BamaD
Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Interesting question, Hill.
I'm thinking that he will lose but, in losing, he will actually win. Does that make sense?
If he loses Hillary will get to appoint 2-3 Supreme Court Justices who consider the constitution a serier of obsolete suggestions.
We already have one Justice who has ruled based on European presidence and another who advised the Egyptians to modle their constitution after South Africa as it is better than ours. In 4 years she can do irreeprable harm.
His might "win" as in change the party, but at what cost.
Yea, she might even get a ruling that money is speech and that corporations are humans.
You don't seem to mind that unions provide , in money and in kind, just as much as corporations do.
To say that money doesn't equal speach is to say that people have free speach but not the freedom to get their message out.
Or do you want to either limit office holding to the ultra rich or give the media total control over elections?
Actually, I've never commented one way or the other with respect to union political contributions. However I will now and believe that only individuals should be allowed to make such donations and NO groups at all be allowed at all. Groups can obviously form to promulgate ideas and policies but should not be allowed to give cash or any substitute for cash for the express purpose of enacting same.
As far as being a strict originalist vis-a-vis the constitution, I strongly suspect that none of our founding fathers believed that any one person could have more free speech in the bank than another. And although I understand that Madison did use the expression 'political' speech, one could just as easily argue that all speech is political in so far as any govt. attempts to censure it.
People having free speech is just that...speech, the written word and their right to get [their] word out, not the right to purchase another person's speech. Free speech or 'political' speech isn't a commodity to be bought and sold.
To the extent media has any 'control' over elections, that would exist under no different incentives than they are now and the ultra rich would have no greater or less ability to be office holders than they are now. It would just cost them more out of their own pocket and without the additional bought and purchased 'group' speech paid for by others' tax-deductible dollars and would be...entirely on their own. A regime I think we can all agree on, that has never 'guaranteed' any aspirant any office.
And only the ultra rich would be able to afford to run.
That is, since they did not envision todays fundraising, what the founders expected.
The less the candidates can say for themselves the greater the influence of the media.
< Message edited by BamaD -- 2/29/2016 8:30:55 PM >
_____________________________
Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine
People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.
|
RE: Will Trump save the republican party? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread