Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6022
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:13 pm

She did NOT win in the states where Trump won unless you have some big news that Trump stole the electoral votes. You want to collective the vote across the US, giving the big cities predominance.

I certainly don’t want to eliminate the EC and I don’t want to eliminate CA and NY votes. I just want the states to elect the President as written in the Constitution. It’s you that wants to rewrite it.

You don’t silence anyone, you just want to prevent them spending their money to voice their opinions.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22519
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Thu Nov 14, 2019 1:50 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
She did NOT win in the states where Trump won unless you have some big news that Trump stole the electoral votes. You want to collective the vote across the US, giving the big cities predominance.


That would explain Bush v. Gore in 2000 which was decided in Florida......

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
I certainly don’t want to eliminate the EC and I don’t want to eliminate CA and NY votes. I just want the states to elect the President as written in the Constitution. It’s you that wants to rewrite it.


People have been wanting to rewrite the electoral process for decades. Not just me, not just "liberals" but all across the political spectrum, all across the country.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
You don’t silence anyone, you just want to prevent them spending their money to voice their opinions.


Bribery is illegal.

Why is a billionaire's wants, needs, and opinions worth more than mine? If they want to support a candidate, they are free to. But to buy outright as Citizens United suggests is wrong. The majority of us Americans do not have that kind of power. Because money is speech, as the right wing courts have legislated, we get this kind of dysfunctional governance we see now. Billionaires are absolutely free to support any candidate they want. But, their support should not outweigh everyone else's support. They are free to call their Congress person as the rest of us are. They are free to fill out one ballot one time like the rest of us.

Money is not speech. Only conservative activist judges legislating from the bench and their supporters believe that. It is the only way far right wing extremists can stay in power.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6022
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Thu Nov 14, 2019 1:59 am

But speech sometimes requires money. Why do you think J.B. Gotbucks should be outlawed from buying time in the media to express his opinions. Outlaw him and might as well outlaw everybody else’s free speech. More speech is better speech.

You do know Citizens United didn’t change campaign donations, just said Joe Blow can buy time t9 express his opinion, not give it to a candidate.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 12307
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:02 am

seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
She did NOT win in the states where Trump won unless you have some big news that Trump stole the electoral votes. You want to collective the vote across the US, giving the big cities predominance.


That would explain Bush v. Gore in 2000 which was decided in Florida......

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
I certainly don’t want to eliminate the EC and I don’t want to eliminate CA and NY votes. I just want the states to elect the President as written in the Constitution. It’s you that wants to rewrite it.


People have been wanting to rewrite the electoral process for decades. Not just me, not just "liberals" but all across the political spectrum, all across the country.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
You don’t silence anyone, you just want to prevent them spending their money to voice their opinions.


Bribery is illegal.

Why is a billionaire's wants, needs, and opinions worth more than mine? If they want to support a candidate, they are free to. But to buy outright as Citizens United suggests is wrong. The majority of us Americans do not have that kind of power. Because money is speech, as the right wing courts have legislated, we get this kind of dysfunctional governance we see now. Billionaires are absolutely free to support any candidate they want. But, their support should not outweigh everyone else's support. They are free to call their Congress person as the rest of us are. They are free to fill out one ballot one time like the rest of us.

Money is not speech. Only conservative activist judges legislating from the bench and their supporters believe that. It is the only way far right wing extremists can stay in power.


‘Legislating from the bench’ is an overused pejorative. Judges have a responsibility to interpret and opine on application of law - they do not create new laws, that’s why their decisions are called opinions. Both left and right do it and it’s tiresome - just because judges have issued opinions you disagree with does not mean they have ‘legislated’ from the bench. If you don’t like the opinion, you can try again in another court until you run out of judges to ask.

I disagree with the spirit of the Citizens ruling but I can understand its genesis and certainly don’t call it ‘legislating from the bench’. If populism-friendly conditions continue to expand, it will eventually be overturned.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8342
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Thu Nov 14, 2019 1:31 pm

How about completely getting rid of representative democracies and going back to the Athenian democracy model. With the internet and unique id, people can vote directly on issues.
All posts are just opinions.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6022
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Thu Nov 14, 2019 2:25 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
How about completely getting rid of representative democracies and going back to the Athenian democracy model. With the internet and unique id, people can vote directly on issues.


After the election controversies, real and imagined, and weekly data breaches: what could possibly go wrong?

How about we just reduce the role of government to its essential jurisdictions and let them get proficient at them? Is there a need for the Ag Dept, the Energy Dept. is our fuel and food supply dependent on them really?
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13135
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Thu Nov 14, 2019 2:57 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
How about completely getting rid of representative democracies and going back to the Athenian democracy model. With the internet and unique id, people can vote directly on issues.


You would get a tyranny of the majority, then.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22519
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Thu Nov 14, 2019 5:42 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
She did NOT win in the states where Trump won unless you have some big news that Trump stole the electoral votes. You want to collective the vote across the US, giving the big cities predominance.


That would explain Bush v. Gore in 2000 which was decided in Florida......

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
I certainly don’t want to eliminate the EC and I don’t want to eliminate CA and NY votes. I just want the states to elect the President as written in the Constitution. It’s you that wants to rewrite it.


People have been wanting to rewrite the electoral process for decades. Not just me, not just "liberals" but all across the political spectrum, all across the country.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
You don’t silence anyone, you just want to prevent them spending their money to voice their opinions.


Bribery is illegal.

Why is a billionaire's wants, needs, and opinions worth more than mine? If they want to support a candidate, they are free to. But to buy outright as Citizens United suggests is wrong. The majority of us Americans do not have that kind of power. Because money is speech, as the right wing courts have legislated, we get this kind of dysfunctional governance we see now. Billionaires are absolutely free to support any candidate they want. But, their support should not outweigh everyone else's support. They are free to call their Congress person as the rest of us are. They are free to fill out one ballot one time like the rest of us.

Money is not speech. Only conservative activist judges legislating from the bench and their supporters believe that. It is the only way far right wing extremists can stay in power.


‘Legislating from the bench’ is an overused pejorative. Judges have a responsibility to interpret and opine on application of law - they do not create new laws, that’s why their decisions are called opinions. Both left and right do it and it’s tiresome - just because judges have issued opinions you disagree with does not mean they have ‘legislated’ from the bench. If you don’t like the opinion, you can try again in another court until you run out of judges to ask.

I disagree with the spirit of the Citizens ruling but I can understand its genesis and certainly don’t call it ‘legislating from the bench’. If populism-friendly conditions continue to expand, it will eventually be overturned.


That is the problem, though. The courts are hard right, now. That is not what We The People want. Nor do we want a hard left court system. We want judges to rule for the majority of US, not a majority of extremists.

We heard endless cries and howls of "liberal activist judges legislating form the bench" when Obama nominated Kagen and Sotomayor. Looking at their history and how they are doing now, it is fair to call both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch right wing activist judges who legislate from the bench. I am tired of "rising above their rhetoric" because it does not work. The only thing these people understand is what they dish out. They love to play dirty and name call. Do unto others. They don't like how I act toward them, maybe they should have been more civil.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22519
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:35 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
But speech sometimes requires money. Why do you think J.B. Gotbucks should be outlawed from buying time in the media to express his opinions. Outlaw him and might as well outlaw everybody else’s free speech. More speech is better speech.

You do know Citizens United didn’t change campaign donations, just said Joe Blow can buy time t9 express his opinion, not give it to a candidate.


So you believe that, because Bezos has money and only because Bezos has money, his opinion and needs should be placed above yours? He can buy air time and put whatever opinions he want in the media he owns so he is more important than you? That is one of the supporting issues behind Citizens. He should have an opinion. No question. His opinion should be heard, just like the rest of us. As with Murdoch, Bezos and the Waltons and Buffett should not be able to use their wealth to buy elected officials. I do not have that ability. The farmers who are losing money hand over fist do not have that ability. Even when we use all available media resources to do research, we do not fully have the ability to vote the bums out. The needs and wants of the few (the rich) outweigh the needs and wants of the many.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6022
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:39 pm

seb146 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
seb146 wrote:

That would explain Bush v. Gore in 2000 which was decided in Florida......



People have been wanting to rewrite the electoral process for decades. Not just me, not just "liberals" but all across the political spectrum, all across the country.



Bribery is illegal.

Why is a billionaire's wants, needs, and opinions worth more than mine? If they want to support a candidate, they are free to. But to buy outright as Citizens United suggests is wrong. The majority of us Americans do not have that kind of power. Because money is speech, as the right wing courts have legislated, we get this kind of dysfunctional governance we see now. Billionaires are absolutely free to support any candidate they want. But, their support should not outweigh everyone else's support. They are free to call their Congress person as the rest of us are. They are free to fill out one ballot one time like the rest of us.

Money is not speech. Only conservative activist judges legislating from the bench and their supporters believe that. It is the only way far right wing extremists can stay in power.


‘Legislating from the bench’ is an overused pejorative. Judges have a responsibility to interpret and opine on application of law - they do not create new laws, that’s why their decisions are called opinions. Both left and right do it and it’s tiresome - just because judges have issued opinions you disagree with does not mean they have ‘legislated’ from the bench. If you don’t like the opinion, you can try again in another court until you run out of judges to ask.

I disagree with the spirit of the Citizens ruling but I can understand its genesis and certainly don’t call it ‘legislating from the bench’. If populism-friendly conditions continue to expand, it will eventually be overturned.


That is the problem, though. The courts are hard right, now. That is not what We The People want. Nor do we want a hard left court system. We want judges to rule for the majority of US, not a majority of extremists.

We heard endless cries and howls of "liberal activist judges legislating form the bench" when Obama nominated Kagen and Sotomayor. Looking at their history and how they are doing now, it is fair to call both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch right wing activist judges who legislate from the bench. I am tired of "rising above their rhetoric" because it does not work. The only thing these people understand is what they dish out. They love to play dirty and name call. Do unto others. They don't like how I act toward them, maybe they should have been more civil.


No, we want justices to read the Constitution and the law, period, full stop. Very strictly applied.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6022
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:41 pm

seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
But speech sometimes requires money. Why do you think J.B. Gotbucks should be outlawed from buying time in the media to express his opinions. Outlaw him and might as well outlaw everybody else’s free speech. More speech is better speech.

You do know Citizens United didn’t change campaign donations, just said Joe Blow can buy time t9 express his opinion, not give it to a candidate.


So you believe that, because Bezos has money and only because Bezos has money, his opinion and needs should be placed above yours? He can buy air time and put whatever opinions he want in the media he owns so he is more important than you? That is one of the supporting issues behind Citizens. He should have an opinion. No question. His opinion should be heard, just like the rest of us. As with Murdoch, Bezos and the Waltons and Buffett should not be able to use their wealth to buy elected officials. I do not have that ability. The farmers who are losing money hand over fist do not have that ability. Even when we use all available media resources to do research, we do not fully have the ability to vote the bums out. The needs and wants of the few (the rich) outweigh the needs and wants of the many.


Show me an election bought by any of those people. Heck, I’d bet none of like Trump and he spent less than Hilary and won. Elections aren’t bought unless you believe all Americans are fools.
 
User avatar
stl07
Posts: 2455
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 8:57 pm

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:56 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
But speech sometimes requires money. Why do you think J.B. Gotbucks should be outlawed from buying time in the media to express his opinions. Outlaw him and might as well outlaw everybody else’s free speech. More speech is better speech.

You do know Citizens United didn’t change campaign donations, just said Joe Blow can buy time t9 express his opinion, not give it to a candidate.


So you believe that, because Bezos has money and only because Bezos has money, his opinion and needs should be placed above yours? He can buy air time and put whatever opinions he want in the media he owns so he is more important than you? That is one of the supporting issues behind Citizens. He should have an opinion. No question. His opinion should be heard, just like the rest of us. As with Murdoch, Bezos and the Waltons and Buffett should not be able to use their wealth to buy elected officials. I do not have that ability. The farmers who are losing money hand over fist do not have that ability. Even when we use all available media resources to do research, we do not fully have the ability to vote the bums out. The needs and wants of the few (the rich) outweigh the needs and wants of the many.


Show me an election bought by any of those people. Heck, I’d bet none of like Trump and he spent less than Hilary and won. Elections aren’t bought unless you believe all Americans are fools.

The problem is, a good 15-30% of Americans are, and that margin is enough to sway an election.
Instead of typing in "mods", consider using the report function.
Love how every "travel blogger" says they will never fly AA/Ethihad again and then says it again and again on subsequent flights.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:59 pm

stl07 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
seb146 wrote:

So you believe that, because Bezos has money and only because Bezos has money, his opinion and needs should be placed above yours? He can buy air time and put whatever opinions he want in the media he owns so he is more important than you? That is one of the supporting issues behind Citizens. He should have an opinion. No question. His opinion should be heard, just like the rest of us. As with Murdoch, Bezos and the Waltons and Buffett should not be able to use their wealth to buy elected officials. I do not have that ability. The farmers who are losing money hand over fist do not have that ability. Even when we use all available media resources to do research, we do not fully have the ability to vote the bums out. The needs and wants of the few (the rich) outweigh the needs and wants of the many.


Show me an election bought by any of those people. Heck, I’d bet none of like Trump and he spent less than Hilary and won. Elections aren’t bought unless you believe all Americans are fools.

The problem is, a good 15-30% of Americans are, and that margin is enough to sway an election.


I suspect what you mean is not evryone believes in your leftist positions and that makes it difficult to move forward with your agenda.
 
User avatar
stl07
Posts: 2455
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 8:57 pm

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:07 pm

BravoOne wrote:
stl07 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Show me an election bought by any of those people. Heck, I’d bet none of like Trump and he spent less than Hilary and won. Elections aren’t bought unless you believe all Americans are fools.

The problem is, a good 15-30% of Americans are, and that margin is enough to sway an election.


I suspect what you mean is not everyone believes in your leftist positions and that makes it difficult to move forward with your agenda.

When did I say I was on the left? In fact, if you go back to a thread a few years ago (please don't do that, I'll spare you the trouble), I said I was a right-leaning centrist. Just because I don't like trump nor Mitch and can see hypocrisy doesn't mean I have an agenda. LOL. What I think has no bearing on other people whatsoever except when I vote. I have no agenda with anyone right now.
Instead of typing in "mods", consider using the report function.
Love how every "travel blogger" says they will never fly AA/Ethihad again and then says it again and again on subsequent flights.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6022
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:15 pm

stl07 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
seb146 wrote:

So you believe that, because Bezos has money and only because Bezos has money, his opinion and needs should be placed above yours? He can buy air time and put whatever opinions he want in the media he owns so he is more important than you? That is one of the supporting issues behind Citizens. He should have an opinion. No question. His opinion should be heard, just like the rest of us. As with Murdoch, Bezos and the Waltons and Buffett should not be able to use their wealth to buy elected officials. I do not have that ability. The farmers who are losing money hand over fist do not have that ability. Even when we use all available media resources to do research, we do not fully have the ability to vote the bums out. The needs and wants of the few (the rich) outweigh the needs and wants of the many.


Show me an election bought by any of those people. Heck, I’d bet none of like Trump and he spent less than Hilary and won. Elections aren’t bought unless you believe all Americans are fools.

The problem is, a good 15-30% of Americans are, and that margin is enough to sway an election.


Then fix that, don’t violate our rights.

News Flash: not voting for YOUR chosen candidate is NOT evidence of foolishness or lack of intelligence. It merely means they value different things—let’s call it “celebrating diversity”. Any flag designs?
 
User avatar
stl07
Posts: 2455
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 8:57 pm

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:21 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
stl07 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Show me an election bought by any of those people. Heck, I’d bet none of like Trump and he spent less than Hilary and won. Elections aren’t bought unless you believe all Americans are fools.

The problem is, a good 15-30% of Americans are, and that margin is enough to sway an election.


Then fix that, don’t violate our rights.


That is why I agree with what I hear on CNN a few days ago about Bloomberg. Instead of wasting money on a run he will never win, he should run a massive voter registration drive and education campaign and better America that way.
Instead of typing in "mods", consider using the report function.
Love how every "travel blogger" says they will never fly AA/Ethihad again and then says it again and again on subsequent flights.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22519
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:22 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
stl07 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Show me an election bought by any of those people. Heck, I’d bet none of like Trump and he spent less than Hilary and won. Elections aren’t bought unless you believe all Americans are fools.

The problem is, a good 15-30% of Americans are, and that margin is enough to sway an election.


Then fix that, don’t violate our rights.

News Flash: not voting for YOUR chosen candidate is NOT evidence of foolishness or lack of intelligence. It merely means they value different things—let’s call it “celebrating diversity”. Any flag designs?


Bezos, Walton, et al. have money to "donate" to campaigns. They have money to continue to "donate" to elected officials over bills. Our Congress people are bought by special interests. You know why we have no affordable health care? Big Pharma pays Congress people to vote against affordable health care bills because big pharma money is worth more than my vote. You know why oil and gas pipelines are built even after a majority of Americans do not want them? "Donations" by big oil.

Go read about lobbying. Corporate money means more to every Congress person than our vote. They can still get a job in a lobbying firm.

By saying that money is not speech is not silencing speech. It is just saying that money is not speech. A rich person does not have the right to more speech and more of Congress than I do. If that is the case, what is the point of an Electoral College or even voting?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8507
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Sat Nov 16, 2019 6:34 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
PPVRA wrote:
ok smarty pants how would making the electoral college proportion turn the US into some European type utopia, all would do is make everyone's vote count. And if you pull your head out long enough you'd see that 2 of the 50 states already do this.



Aesma wrote:
PPVRA wrote:
Why couldn't you get rid of the electoral college but keep the senate as is ?
The electoral college means many people vote for nothing, and it has no direct link to the size of the state, it happens in small and large ones.



I think you guys are referring to the "winner takes all" system most states have implemented. This is not the same as the electoral college.

The electoral college gives each state one electoral college ELECTOR per congressman and senator each state has. If your state has 20 electors, then it's because your state has 18 congressman and 2 senators.

In addition, its important to understand that each state can set their own rules in regards to how these electors are allocated. For better or for worse, most states have adopted a rule where the overall winner in that state takes ALL of the electors that state has rather than a proportional number of electors. I think changing these rules to proportional allocation of the electors would be a good thing. But note, this is just a sub-rule that can be changed without eliminating the system of electors and the congressman+senators system of determining the number of electors for each state.

If a state controlled by the democrats were to change their winner takes all rule to proportional allotment, it would favor Republicans by giving them SOME electors even if not the majority. Ditto for a state controlled by Republicans--it would favor democrats in the same manner. Hence why this is so hard to change and only two states (i think) have done this. Might take a federal law to change it, if not a constitutional amendment.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8507
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:14 pm

Just found the link below describing what Maine and Nebraska do. It’s a bit more nuanced than strictly proportional, but it makes sense why they do it that way:

https://www.fairvote.org/maine_nebraska
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6022
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Sat Nov 16, 2019 10:37 pm

seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
stl07 wrote:
The problem is, a good 15-30% of Americans are, and that margin is enough to sway an election.


Then fix that, don’t violate our rights.

News Flash: not voting for YOUR chosen candidate is NOT evidence of foolishness or lack of intelligence. It merely means they value different things—let’s call it “celebrating diversity”. Any flag designs?


Bezos, Walton, et al. have money to "donate" to campaigns. They have money to continue to "donate" to elected officials over bills. Our Congress people are bought by special interests. You know why we have no affordable health care? Big Pharma pays Congress people to vote against affordable health care bills because big pharma money is worth more than my vote. You know why oil and gas pipelines are built even after a majority of Americans do not want them? "Donations" by big oil.

Go read about lobbying. Corporate money means more to every Congress person than our vote. They can still get a job in a lobbying firm.

By saying that money is not speech is not silencing speech. It is just saying that money is not speech. A rich person does not have the right to more speech and more of Congress than I do. If that is the case, what is the point of an Electoral College or even voting?


Just because speak more doesn’t mean we have to vote for them. Plenty of losing candidates out-spent the winners. Now, I don’t think campaign funds should become money for the candidates to keep, but there are limits on direct campaign contributions.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22519
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Sun Nov 17, 2019 1:17 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Then fix that, don’t violate our rights.

News Flash: not voting for YOUR chosen candidate is NOT evidence of foolishness or lack of intelligence. It merely means they value different things—let’s call it “celebrating diversity”. Any flag designs?


Bezos, Walton, et al. have money to "donate" to campaigns. They have money to continue to "donate" to elected officials over bills. Our Congress people are bought by special interests. You know why we have no affordable health care? Big Pharma pays Congress people to vote against affordable health care bills because big pharma money is worth more than my vote. You know why oil and gas pipelines are built even after a majority of Americans do not want them? "Donations" by big oil.

Go read about lobbying. Corporate money means more to every Congress person than our vote. They can still get a job in a lobbying firm.

By saying that money is not speech is not silencing speech. It is just saying that money is not speech. A rich person does not have the right to more speech and more of Congress than I do. If that is the case, what is the point of an Electoral College or even voting?


Just because speak more doesn’t mean we have to vote for them. Plenty of losing candidates out-spent the winners. Now, I don’t think campaign funds should become money for the candidates to keep, but there are limits on direct campaign contributions.


And those contributions should be zero. A candidate should be elected and reelected on their merits, not on how much money they raise to keep their name out there. That is what happens. They can hire people to spin their decisions. This is the problem I have with Reagan getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine, also. It gives one network or another an opportunity to be a voice for specific candidates and causes.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8507
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Sun Nov 17, 2019 1:44 am

seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
stl07 wrote:
The problem is, a good 15-30% of Americans are, and that margin is enough to sway an election.


Then fix that, don’t violate our rights.

News Flash: not voting for YOUR chosen candidate is NOT evidence of foolishness or lack of intelligence. It merely means they value different things—let’s call it “celebrating diversity”. Any flag designs?


Bezos, Walton, et al. have money to "donate" to campaigns. They have money to continue to "donate" to elected officials over bills. Our Congress people are bought by special interests. You know why we have no affordable health care? Big Pharma pays Congress people to vote against affordable health care bills because big pharma money is worth more than my vote. You know why oil and gas pipelines are built even after a majority of Americans do not want them? "Donations" by big oil.

Go read about lobbying. Corporate money means more to every Congress person than our vote. They can still get a job in a lobbying firm.

By saying that money is not speech is not silencing speech. It is just saying that money is not speech. A rich person does not have the right to more speech and more of Congress than I do. If that is the case, what is the point of an Electoral College or even voting?


Oil pipelines are still built because it’s a free country, where the people have property rights and they’re free to build pipelines if they so wish. Because this isn’t the Soviet Union. And this isn’t tyranny of the majority, either.

Meanwhile, lobbying by health insurance companies “donate” tons of money to Democrats.

Mind you, European health costs are also way out of control. And they continue to rise. Not quite as bad a situation the USA is in today, but they’ll get there, too.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22519
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Sun Nov 17, 2019 6:17 am

PPVRA wrote:
seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Then fix that, don’t violate our rights.

News Flash: not voting for YOUR chosen candidate is NOT evidence of foolishness or lack of intelligence. It merely means they value different things—let’s call it “celebrating diversity”. Any flag designs?


Bezos, Walton, et al. have money to "donate" to campaigns. They have money to continue to "donate" to elected officials over bills. Our Congress people are bought by special interests. You know why we have no affordable health care? Big Pharma pays Congress people to vote against affordable health care bills because big pharma money is worth more than my vote. You know why oil and gas pipelines are built even after a majority of Americans do not want them? "Donations" by big oil.

Go read about lobbying. Corporate money means more to every Congress person than our vote. They can still get a job in a lobbying firm.

By saying that money is not speech is not silencing speech. It is just saying that money is not speech. A rich person does not have the right to more speech and more of Congress than I do. If that is the case, what is the point of an Electoral College or even voting?


Oil pipelines are still built because it’s a free country, where the people have property rights and they’re free to build pipelines if they so wish.


The funny thing is: the opposite is true for We The People in the majority! If we do not want a pipeline (or wall) built on our property, tough! The government and corporation can do whatever the hell they want with our property that we legally own. Our rights do not matter. If we do not want a pipeline on our land, we will just have to live with it. These corporations have more money than what the majority of us want.

The tyranny of the minority. Whatever the money wants is more important.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8342
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Sat Nov 23, 2019 11:48 pm

India keeps gifting to proponents of parliamentary democracy.

Read about how the government was formed in the Indian State of Maharastra. I could post links to news articles, but every media outlet is owned by a political party or special interest group.
All posts are just opinions.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6022
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Sun Nov 24, 2019 12:05 am

seb146 wrote:
PPVRA wrote:
seb146 wrote:

Bezos, Walton, et al. have money to "donate" to campaigns. They have money to continue to "donate" to elected officials over bills. Our Congress people are bought by special interests. You know why we have no affordable health care? Big Pharma pays Congress people to vote against affordable health care bills because big pharma money is worth more than my vote. You know why oil and gas pipelines are built even after a majority of Americans do not want them? "Donations" by big oil.

Go read about lobbying. Corporate money means more to every Congress person than our vote. They can still get a job in a lobbying firm.

By saying that money is not speech is not silencing speech. It is just saying that money is not speech. A rich person does not have the right to more speech and more of Congress than I do. If that is the case, what is the point of an Electoral College or even voting?


Oil pipelines are still built because it’s a free country, where the people have property rights and they’re free to build pipelines if they so wish.


The funny thing is: the opposite is true for We The People in the majority! If we do not want a pipeline (or wall) built on our property, tough! The government and corporation can do whatever the hell they want with our property that we legally own. Our rights do not matter. If we do not want a pipeline on our land, we will just have to live with it. These corporations have more money than what the majority of us want.

The tyranny of the minority. Whatever the money wants is more important.


Show where that’s true? The Fifth Amendment prohibits seizing property except for public use and just compensation paid. Yes, the SCOTUS in Kelo v. New London trued to trash it, but their pretty fierce public reaction, I’m not worried about it as a US public policy issue. Apparently, where you live it is.

GF
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22519
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Sun Nov 24, 2019 12:11 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
seb146 wrote:
PPVRA wrote:

Oil pipelines are still built because it’s a free country, where the people have property rights and they’re free to build pipelines if they so wish.


The funny thing is: the opposite is true for We The People in the majority! If we do not want a pipeline (or wall) built on our property, tough! The government and corporation can do whatever the hell they want with our property that we legally own. Our rights do not matter. If we do not want a pipeline on our land, we will just have to live with it. These corporations have more money than what the majority of us want.

The tyranny of the minority. Whatever the money wants is more important.


Show where that’s true? The Fifth Amendment prohibits seizing property except for public use and just compensation paid. Yes, the SCOTUS in Kelo v. New London trued to trash it, but their pretty fierce public reaction, I’m not worried about it as a US public policy issue. Apparently, where you live it is.

GF


Keystone XL (they said it would never leak but it has been leaking and leaking more than they said) and, yes, the stupid vanity wall. American residents in Texas are furious because their property is being seized to build the stupid vanity wall.

https://www.texastribune.org/2019/11/21 ... rder-wall/
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: extender, vhqpa and 45 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos