Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was referring to who each candidate would appoint to the supreme court, but go on doing whatever that is you do.
I misunderstood. Citizens United, in my opinion, is a minor player in divorcing those interests from elections/influence. I think there are more efficient ways to set up that barrier.
How, pray tell, does that transfer to the ultra rich?
An original good question, generally, but now it's followed by venting. Cite some specific policies you want addressed.
You are proposing tax policies that will skyrocket income and wealth inequality. Do you deny that?
You then propose that the people should rise up and demand legislation that will increase their power over the ultra rich which just got an enormous war chest to spend on defeating such legislation. You seem to deny that wealth=power, and you believe "taxes=theft".
I propose to fight for candidates that are not beholden to any special interests or the donor class and push for public funding of elections, making the current gerrymandering system illegal and push for policies that will reduce income and wealth inequality.
This election cycle is moving me towards an anarchist! Lol
It truly seems many can only think incrementally these days, and incrementalism is what has led to gov creep.
I don't hate the government. It's not evil. It's extremely inefficient as currently set up.
Besides the irs, I'd like to:
1. A pres candidate cannot declare until December 31 before the election year. 10 primaries a month for 5 months. This eliminates almost 16 months of election cycle bs
2. Repeal the 17th amendment. This eliminates money into senators pocket
3. Term limit the house to 3 consecutive terms (6 years in a row is enough)
4. Cap Supreme Court appointments to 20 years
5. Eliminate the lifetime benefit of congress
6. Repeal the war powers act
7. Pass an amendment that any force must require a declaration of war (that is a compromise because I understand the need for some flexibility but it's been so over used I'd like them to start back from scratch)
8. Petition to sunset nato
9. Abolish the TSA
10. Abolish homeland security
11. No pensions for politicians. The framers wanted citizen legislators not professional career politicians.
He wants equal outcome by having the government take from some to give to others.
It's a formal class envy "we'll get them" policy.
Is there no middle ground for you? It is either Stalin or puppets of the super rich steamrolling over the people?
Class warfare and redistribution of wealth has been taking place for 40 years, through special interests completely dominating the political system. But it is the middle class and the working class that are the losers, so then it is suddenly OK. Fighting back is considered evil by the corporate media (owned by the elites) and their working class shills.
You are proposing tax policies that will skyrocket income and wealth inequality. Do you deny that?
You then propose that the people should rise up and demand legislation that will increase their power over the ultra rich which just got an enormous war chest to spend on defeating such legislation. You seem to deny that wealth=power, and you believe "taxes=theft".
I propose to fight for candidates that are not beholden to any special interests or the donor class and push for public funding of elections, making the current gerrymandering system illegal and push for policies that will reduce income and wealth inequality.
You are entitled to your opinion. I'm for freeing up income for all people and placing barriers between money and politics by restricting terms and campaigning. Big difference.
What candidate is not beholden? Bernie? 45 years in public service from mayor to house to senate and you honestly believe he is not bought?
Class warfare and redistribution of wealth has been taking place for 40 years, through special interests completely dominating the political system. But it is the middle class and the working class that are the losers, so then it is suddenly OK. Fighting back is considered evil by the corporate media (owned by the elites) and their working class shills.
The rich use government to attain advantage over everyone else.
These "loopholes" you continually a screech about are put in place by big government.
Government regulations make it harder for small business to compete because they don't have the money the big corporations have to clear the hurdles put in place by government.
You are proposing tax policies that will skyrocket income and wealth inequality. Do you deny that?
You then propose that the people should rise up and demand legislation that will increase their power over the ultra rich which just got an enormous war chest to spend on defeating such legislation. You seem to deny that wealth=power, and you believe "taxes=theft".
I propose to fight for candidates that are not beholden to any special interests or the donor class and push for public funding of elections, making the current gerrymandering system illegal and push for policies that will reduce income and wealth inequality.
I don't necessarily agree with all of his points, but I have no choice, at an intellectual level, other than to disagree with you here.
At worst, what he suggested would do little to change anything. I feel it would overall, at least be an improvement from where we're currently at. You're free to argue that your plan is better, but to say that his would make things worse simply isn't true. Repealing income tax would benefit everyone. You could argue that it benefits the super right more, but given the number of loopholes they have, it might not benefit them that much more. Donald Trump's last public tax return shows that he paid nothing in federal income tax. Abolishing the 16th amendment would help me more than him, in that case. And while I think a bigger discussion would need to be had on this, he has proposed a plan to at least working to prevent the corruption you're referring to, dealing with repealing the 17th amendment. While I'm not totally on board, I don't think he's wrong to say this would help in that area.
You are entitled to your opinion. I'm for freeing up income for all people and placing barriers between money and politics by restricting terms and campaigning. Big difference. .
But you deny reality. It is PROVEN that your policies will sharply increase the wealth and power of the super rich. It is also proven that when wealth and income inequality gets out of hand, elites will ALWAYS form to hijack the political system for their own ends, and the voice of the people will be muzzled.
11. No pensions for politicians. The framers wanted citizen legislators not professional career politicians.
That was what I meant by number 5
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
