2024 Presidential Election: let the jockeying commence

AC said:
You think we’ll even have a fair election in 2024 if we just let Biden steal this election? I’d prefer civil war, and preserve our freedoms! 2020 Election is not over! Pence can allow the electoral votes from the swing states to be thrown out.
Click to expand...
Rut Roh Raggy....back to the drawing board.
 
Monahorns said:
SH, once again shows his distaste for free and open political speech.
Click to expand...

Yeah, not agreeing that corporations are people means I'm anti-free speech. /s

Tell Dion on me. I said something else you don't agree with.
Click to expand...

Are you always the victim? I've never reported anyone but was pleading to your more rational side. Lately I'm detecting that's gone, strongly suspecting that Musberger has somehow acquired your credentials.
 
Yeah, not agreeing that corporations are people means I'm anti-free speech.
Click to expand...

That actually wasn't the point of the whole case. It was about a PAC being able to make a political video or not. The SC ruled PAC's could make them and be protected by the 1st ammendment. In order to protect the rights of the individuals who were in the PAC, the court protected the speech that came out of their organization. Again. You want to violate the rights of people to speak. Par for you.

Are you always the victim? I've never reported anyone but was pleading to your more rational side. Lately I'm detecting that's gone, strongly suspecting that Musberger has somehow acquired your credentials.
Click to expand...

You warned me by saying you were going to tell on me. I said, "do it!". Then you whined so more. I'm the victim?
 
Personally I would love for corporations to be eliminated from all contributions but ain’t gonna happen. I wonder if that’s why congressmen go out richer than coming in, gee could there be any connection?
 
Seattle Husker said:
Citizen's United is the worst SCOTUS decision ever, IMHO.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of its rationale and don't think it was correctly decided, but its far less consequential than it's made out to be. Business interests found ways to bankroll politicians long before Citizens United, and they'd be able to do it just as much if it went away. They'd just use more complicated methods to bankroll them that are harder for ordinary citizens to track.
 
nashhorn said:
Personally I would love for corporations to be eliminated from all contributions but ain’t gonna happen. I wonder if that’s why congressmen go out richer than coming in, gee could there be any connection?
Click to expand...
No doubt. In some industries I have no choice. But I will actively avoid these companies. I’m at the highest tier level possible with Marriott. I’m not staying at one of their properties in the near future. It might not make a difference, but if enough people do the same it will. I also let them know every chance I get.
 
No longer at the higher tier but definitely not looking for Marriott properties first, although since not traveling as much not a big deal. Heck me alone is not a big deal anyway to be honest about it.
 
Business interests found ways to bankroll politicians long before Citizens United
Click to expand...

Citizens United wasn't about business interests it was about citizens pooling their resources to create political speech.
 
Monahorns said:
Citizens United wasn't about business interests it was about citizens pooling their resources to create political speech.
Click to expand...

I know what it was about. It wasn't just about business interests, but it's false to say it wasn't at all about them. Also, citizens could pool their resources to create political speech before Citizens United and would still be able to if it had gone the other way.

Ultimately, campaign finance reform is a ******** issue. It comes up every now and then, and Congress passes some piece of crap legislation and pats itself on the back for weakening the power of "special interests." All that really happens is that Congress makes the money harder to track and easier to conceal the source. It is the opposite of what they claim it to be.
 
I know what it was about. It wasn't just about business interests, but it's false to say it wasn't at all about them. Also, citizens could pool their resources to create political speech before Citizens United and would still be able to if it had gone the other way.
Click to expand...

What business interests? Isn't it more correct to say this was about Hillary not wanting a video about her to come out?

Maybe in the ruling other things came out of it, but doesn't sound like the central issue of the suit.
 
Monahorns said:
What business interests? Isn't it more correct to say this was about Hillary not wanting a video about her to come out?

Maybe in the ruling other things came out of it, but doesn't sound like the central issue of the suit.
Click to expand...

The underlying facts involved a video about Hillary, but saying the case was about that video is like saying Roe v. Wade was only about Norma McCorvey's ability to get an abortion.

I didn't say business interests were the central issue in the case. It was broader than that, but it certainly impacted them - just not as much as SH suggests.
 
Not sure how your 2 paragraphs are related. I think there is a simple answer to your first paragraph. Second paragraph sounds like a different issue.
 
The bigger problem is corruption, cheating, lying, rejecting rule of law, rejecting the Constitution, creating a version of economics to promote unlimited money printing.

Democracy isn't great but it can work okay if your culture is strong and good. Our culture has been sick for a long time.
 
Just thought about actually the most important thing. Natural law and how it translates into natural rights. Any government that formulates natural law adequately and enforces natural rights is doing an okay job.

The US government and its States aren't preserving and protecting rights. Another way to put it is protecting freedoms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top