Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
WildCat said:
Since everyone I've posed this to before has ignored it I'll just throw it out for anyone to respond:

If Andy the billionaire wants to keep the lucrative government contracts that were tailor-designed for his company he can spend hundreds of millions of dollars to promote his own corrupt slate of candidates, this is 100% allowed by [those who are against the CU decision] ideal system.

If Bob the plumber, Joe the sales rep, Molly the IT tech, and 100,000 other like-minded individuals who are aghast at Andy's power play decide to pool their money together for the common cause of promoting their own favored candidate or opposing Andy's candidates? Off to prison with them! They have no free speech rights and have violated election laws since they somehow cease to be real persons upon pooling their money. Only Andy's message gets out, because he's a single real person.
Click to expand...

Anyone?

Buehler?
 
WildCat said:
Frank Newgent said:
Freedom of the press is addressed, specifically, in the 1st Amendment. Suggesting that Sander's amendment could endanger it seems nothing more than posturing on your part.
Click to expand...
Sanders and the others against Citizens United claim that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to corporations. Where do you see an exception for corporate-owned printing presses?

You do realize that "the press" literally meant printing presses, and not newspapers, don't you? Do you think normal US citizens don't have freedom of the press?
Click to expand...


Like xeroxing a rant to staple on a telephone pole? Sure, give it a shot. You can say anything you want about Hillary.

Though it's not quite the same as flooding the airwaves with corporate electioneering? Or is it?
 
WildCat said:
WildCat said:
Since everyone I've posed this to before has ignored it I'll just throw it out for anyone to respond:

If Andy the billionaire wants to keep the lucrative government contracts that were tailor-designed for his company he can spend hundreds of millions of dollars to promote his own corrupt slate of candidates, this is 100% allowed by [those who are against the CU decision] ideal system.

If Bob the plumber, Joe the sales rep, Molly the IT tech, and 100,000 other like-minded individuals who are aghast at Andy's power play decide to pool their money together for the common cause of promoting their own favored candidate or opposing Andy's candidates? Off to prison with them! They have no free speech rights and have violated election laws since they somehow cease to be real persons upon pooling their money. Only Andy's message gets out, because he's a single real person.
Click to expand...

Anyone?

Buehler?
Click to expand...


I answered you.
 
Frank Newgent said:
Like xeroxing a rant to staple on a telephone pole? Sure, give it a shot. You can say anything you want about Hillary.

Though it's not quite the same as flooding the airwaves with corporate electioneering? Or is it?
Click to expand...
Why is the latter not OK? What is the harm?
 
Frank Newgent said:
I answered you.
Click to expand...
Oh, sorry I missed it. Let's see what you said:

Frank Newgent said:
Legislating private money out of the system seems best to me, so, yes, you have misrepresented my position.
Click to expand...
In this case "the system" means people who aren't running for election, and aren't controlled by anyone running for election, but are merely concerned citizens, should be silenced?

Have I misrepresented your position?

Frank Newgent said:
While Congress is at it... remove Court jurisdiction when it comes to finance campaign laws.
Click to expand...
Once again, this isn't about campaign finances but independent expenditures by 3rd parties.
 
Random said:
So it was "ethnic cleansing" rather than outright "genocide"?
Click to expand...
Wasn't "ethnic cleansing" a euphemism for rounding up people and shooting them, not actually relocating them elsewhere in the same country?

My great grandparents, btw, were forcibly evicted from France after WWI. All their possessions were seized, their property taken without compensation, just because they were ethnic Germans. Was that genocide?

Anyway, this is getting far removed from Bernie Sanders, who wants to gut the 1st Amendment and make political speech subject to government censorship and bans.
 
WildCat said:
"...were forcibly evicted from France after WWI...just because they were ethnic Germans..."
Click to expand...

Exactly where, in your thinking, does this, in any shape, fashion, or form, become equivalent to the treatment of the Aboriginal Americans over the last four centuries or so?
 
[B]Bernie Sanders Slams Chávez in Reposte to Clinton Attack..(say it ain't so!)

Breaking with its hitherto standing policy of refraining from criticizing Sanders, the Clinton campaign sought to draw links between the two anti-party establishment progressives, pointing to the Vermont independent’s role in negotiating a 2005 deal with the Bolivarian government to bring free and discounted home heating oil to the poor in northeastern US cities.

However, Sanders’ distancing from Chávez, labeling him a “dead communist dictator” has caused disenchantment in some circles, who reject what they view as an offensive characterization of the immensely popular, democratically-elected late president, whose socialist government has won eighteen internationally recognized elections since 1998.

“Venezuela has become . . . the bad guy. We’re the villain,” Venezuela’s chargé d’affaires in Washington, Maximilien Sanchez Arvelaiz, told reporters.

In March, President Obama issued an executive order branding Venezuela a “national security threat” and imposing sanctions over unproven allegations of “human rights violations”.

Sanders, who has surpassed Hillary Clinton in the Iowa and New Hampshire polls, has up until recently avoided issuing statements on US foreign policy, preferring to focus on confronting economic inequality.

"For the left, Hugo Chavez is/was a reference,” Sanchez asserted, noting that Jeremy Corbyn recently won a landslide victory notwithstanding his public endorsement of the revolutionary Venezuelan leader and his democratic socialist project.

Meanwhile, the Sanders campaign has made fresh statements in response to the Clinton attacks, further disavowing any links with Chávez.

“To equate bringing home heating oil to low-income Vermonters with support for the Chavez government is dishonest,” Sanders spokesperson Michael Briggs told the Huffington Post.
Click to expand...

Dang lying communists,...trying to make us think they are lying!
 
Trakar said:
Exactly where, in your thinking, does this, in any shape, fashion, or form, become equivalent to the treatment of the Aboriginal Americans over the last four centuries or so?
Click to expand...
How has it been any different than what was happening in the rest of the world? Why are the Americas singled out?
 
Belz... said:
I've already explained it to you a few posts back. And we've also already had this discussion before. You say that your questions are 100% sincere but it's hard to believe that you don't know all that.
Click to expand...
You haven't really explained anything, you just proclaim that political speech is somehow a "mockery of democracy".

And no criticism whatsoever by you of Bernie's plan to gut the 1st Amendment and leave the door wide open to government censorship of 99% of the media. We even have Frank Newgent declaring that if he had his way political speech would be limited to tacking flyers on fence posts.
 
WildCat said:
You haven't really explained anything, you just proclaim that political speech is somehow a "mockery of democracy".
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're quite capable of remembering our conversation beyond the very last post. :rolleyes:

Seriously, you claim to be 100% sincere but your behaviour suggests otherwise, when you apparently don't understand basic English, well-known events and evidence, and can't even remember something that I posted over the last days.

I've already explained how nonprofit "independant" organisations can be used as indirect campaign machines by candidates, effectively allowing those who fund those organisations to promote their future political puppets. I should think that a right-leaning person such as yourself would see the disproportionate political clout of the rich to be problematic in view of the USA's traditional democratic values.

And no criticism whatsoever by you of Bernie's plan to gut the 1st Amendment and leave the door wide open to government censorship of 99% of the media.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if I don't address everything that you find bad. I guess that means you'll have to tackle that yourself.
 
WildCat said:
What are they, robots? Space aliens?

According to you when Joe and Alice form a corporation they cease to be people and the rights enumerated in the 1st Amendment can be taken away, correct?
Click to expand...

No, when Joe and Alice form a corporation, it becomes a separate, distinct entity that was created by law to shield individuals associated with it from personal liability for the corporation's actions. GM has just paid hundreds of millions of dollars to resolve negligence claims arising from their faulty ignition switch that caused more than 100 deaths, but no individual executive or employee suffered any consequences civilly or criminally. Joe & Alice's Inc. can be sued for alleged misconduct, but Joe and Alice are protected individually. Corporations are legal "persons" that can't vote, hold office, serve on juries, be drafted, be jailed, be deported or in many other ways be treated as human persons.

Joe and Alice retain all their rights as individuals when they form a corporation. But the corporation is not the the same as them.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
I'm sure you're quite capable of remembering our conversation beyond the very last post. :rolleyes:

Seriously, you claim to be 100% sincere but your behaviour suggests otherwise, when you apparently don't understand basic English, well-known events and evidence, and can't even remember something that I posted over the last days.

I've already explained how nonprofit "independant" organisations can be used as indirect campaign machines by candidates, effectively allowing those who fund those organisations to promote their future political puppets. I should think that a right-leaning person such as yourself would see the disproportionate political clout of the rich to be problematic in view of the USA's traditional democratic values.



I'm sorry if I don't address everything that you find bad. I guess that means you'll have to tackle that yourself.
Click to expand...
Is that what actually happens Belz, or do people rally around candidates who already have policies they like? If a candidate did somehow become a puppet of such a group wouldn't another group just form to oppose them or support an opponent?

The bizarre thing is there is absolutely nothing to prevent a candidate from becoming the puppet of the very rich who can do all of the things you fear without having to gather a large group of supporters to pool their money, and Bernie's "solution" actually prevents groups of people from pooling their resources together in opposition!

In short, you haven't identified why any of this is a problem. As has been said many times, the solution to speech you don't like isn't to criminalize speech, it is more speech.

And I cannot restate this enough, this whole issue came about because a group of people pooled their money together to make a movie about a politician, Hillary Clinton. Neither you, nor Bernie Sanders, nor anyone else has presented any evidence at all that any politician became a puppet of anyone as a result of free speech.
 
Bob001 said:
No, when Joe and Alice form a corporation, it becomes a separate, distinct entity that was created by law to shield individuals associated with it from personal liability for the corporation's actions.
Click to expand...
That is just one aspect of why corporations are formed, and it certainly played no part whatsoever in the formation of Citizens United. And it doesn't mean that the corporation can't be held responsible, because it can because the corporation itself can be sued since it is a legal person.

Do you know what could happen without limited liability protection of shareholders and legal personhood? All shareholders in a corporation are jointly and severally liable, which means even if there were 5 million shareholders in a corporation any one of them could be held 100% liable for anything the corporation does. So if you, Bob001, have a 401(k) account and part of that includes one share of XYZ corporation you could be personally sued for the full amount if a product of XYZ corporation was defective and injured or killed someone. The corporation itself could not be sued, since there is no legal personhood. So then a court could find that you, Bob001, as a shareholder now have to pay $15 million in actual and punitive damages. Your only recourse would be to sue the other 4,999,999 shareholders individually (that means 4,999,999 separate lawsuits to be filed) for their share of the damages. This is, of course, absurd and thus we have the legal fiction of corporate personhood and limited liability. Without it corporations simply could not exist, and the only businesses would be mom and pop sole proprietorships, just like in the days before the Industrial Revolution.

Bob001 said:
GM has just paid hundreds of millions of dollars to resolve negligence claims arising from their faulty ignition switch that caused more than 100 deaths, but no individual executive or employee suffered any consequences civilly or criminally.
Click to expand...
That has absolutely nothing to do with limited liability, because any of those persons could be sued for their personal responsibilities or held criminally responsible. Limited liability only protects shareholders, not employees or executives. And shareholders can still lose whatever they put into the corporation, and they will lose it all if the corporation goes under.

Bob001 said:
Joe & Alice's Inc. can be sued for alleged misconduct, but Joe and Alice are protected individually.
Click to expand...
Again, if you can show negligence on Joe and Alice they can certainly be held liable, both criminally and civilly. Nothing about a corporation or limited liability protects them from that.

Bob001 said:
Corporations are legal "persons" that can't vote, hold office, serve on juries, be drafted, be jailed, be deported or in many other ways be treated as human persons.
Click to expand...
No kidding! Do you think anyone is confused about that?

Bob001 said:
Joe and Alice retain all their rights as individuals when they form a corporation. But the corporation is not the the same as them.
Click to expand...
And again, their liability is not limited if it can be shown they were personally negligent.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Is that what actually happens Belz, or do people rally around candidates who already have policies they like?
Click to expand...

That's a good question. Two points:

1) What policies? The candidates don't seem to talk much about that. They're too busy bashing each other and talking about how bad conservatives have it in the USA. So far I haven't seen much in terms of policy from them. Were I a voter, I'd be hard-pressed to pick one from the lot.

2) Because of (1) they seem pretty much equivalent, so "who you like" might well be the one you hear more about. Brand awareness, if you will. That's a good incentive for 'big money' interests to seek to influence the vote via ads and exposure.

'Course, if Bernie Sanders happens to win, bucking this trend, as it were, then I'll be happy to concede that the system may be much more resilient than I currently think.

If a candidate did somehow become a puppet of such a group wouldn't another group just form to oppose them or support an opponent?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, no. Let's not forget that those candidates often vie for money from the same people. Also, if you're very very rich, you'd put eggs in several baskets just to be sure. How many millions have they already poured into the elections, which are over a year away? How are regular people supposed to compete with the big donors and "oppose" the puppets?

The bizarre thing is there is absolutely nothing to prevent a candidate from becoming the puppet of the very rich who can do all of the things you fear without having to gather a large group of supporters to pool their money, and Bernie's "solution" actually prevents groups of people from pooling their resources together in opposition!
Click to expand...

In theory, that sounds great. In reality, those with the most money in the game aren't you and me, even as a group. Also, 'big money' has more to lose by not funneling money to corrupt politicians.

In short, you haven't identified why any of this is a problem.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that WildCat denying that there's a problem qualifies as me not identifying a problem.

And I cannot restate this enough, this whole issue came about because a group of people pooled their money together to make a movie about a politician, Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.
 
Belz... said:
That's a good question. Two points:

1) What policies? The candidates don't seem to talk much about that. They're too busy bashing each other and talking about how bad conservatives have it in the USA. So far I haven't seen much in terms of policy from them. Were I a voter, I'd be hard-pressed to pick one from the lot.
Click to expand...
You really don't know what policies the candidates are advocating? You don't know how Trump feels about illegal immigration? How Ted Cruz feels about gay marriage? How Hillary feels about abortion? If you don't know, it's because you haven't cared enough to find out.

Belz... said:
2) Because of (1) they seem pretty much equivalent, so "who you like" might well be the one you hear more about. Brand awareness, if you will. That's a good incentive for 'big money' interests to seek to influence the vote via ads and exposure.
Click to expand...
If you think they all sound equivalent could that be because most Americans fall into a relatively narrow range of opinions on the issues? This isn't a Parliamentary system, where the 5% who think the government is hiding space aliens beneath the desert of Nevada get their own seats of power.

Belz... said:
'Course, if Bernie Sanders happens to win, bucking this trend, as it were, then I'll be happy to concede that the system may be much more resilient than I currently think.
Click to expand...
If a majority of Americans supported Bernie's policies you'd have 20 candidates who were clones of Bernie Sanders running for office, then you'd be decrying how awful the system is that Donald Trump can't get votes.

Belz... said:
Not necessarily, no. Let's not forget that those candidates often vie for money from the same people. Also, if you're very very rich, you'd put eggs in several baskets just to be sure. How many millions have they already poured into the elections, which are over a year away? How are regular people supposed to compete with the big donors and "oppose" the puppets?
Click to expand...
They pool their money together so that they can buy TV and newspaper advertisements, or maybe even make a movie. And launch it all in the months just prior to the election. The very thing Bernie Sanders wants to make illegal.

Of course, the very rich don't even have to do any of this. Just the very fact that they have lots of money and control major industries gets them a seat at the table with politicians in the back rooms. And nothing Bernie proposes gets around this basic fact.

Belz... said:
In theory, that sounds great. In reality, those with the most money in the game aren't you and me, even as a group. Also, 'big money' has more to lose by not funneling money to corrupt politicians.
Click to expand...
Really Belz? I hear people time and time again bemoaning the extraordinary power of the National Rifle Association, and where do they get their money? From their millions of members, writing checks of $20 or $50 to the NRA-ILA to promote their interests. Hell a good chunk of their money comes from customers of hunting/shooting sports retailers who round up their change which is then compiled and donated by the retailer, raised 50 cents or 25 cents at a time. And there are many such lobbys for all kinds of interests.

Belz... said:
I'm not sure that WildCat denying that there's a problem qualifies as me not identifying a problem.
Click to expand...
I didn't actually deny there's a problem in that quote, I said you didn't identify a problem - and you still haven't.

Belz... said:
Irrelevant.
Click to expand...
It's hardly irrelevant, because this whole thing is spun as a way to keep MegaWidget Company from influencing elections, when the first target was a grass-roots group of regular citizens opposing Hillary Clinton.
 
WildCat said:
You really don't know what policies the candidates are advocating? You don't know how Trump feels about illegal immigration? How Ted Cruz feels about gay marriage? How Hillary feels about abortion?
Click to expand...

I know that all of the GOP candidates keep trying to out-Trump each other, so they keep saying the same thing.

If you think they all sound equivalent could that be because most Americans fall into a relatively narrow range of opinions on the issues?
Click to expand...

I think only someone with a narrow experience of America would think so.

This isn't a Parliamentary system, where the 5% who think the government is hiding space aliens beneath the desert of Nevada get their own seats of power.
Click to expand...

No, it's a presidential system, where the 42% of voters who think the US found WMDs in Iraq have their own seats of power.

They pool their money together so that they can buy TV and newspaper advertisements, or maybe even make a movie.
Click to expand...

How is that working out so far?

Of course, the very rich don't even have to do any of this. Just the very fact that they have lots of money and control major industries gets them a seat at the table with politicians in the back rooms.
Click to expand...

Tell me, is that a good thing or a bad thing, in your opinion?

Really Belz?
Click to expand...

"Belz..." Those three periods are hard to miss.

I didn't actually deny there's a problem in that quote, I said you didn't identify a problem
Click to expand...

Yes, but that's because you deny that I've identified a problem. Your say-so doesn't make it so.

It's hardly irrelevant
Click to expand...

It's irrelevant if it leads to the same result regardless.
 
WildCat said:
.....
No kidding! Do you think anyone is confused about that?
....
Click to expand...

The point is that corporations are formed by law to serve specific purposes, and they differ from human persons is a variety of legally-defined ways. There is no reason why one of those differences can't or shouldn't be limitations on their participation in electioneering. That wouldn't inhibit any corporate employee from fully exercising his rights as an individual person.
 
WildCat said:
How has it been any different than what was happening in the rest of the world? Why are the Americas singled out?
Click to expand...

Two primary reasons: 1) This thread is primarily about and by Americans, 2) I am generally under the impression that there is a sense of American exceptionalism, role model for the world, if everyone followed our lead, the world would be a better place, mindset from your side of the discussion.

What is amazingly absent from your arguments, however, is the sense that those who aspire to such goals must accept the corollary self-responsibility of adherence to higher standards of accountability and the humility of acknowledging the flaws and failures of not adhering to those higher standards while accepting and embracing the consequent higher levels of punishment/atonement which exceptionalism would demand accompany such standards and failures.
 
WildCat said:
Frank Newgent said:
While Congress is at it... remove Court jurisdiction when it comes to finance campaign laws.
Click to expand...
Once again, this isn't about campaign finances but independent expenditures by 3rd parties.
Click to expand...


"Independent" expenditures are largely of the "nudge, nudge, wink, wink' variety anymore... something the conservative majority on the SCOTUS remains in denial over.

From what I understand there is a remedy available. Written in the US Constitution: Article l, Section 4, Clause 1.

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei
Click to expand...


Regulating elections is the duty of the US legislative branch of government Regulating elections is not not the duty of the US judicial branch of government.

The SCOTUS has taken upon itself to regulate elections, under the guise of safeguarding "corporate free speech" ie corporate electioneering... the type of speech the individual/public must have the "right" to hear.

From what I understand here is a remedy already available in the US Constitution. More specifically in Article III, Section 2:

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii
Click to expand...


I believe this means that under the Constitution the Congress has the power to remove Court jurisdiction over the financing of election campaigns. Removing this jurisdiction would mean that the court would not be able to take up cases involving the ways campaigns are financed/elections are conducted.

It would probably precipitate some sort of Constitutional crisis given the conservative majority on the SCOTUS who'd likely frown upon being emasculated in this fashion.

Still, it represents an alternative to Sander's amendment in reference to dealing with the problem most folks would probably agree exists concerning all the money awash in the current system.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
I know that all of the GOP candidates keep trying to out-Trump each other, so they keep saying the same thing.



I think only someone with a narrow experience of America would think so.



No, it's a presidential system, where the 42% of voters who think the US found WMDs in Iraq have their own seats of power.



How is that working out so far?



Tell me, is that a good thing or a bad thing, in your opinion?



"Belz..." Those three periods are hard to miss.



Yes, but that's because you deny that I've identified a problem. Your say-so doesn't make it so.



It's irrelevant if it leads to the same result regardless.
Click to expand...
What problems are you trying to solve by gutting the 1st Amendment? Examples?
 
Bob001 said:
The point is that corporations are formed by law to serve specific purposes, and they differ from human persons is a variety of legally-defined ways. There is no reason why one of those differences can't or shouldn't be limitations on their participation in electioneering. That wouldn't inhibit any corporate employee from fully exercising his rights as an individual person.
Click to expand...
Oh, but there is a reason: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech".

Trakar said:
Two primary reasons: 1) This thread is primarily about and by Americans, 2) I am generally under the impression that there is a sense of American exceptionalism, role model for the world, if everyone followed our lead, the world would be a better place, mindset from your side of the discussion.

What is amazingly absent from your arguments, however, is the sense that those who aspire to such goals must accept the corollary self-responsibility of adherence to higher standards of accountability and the humility of acknowledging the flaws and failures of not adhering to those higher standards while accepting and embracing the consequent higher levels of punishment/atonement which exceptionalism would demand accompany such standards and failures.
Click to expand...
Still not understanding what any of that has to do with Bernie Sanders, the only Presidential candidate who wants to gut the 1st Amendment. If he succeeded no doubt you'd be here crowing something like "oh, the home of the brave is afraid of people voicing political opinions".
 
Frank Newgent said:
"Independent" expenditures are largely of the "nudge, nudge, wink, wink' variety anymore... something the conservative majority on the SCOTUS remains in denial over.

From what I understand there is a remedy available. Written in the US Constitution: Article l, Section 4, Clause 1.




Regulating elections is the duty of the US legislative branch of government Regulating elections is not not the duty of the US judicial branch of government.

The SCOTUS has taken upon itself to regulate elections, under the guise of safeguarding "corporate free speech" ie corporate electioneering... the type of speech the individual must have the "right" to hear.

From what I understand here is a remedy already available in the US Constitution. More specifically in Article III, Section 2:




I believe this means that under the Constitution the Congress has the power to remove Court jurisdiction over the financing of election campaigns. Removing this jurisdiction would mean that the court would not be able to take up cases involving the ways campaigns are financed/elections are conducted.

It would probably precipitate some sort of Constitutional crisis given the conservative majority on the SCOTUS who'd likely frown upon being emasculated.

Still, it represents an alternative to Sander's amendment in reference to dealing with the problem most folks would probably agree exists concerning all the money awash in the current system.
Click to expand...
You have a lot of trouble distinguishing between those who are running for elected offices and those who aren't running for elected office but, being citizens of the USA, have a vested interest in voicing their opinions about those who are running for office. The former are subject to regulations as Congress seems fit, the latter are protected by the 1st Amendment.
 
WildCat said:
...Still not understanding what any of that has to do with Bernie Sanders, the only Presidential candidate who wants to gut the 1st Amendment. If he succeeded no doubt you'd be here crowing something like "oh, the home of the brave is afraid of people voicing political opinions".
Click to expand...

Your derail, you explain it.

How about providing any compelling support that anything Sander's is proposing or even advocating, amounts to him wanting to "gut the 1st(sic)Amendment"? So far all I've seen are derails and facetious fringe rhetorical flourish and rant without merit or weight of consideration.
 
WildCat said:
Frank Newgent said:
"Independent" expenditures are largely of the "nudge, nudge, wink, wink' variety anymore... something the conservative majority on the SCOTUS remains in denial over.

From what I understand there is a remedy available. Written in the US Constitution: Article l, Section 4, Clause 1.




Regulating elections is the duty of the US legislative branch of government Regulating elections is not not the duty of the US judicial branch of government.

The SCOTUS has taken upon itself to regulate elections, under the guise of safeguarding "corporate free speech" ie corporate electioneering... the type of speech the individual must have the "right" to hear.

From what I understand here is a remedy already available in the US Constitution. More specifically in Article III, Section 2:




I believe this means that under the Constitution the Congress has the power to remove Court jurisdiction over the financing of election campaigns. Removing this jurisdiction would mean that the court would not be able to take up cases involving the ways campaigns are financed/elections are conducted.

It would probably precipitate some sort of Constitutional crisis given the conservative majority on the SCOTUS who'd likely frown upon being emasculated.

Still, it represents an alternative to Sander's amendment in reference to dealing with the problem most folks would probably agree exists concerning all the money awash in the current system.
Click to expand...
You have a lot of trouble distinguishing between those who are running for elected offices and those who aren't running for elected office but, being citizens of the USA, have a vested interest in voicing their opinions about those who are running for office. The former are subject to regulations as Congress seems fit, the latter are protected by the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...


You have a lot of trouble distinguishing between those who are running for elected offices and those who aren't running for elected office but, being corporations of the USA, or perhaps foreign nationals, have a vested interest in voicing their opinions about those who are running for office. The former are subject to regulations as Congress seems fit, the latter are protected by the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...


FTFY

Oh, and Bernie.
 
WildCat said:
What problems are you trying to solve by gutting the 1st Amendment?
Click to expand...

At this point, WildCat, you're really hopelessly confused. I'm not proposing any changes to the First Amendment. I'm not even an American, so I don't have a say in that.

Why are you sidestepping my questions?
 
Trakar said:
Your derail, you explain it.

How about providing any compelling support that anything Sander's is proposing or even advocating, amounts to him wanting to "gut the 1st(sic)Amendment"? So far all I've seen are derails and facetious fringe rhetorical flourish and rant without merit or weight of consideration.
Click to expand...
Pages ago I posted his proposed amendment to the Constitution which would allow government censorship of 99% of the US news media and anything the government declares could affect an election.
 
Frank Newgent said:
FTFY

Oh, and Bernie.
Click to expand...


I get it Frank, you think the reason your preferred slate of candidates doesn't win is that people are free to voice their opinions on them, so if the government could just stifle free speech your candidates would have a chance.
 
Belz... said:
At this point, WildCat, you're really hopelessly confused. I'm not proposing any changes to the First Amendment. I'm not even an American, so I don't have a say in that.

Why are you sidestepping my questions?
Click to expand...
Then you are happy that people can pool their money together to get out their political views?

Because anything else requires an amendment (like Bernie's) that would gut the 1st Amendment.
 
WildCat said:
Then you are happy that people can pool their money together to get out their political views?
Click to expand...

You know what, WildCat, I'll answer your question at the end of this post, but now you have to answer some from me. So far you've been very adept at dodging questions by asking some of your own, but it's time we reverse the tables a bit, because this is looking more like an interview than a discussion.

First question: are you for or against richer people having more political influence than poorer people? This is a yes or no question, but of course you are free to qualify your answer after you give it. Any question you ask will be ignored, because I have others depending on your answer.

Now, to answer your question: yes, but there are limits to that, just like there are limits to all freedoms.
 
Belz... said:
You know what, WildCat, I'll answer your question at the end of this post, but now you have to answer some from me. So far you've been very adept at dodging questions by asking some of your own, but it's time we reverse the tables a bit, because this is looking more like an interview than a discussion.

First question: are you for or against richer people having more political influence than poorer people? This is a yes or no question, but of course you are free to qualify your answer after you give it. Any question you ask will be ignored, because I have others depending on your answer.

Now, to answer your question: yes, but there are limits to that, just like there are limits to all freedoms.
Click to expand...

I'll answer the question although it is very general, no I don't.

They both get 1 vote
A rich man can use his money to make a movie or commercial that promotes his position

The question for you or anyone else in this entire thread is to simply name a specific policy that you think Bernie Sanders will deliver on?

I will name my positions
1. Flat tax of 12%, eliminate all other taxes
2. Let people opt out of SS and medicare
3. Cut welfare spending by 50%
4. Cut half the departments in the government
5. Amendment to the constitution limiting government spending to 15% of GDP
6. Term Limits on Congress

Why can't anyone name a single position Bernie Sanders supports? Because they are laughable disastrous.

The WSJ estimated that the Bernie Plans will cost 18 Trillion over 10 years. That money simply does not exist. SS is going bankrupt by 2033, it will only be able to pay 75%. Medicare is going broke in 8 years, SS disability is going bust in about 1 year.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-tag-of-bernie-sanders-proposals-18-trillion-1442271511
 
Obama drove the debt from 8 Trillion to 22 Trillion

Bernie Sanders will turn this country first into Greece then into a third world hell hole.

It is an absolute joke that educated people are dumb enough to support policies that are proven complete abject failures
 
caveman1917 said:
In what way is putting up the means of political influence to the highest bidder a freedom?
Click to expand...

That wasn't the question. The question was: am I ok with people producing political ads with private money. The answer is yes, but with limits. How is that problematic?

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
They both get 1 vote
Click to expand...

Then you didn't read the question very well. I suggest you read it again, because I never mentioned voting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom