but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong.”
--Robert A. Heinlein
Heinlein was a smart man, author and astronomy expert, but I'm not sure about politics!
Heinlein was an astute and able political thinker. One of his earliest books was a non-fiction work called "Take Back Your Government" in 1946, about practical politics.
And educated and solidly conservative thinker, Heinlein had a very clear view of representative democracy, how it should work, and why it so often doesn't.
Quick question after throwing his support to Biden is he now under that pesky campaign contribution cap thingy?
Yes, but that's insignificant. He can only contribute $US 2800 to Biden directly, but he can spend a billion "independently" buying commercials that say "Vote for Joe."
That's pretty much Citizens United in a nutshell.
Thanks I wasn't sure how it worked for you guys, here there is supposedly a hard cap
That's the hard cap on contributions to a specific candidate. Contributions to the party and independent expenditures are unlimited.
Which I actually kinda support. First Amendment says you're free to say what you like, and Fifth Amendment stands for the principle that what you do with your money is your business.
My "campaign finance reform" is anybody can give or spend any amount they want to anybody. The limitation is that only people who are eligible to vote can give. That means no foreigners, no corporations, no foundations, no political action committees, no associations. Every contribution has to have a source, and that source has to be an individual who is eligible to vote.
Even though our laws are different regarding campaign finance , I find nothing there to disagree with .
Corporations are not people. That's the great lie of the past century (the case that first held that corporations had Constitutional rights in the U.S. was Union Pacific RR v. Santa Clara County in 1896).
Corporations are not mentioned once in the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution. The focus of both is natural persons. There is also a heavy presumption that the reason governments are subordinate to citizens is that the Creator created "men," and "men" created governments. What was made by the Creator (our rights), humans may not destroy. Well, a corporation's creator is the States (corporations are created by charters issued by State governments). And what the State creates, the State has a right to destroy, or regulate in any fashion short of destruction it chooses. In political philosophy, corporations are second-class citizens at best, and actually not even that.
A corporation is a tool. Its purpose is to allow people to act in the world without risking losing everything. The difference between a corporation and a partnership is that in a partnership, each partner is liable to the extent of all she owns. In a corporation, the stockholders are only liable to the extent of their investments in the corporation. Corporations have indefinite lifespans, but they cannot under any circumstances vote. They are not citizens, they are not persons, and they have no rights. To quote Westley in The Princess Bride, "Anyone who says different is selling something."
The very notion that corporations, associations, foundations, institutes, or clubs have any existence or rights separate from their members is the worst kind of ignorant, irrational thinking. And even the circumstances by which the language holding that they have rights got into the Union Pacific decision is highly suspect.
It's worth noting that, as of this writing, two people have given the post above greenies. Both of them are what the board would undoubtedly consider "conservative" or "right-wing."
So maybe there is some common ground folks can meet on.
So maybe there is some common ground folks can meet on.
Yes I did, and yes there is, common sense does not lean left or right it lies within the interpretation of the individual or the court
