View Full Version : Which political party has ran off more people due to its positions and issues?
Just as the title says, in your opinion which party do you believe has lost more voters over the years due to its stance on various issues?
Republicans:
-Keep it in church
-Quit caring what gross, sick, disgusting,yet LEGAL stuff I do in my boudoir
-2A has literally more to do with shooting MFers in the face than hunting
-Quit making “compromises” where you don’t get anything out of it
-Fvck the refugees. Should’ve fought harder or had the dignity to die on their native soil
-We dont need to be the world’s police
Libertarians.
The real liberty issues they “compromise” or don’t take a stance on, but they will get out the megaphone to tell you about pot.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
gunnerblue
12-22-19, 12:41
Republicans due to a social conservatism that most Americans don’t want
Libertarians.
The real liberty issues they “compromise” or don’t take a stance on, but they will get out the megaphone to tell you about pot.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Counterpoint:
Libertarians are merely Republicans who smoke weed or Democrats who actually own property.
Republicans have bent us over for years.
Libertarians.
The real liberty issues they “compromise” or don’t take a stance on, but they will get out the megaphone to tell you about pot.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Those are just potheads, not libertarians. The real thing that runs people off of that party is the whole “wasted vote” problem. Realizing that your vote basically doesn’t count unless you choose the lesser of two evils.
Politically, I’m with Fly. I just want to be left the f alone and not get killt on taxes.
Libertarians.
The real liberty issues they “compromise” or don’t take a stance on, but they will get out the megaphone to tell you about pot.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Compromise is unfortunately a recent addition to the Libertarian Party (not little "l" libertarian ideology). Their past unwavering positions on such things as the 2nd Amendment, repealing laws, and getting rid of "rules for thee, but not for me" used to draw the ire of Democrats and Republicans even more than their position on letting drug prohibition go the way of the equally bad alcohol prohibition. They have done the compromise bit so much I fail to see what they think they offer that isn't already catered to by popular Democrats and Republicans.
Counterpoint:
Libertarians are merely Republicans who smoke weed or Democrats who actually own property.
Republicans have bent us over for years.
So only about 1% of voting democrats own property and about 1.5% of republicans smoke pot?
Nah their lack of guts on liberty issues and too many potheads speaking the loudest keeps them from growing. They could do so much more if they weren’t so compromising and lazy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Republicans:
-Keep it in church
-Quit caring what gross, sick, disgusting,yet LEGAL stuff I do in my boudoir
-2A has literally more to do with shooting MFers in the face than hunting
-Quit making “compromises” where you don’t get anything out of it
-Fvck the refugees. Should’ve fought harder or had the dignity to die on their native soil
-We dont need to be the world’s policeCounterpoint:
Keep your boudoir stuff in the boudoir where it belongs and nobody will be sick, disgusted, or gross.
Cram it down folks throats and they WILL push back.
Counterpoint:
Keep your boudoir stuff in the boudoir where it belongs and nobody will be sick, disgusted, or gross.
Cram it down folks throats and they WILL push back.
Counterpoint:
I DO! Know how “gun people” open carry in Starbucks and write letters to the ATF almost TRYING to get attention? That’s how I view faggots who go to Pride and try to “normalize” things.
I hate gun people and make it known and have been banned from barf on my crusade against gun people. They are ruining guns.
I like weird, disgusting, vile, and probably blasphemous (but Legal) things in bed and don’t want it broadcast nor normalized. It’s my sick fetishes that are for me and my enjoyment. I actively encourage people to stay in the closet because it makes it more dangerous and exciting that way.
It’s all part of the Leave Me the Hell Alone Movement.
Don’t want a law nor a parade. Just Leave Me The Hell Alone.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-22-19, 16:12
Democrats. Not even close. the only way to stay a viable party is by importing people to support their views. I have been a lot of scholarly work done looking at the elections and if we had the electorate of 1980, the GOP would walk away in any national election.
Sure those moralizing GOP; how dare they defend unborn lives. What monsters are they...
Democrats. Not even close. the only way to stay a viable party is by importing people to support their views. I have been a lot of scholarly work done looking at the elections and if we had the electorate of 1980, the GOP would walk away in any national election.
Sure those moralizing GOP; how dare they defend unborn lives. What monsters are they...
Counterpoint:
Don’t use morality. Because Democrats can and do say the same thing about themselves “defending hungry children in need of refuge”, “believe wahmen all PIV is rape”, “more social programs for the children”
Dude, I have had my own personal struggles with the topic(FWIW I am pro-life) but at the same time, consider the following:
-You aren’t gonna raise and feed these unborn kids
-Aborting these unborn kids saves us some crime and tax money
-If a woman doesn’t want it, she will find a way to get rid of it
-Why dont you track down the dude that put it in her and make him pay than guilt trip me about it?
-We are overpopulated as is
I feel like if it weren’t for getting stuck on religion and abortion that we could get somewhere.
I would argue that we need MORE abortions anyways. Jails are full, America’s full, we need a break. Quit having sex with women if you can’t or won’t own what you break.
Counterpoint:
Don’t use morality. Because Democrats can and do say the same thing about themselves “defending hungry children in need of refuge”, “believe wahmen all PIV is rape”, “more social programs for the children”
Dude, I have had my own personal struggles with the topic(FWIW I am pro-life) but at the same time, consider the following:
-You aren’t gonna raise and feed these unborn kids
-Aborting these unborn kids saves us some crime and tax money
-If a woman doesn’t want it, she will find a way to get rid of it
-Why dont you track down the dude that put it in her and make him pay than guilt trip me about it?
-We are overpopulated as is
I feel like if it weren’t for getting stuck on religion and abortion that we could get somewhere.
I would argue that we need MORE abortions anyways. Jails are full, America’s full, we need a break. Quit having sex with women if you can’t or won’t own what you break.
Allowing the murder of innocent human beings to solve problems- yeah, that’s the ticket...
Totally the foundation of a society worth being a part of.
We might as well just start having death penalty for just about everything. Solve lots of problems that way.
Basically 50/50 split on abortion. So I’d rather err on the side of folks who DO NOT want to kill babies and piss off the ones that feel it’s okay.
I do agree we should focus on solving fiscal problems and illegal immigration issues in the public eye and work on “moral” issues in a more long term fashion. Which would be more successful.
But “we need more abortions” is abhorrent. Seriously.
I’d be fine if folks who got abortions were required to be sterilized, both parties involved. That would actually solve some problems and make people more responsible so they wouldn’t feel they “have to” get them in the first place.
In places like New York abortion is used as birth control. It’s disgusting. Abortions were equal to 50% of the live births in New York in 2014. That’s really nasty and vile.
ETa- I do not want this to turn into an abortion thread shift. But if we’re talking about turning someone away- Is much rather turn away those willing and wanting to murder babies than those who do not. Easy choice. No brained.
Counterpoint:
I DO! Know how “gun people” open carry in Starbucks and write letters to the ATF almost TRYING to get attention? That’s how I view faggots who go to Pride and try to “normalize” things.
I hate gun people and make it known and have been banned from barf on my crusade against gun people. They are ruining guns.
I like weird, disgusting, vile, and probably blasphemous (but Legal) things in bed and don’t want it broadcast nor normalized. It’s my sick fetishes that are for me and my enjoyment. I actively encourage people to stay in the closet because it makes it more dangerous and exciting that way.
It’s all part of the Leave Me the Hell Alone Movement.
Don’t want a law nor a parade. Just Leave Me The Hell Alone.
I dunno. You seem to make it well-known you like dick attached to what otherwise appears to be a woman. I mean, whatever floats your boat and all. But you’re out with liking weird shyt.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Diamondback
12-22-19, 16:45
Every time somebody on Team R makes another push to drive me away, Nazi Piglosi or one of her fellow Demofascists stands up and says "Hold My Beer." Right now, the only path forward I see is to destroy the Democrat Party in detail and hope we can do it fast enough that there's still something left worth rebuilding afterward... though as soon as the Dems are on the ropes there will need to be a purge of the GOP too.
Just as the title says, in your opinion which party do you believe has lost more voters over the years due to its stance on various issues?
Last 20? Maybe Republicans.
Last 4-8? Democrats.
My answer is: BOTH.
Both parties need major reconstruction. They have both lost touch with the pulse of America and the people.
I’d prefer this party:
Equal parts Conservative, nationalist, anarcho-capitalist and constitutionalist.
The party of:
Let’s budget wise, leave people the F alone and put into place the most minimal regulations and laws for society to function and ruthlessly enforce them.
No nation building. Any war we decide to fight we win by completely destroying the enemy and have a clear goal of what winning is or we don’t go.
Brutal trade agreements in our favor. We are the market, we should dictate the market.
End of the war on drugs.
Total control of the border. Limited immigration.
Space exploration like mad to mine resources off planet and control the space around our planet first. We win.
Abortions to all who want to be sterilized afterwards and never receive any form of government assistance ever again.
Remove 90% of the alphabet agencies. Total reform of all federal programs and agencies from top to bottom.
True flat tax. One amount everyone pays the same. No percentages. Can’t pay- don’t get to vote.
Allowing the murder of innocent human beings to solve problems- yeah, that’s the ticket...
Totally the foundation of a society worth being a part of.
We might as well just start having death penalty for just about everything. Solve lots of problems that way.
Basically 50/50 split on abortion. So I’d rather err on the side of folks who DO NOT want to kill babies and piss off the ones that feel it’s okay.
I do agree we should focus on solving fiscal problems and illegal immigration issues in the public eye and work on “moral” issues in a more long term fashion. Which would be more successful.
But “we need more abortions” is abhorrent. Seriously.
I’d be fine if folks who got abortions were required to be sterilized, both parties involved. That would actually solve some problems and make people more responsible so they wouldn’t feel they “have to” get them in the first place.
In places like New York abortion is used as birth control. It’s disgusting. Abortions were equal to 50% of the live births in New York in 2014. That’s really nasty and vile.
ETa- I do not want this to turn into an abortion thread shift. But if we’re talking about turning someone away- Is much rather turn away those willing and wanting to murder babies than those who do not. Easy choice. No brained.
Lemme dial this back a little.
The issue of abortion as a whole is a rabbit hole we all find ourselves trapped in. It gets too over emotional and too polarized. It’s legal. It’s always going to be legal. It’s never going to be illegal. Even if it were magically illegal; it would still happen.
But you cannot control what other people do while wanting to be left alone.
You nor I want guns messed with despite some fatass or some dipshit committing gun crime. Likewise I don’t wanna be peener shamed because some dude is out being a deadbeat.
My contention, issue itself aside, is that people ride that high horse and get all Judgy Judy but yet, aren’t paying the prenatal care, the doctor bill, nor housing and feeding the bastards for 18 years.
All I can say is that it would be hypocritical of me to die on that hill while wanting to be Left The Hell Alone. Just watch your lane of fire and but on a BFA unless you are committed to doing live fire on a worthy target.
My answer is: BOTH.
Both parties need major reconstruction. They have both lost touch with the pulse of America and the people.
I’d prefer this party:
Equal parts Conservative, nationalist, anarcho-capitalist and constitutionalist.
The party of:
Let’s budget wise, leave people the F alone and put into place the most minimal regulations and laws for society to function and ruthlessly enforce them.
No nation building. Any war we decide to fight we win by completely destroying the enemy and have a clear goal of what winning is or we don’t go.
Brutal trade agreements in our favor. We are the market, we should dictate the market.
End of the war on drugs.
Total control of the border. Limited immigration.
Space exploration like mad to mine resources off planet and control the space around our planet first. We win.
Abortions to all who want to be sterilized afterwards and never receive any form of government assistance ever again.
Remove 90% of the alphabet agencies. Total reform of all federal programs and agencies from top to bottom.
True flat tax. One amount everyone pays the same. No percentages. Can’t pay- don’t get to vote.
By Jove, this.
There is nothing here I disagree with.
I dunno. You seem to make it well-known you like dick attached to what otherwise appears to be a woman. I mean, whatever floats your boat and all. But you’re out with liking weird shyt.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
At least I dont use PSA lowers.....
At least I dont use PSA lowers.....
That would be disgusting.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That would be disgusting.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah that’s my limit too
My answer is: BOTH.
Both parties need major reconstruction. They have both lost touch with the pulse of America and the people.
I’d prefer this party:
Equal parts Conservative, nationalist, anarcho-capitalist and constitutionalist.
The party of:
Let’s budget wise, leave people the F alone and put into place the most minimal regulations and laws for society to function and ruthlessly enforce them.
No nation building. Any war we decide to fight we win by completely destroying the enemy and have a clear goal of what winning is or we don’t go.
Brutal trade agreements in our favor. We are the market, we should dictate the market.
End of the war on drugs.
Total control of the border. Limited immigration.
Space exploration like mad to mine resources off planet and control the space around our planet first. We win.
Abortions to all who want to be sterilized afterwards and never receive any form of government assistance ever again.
Remove 90% of the alphabet agencies. Total reform of all federal programs and agencies from top to bottom.
True flat tax. One amount everyone pays the same. No percentages. Can’t pay- don’t get to vote.
Which party is this? Where do I sign up?
I guess this would be the party of logic and common sense, it would be popular with everyone except politicians.
The party of:
Let’s budget wise, leave people the F alone and put into place the most minimal regulations and laws for society to function and ruthlessly enforce them.
No nation building. Any war we decide to fight we win by completely destroying the enemy and have a clear goal of what winning is or we don’t go.
Brutal trade agreements in our favor. We are the market, we should dictate the market.
End of the war on drugs.
Total control of the border. Limited immigration.
Space exploration like mad to mine resources off planet and control the space around our planet first. We win.
Abortions to all who want to be sterilized afterwards and never receive any form of government assistance ever again.
Remove 90% of the alphabet agencies. Total reform of all federal programs and agencies from top to bottom.
True flat tax. One amount everyone pays the same. No percentages. Can’t pay- don’t get to vote.
You just fixed nearly every problem. Genius. Especially that last bit. The cost of a plane ticket isn't dependent on what your income is. Why should a ride on America be any different? As a society we can pay the fare for the mentally incompetent, and I'm all for limited help with strict time constraints for people who are down on their luck, but everybody else needs to pay their fair share for this ride, and pay for all their kids too. Nobody rides for free.
I'm in. Where do I sign up?
It's the fanatical extremists in both parties that drive people away. By and large, Joe and Judy Average American don't care what their neighbors do behind closed doors; sure, they'll gossip and speculate about it, but they really don't care.
Republicans:
-Keep it in church
-Quit caring what gross, sick, disgusting,yet LEGAL stuff I do in my boudoir
-2A has literally more to do with shooting MFers in the face than hunting
-Quit making “compromises” where you don’t get anything out of it
-Fvck the refugees. Should’ve fought harder or had the dignity to die on their native soil
-We dont need to be the world’s police
Normiecons bro
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
True flat tax. One amount everyone pays the same. No percentages. Can’t pay- don’t get to vote.
While I'm for flat taxes or federal sales taxes, a true flat tax, as in 'everyone owes twenty grand' is not workable.
If it was low enough that it wasn't onerous to a large percentage of taxpayers, it would never raise enough to fund even limited governmental functions.
If it was high enough to fund government, many lower income wouldn't be able to pay and it would serve to disenfranchise a large majority of our country.
Which may be what you are going for, IDK.
Other than that, I could sign on.
While I'm for flat taxes or federal sales taxes, a true flat tax, as in 'everyone owes twenty grand' is not workable.
If it was low enough that it wasn't onerous to a large percentage of taxpayers, it would never raise enough to fund even limited governmental functions.
If it was high enough to fund government, many lower income wouldn't be able to pay and it would serve to disenfranchise a large majority of our country.
Which may be what you are going for, IDK.
Other than that, I could sign on.
While I'm for flat taxes or federal sales taxes, a true flat tax, as in 'everyone owes twenty grand' is not workable.
If it was low enough that it wasn't onerous to a large percentage of taxpayers, it would never raise enough to fund even limited governmental functions.
If it was high enough to fund government, many lower income wouldn't be able to pay and it would serve to disenfranchise a large majority of our country.
Which may be what you are going for, IDK.
Other than that, I could sign on.
If we widdled the federal Government down to its intended, necessary and workable size it would be quite simple for the vast majority of citizens to afford their taxes.
That would literally be the factor defining the size the Feds are allowed to operate at.
It would act as a check on expansion of the federal government. It would ensure folks would not allow the .gov to get out of control, because there would be no free rides or votes to buy.
Think about it.
There will always be those unable to afford even $1 of taxes. But we can and should make that number of people the smallest possible, instead of what we are doing now and trying to get as many on the dole as possible to be votes to stay on the dole.
If we were to do all the things on my list, taxes would be but a drop in the bucket compared to what they are now.
Just think of how lean and mean we could operate. How much opportunity and growth for everyone could be manifested.
If I had more time I would spearhead this political party. And I have given serious thought to doing so.
We absolutely need and should do better for our country and our people.
What’s going on now is pathetic and sad.
That is absolutely not what I’m going for either.
My vision is hat of prosperity for all who want it, provide a helping hand up to all those who need it/can and will accept elimnate handouts for anyone but those who truly require it to live and utilize it and allow mediocrity for all who accept it and don’t want more..
If the democrats or the GOP are running off people, where are they going? There is no 3rd party alternative. Maybe people have just disengaged from politics totally and hooked up with their electronic devices, enjoying some existence in button-pushing land.
What's the percentage of the voting age public who actually register and vote?
BoringGuy45
12-22-19, 21:42
If the democrats or the GOP are running off people, where are they going? There is no 3rd party alternative. Maybe people have just disengaged from politics totally and hooked up with their electronic devices, enjoying some existence in button-pushing land.
What's the percentage of the voting age public who actually register and vote?
Probably just dropping their registration. I still mainly vote Republican, but I do not consider myself a Republican. They are too conservative where they should be a bit more liberal, or at least compassionate and in touch with reality, but they are too liberal, or at least spineless, on areas where they need to take a hard stand with conservatives.
If the democrats or the GOP are running off people, where are they going? There is no 3rd party alternative. Maybe people have just disengaged from politics totally and hooked up with their electronic devices, enjoying some existence in button-pushing land.
What's the percentage of the voting age public who actually register and vote?
That’s my point. The third parties run people off even more.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Diamondback
12-22-19, 22:00
If the democrats or the GOP are running off people, where are they going? There is no 3rd party alternative. Maybe people have just disengaged from politics totally and hooked up with their electronic devices, enjoying some existence in button-pushing land.
What's the percentage of the voting age public who actually register and vote?
Here in Washington, 40% of registered voters is considered "record turnout." Consider that this is a state where you don't even have to get off your dead ass to cast a ballot, you just get it and return it at your own mailbox. And 60% of the ballots that get returned are Seattle Dems, may SMOD pay them a visit soon...
Think about it. I have, a great deal.
One of the problems with such lists as yours is that many of the items will be opposed by large portions of the electorate. We need to put forth improvements that are seen as being more collegial rather than 'we win, your screwed.'
Business_Casual
12-23-19, 06:22
The Democrats have been importing voters since 1964 because the ones that were here wouldn’t vote for their insane policies. But for that demographic shift, the (D) in politics would have shrunk to less than 30% of the vote.
Think about it. I have, a great deal.
One of the problems with such lists as yours is that many of the items will be opposed by large portions of the electorate. We need to put forth improvements that are seen as being more collegial rather than 'we win, your screwed.'
That’s what my kids say about going to the dentist. They want a more “collegial solution.” I don’t think the point is how to persuade a codependent people who have been marketed and conditioned. Rather, what is a form of governance with American precedence that will remedy the cavity. Novocaine optional.
I think both parties have lost. More have joined the Nobody party than any alternatives. Elections are no longer won by making a case to the public but by stirring up the party insiders—what’s left of them—enough to get to the polls.
In the 2016 election, based on population, more people voted for nobody than voted for anyone else. A landslide for Nobody. We have no democratic mechanism for implantation on what that means. Back to preceding paragraph.
That’s what my kids say about going to the dentist. They want a more “collegial solution.” I don’t think the point is how to persuade a codependent people who have been marketed and conditioned. Rather, what is a form of governance with American precedence that will remedy the cavity. Novocaine optional.
Based on the post aimmediately above, I'd be willing to bet our views are similar in many ways, but probably vary on this one: what is a form of governance with American precedence that will remedy the cavity..... We have no democratic mechanism for implantation on what that means.
I'm for a form of government that represents the actual will of the people, which I believe is more to the middle than any of the extremes we are currently seeing.
We have Citizens United, the result of a highly politicized court, to thank for selling our elections to the highest bidder, whether they be right or left.
People tend to check out when they feel their vote doesn't count.
By time the democrats get done impeaching President Trump the 3rd, 4th or 5th time, that party will see an exodus of Biblical proportions. The moderate or centrist democrats will be re-registering as Independents or Republican.
Grand58742
12-23-19, 16:19
By time the democrats get done impeaching President Trump the 3rd, 4th or 5th time, that party will see an exodus of Biblical proportions. The moderate or centrist democrats will be re-registering as Independents or Republican.
Funny you mention that...
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-face-deadline-to-justify-mcgahn-testimony-grand-jury-material-post-impeachment
The lawyer for House Judiciary Committee Democrats revealed in a Monday court filing that there is a possibility lawmakers could pursue even more articles of impeachment against President Trump -- despite having already adopted two of them last week following a grueling, historic and bitterly partisan debate.
The prospect of additional articles -- while perhaps unlikely -- was floated as part of a court battle over Democrats' bid to compel testimony from former White House Counsel Don McGahn.
Shortly before a 4 p.m. deadline imposed by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the committee counsel filed a brief making their case for why they still want to hear from McGahn, despite having already voted for impeachment.
While the Mueller probe never factored into the impeachment articles that were adopted, House Democrats' counsel Douglas Letter argued that McGahn's testimony is still vital -- and could even be relevant to "consideration of whether to recommend additional articles of impeachment" against Trump.
Based on the post aimmediately above, I'd be willing to bet our views are similar in many ways, but probably vary on this one: what is a form of governance with American precedence that will remedy the cavity..... We have no democratic mechanism for implantation on what that means.
I'm for a form of government that represents the actual will of the people, which I believe is more to the middle than any of the extremes we are currently seeing.
We have Citizens United, the result of a highly politicized court, to thank for selling our elections to the highest bidder, whether they be right or left.
People tend to check out when they feel their vote doesn't count.
Mob rule?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We have Citizens United, the result of a highly politicized court, to thank for selling our elections to the highest bidder, whether they be right or left.
People tend to check out when they feel their vote doesn't count.
It's possible you've been misled about the core issue in the Citizens United case, the Government's actual position, and why the court decided the way that it did.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/citizens-united-its-about-free-speech
In all of the bluster surrounding Citizens United, it is easy to forget what the case was truly about. Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit, produced a documentary, "Hillary: The Movie." The film excoriated then-Presidential primary candidate Hillary Clinton, urging viewers not to support her run for president. But when Citizens United wanted to air its movie in 2008, it was prohibited from doing so by federal campaign finance laws. These laws banned independent speech by corporations (and unions) if it opposed (or supported) the election of any federal candidate. And Citizens United, itself a nonprofit corporation, was partially funded with for-profit corporate funds.
The question brought before the court in 2010 was whether it was constitutional for the government to ban the airing of this political movie.
During the argument, Justice Samuel Alito asked United States Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, "What's your answer to [the] point that there isn't any constitutional difference between the distribution of this movie on video [on] demand and providing access on the Internet, providing DVDs, either through a commercial service or maybe in a public library, [or] providing the same thing in a book? Would the Constitution permit the restriction of all of those as well?"
Stewart confirmed he thought that such a law would be constitutional and would allow the government to ban a book published by an organization like Citizens United. There was a gasp in the courtroom.
...the central position of the government did not change —Citizens United could express its opinions in the time and manner the government demanded, or it could not speak at all.
At its core, this is what the Citizens United decision was about. It wasn’t about “money in politics,” or “corporate personhood,” or “certain groups speaking more loudly than others.” Not fundamentally. Fundamentally, the case was about the power of the federal government to restrict speech. Does the first amendment permit the government to ban prohibit political movies? To ban books? The case was about free speech.
It's also worth noting that Democrats were engaging in the same sorts of speech as the film the Citizens United case revolved around, but they were consistently given a pass by the government either because they were "legitimate filmmakers" (in the case of Michael Moore) or because the speech was funded by a PAC and not a private corp or union.
It's also worth noting that Dems have historically raised considerably more money through PACs the Republicans, and so were considerably less affected by restrictions prior to the supreme court decision.
While I'm for flat taxes or federal sales taxes, a true flat tax, as in 'everyone owes twenty grand' is not workable.
20K? Where did you come up with that number? When this subject has been discussed before the number has been between $4000 and $6000 per person. I can't remember where I heard it... Probably Sean Hannity or Larry Elder, but I'm not certain. Even at $6000 each, and paying for my wife and child, that is a fraction of what I'm paying now. I'd be thrilled to see a reduction that huge in my tax bills, and I'd be happy to pay my fair share. I pay almost that much just in PROPERTY taxes. If we cut down on perks for elected officials and reduce spending across the board, we could get the number even lower.
20K? Where did you come up with that number?
As an example, with no significance attached to it, I could have just as easily wrote another figure. My point being a flat percentage is more realistic, and , IMO, fair.
As for property taxes, I don't think a federal flat tax, in lieu of the current income tax system would address state and local taxes.
It's possible you've been misled about the core issue in the Citizens United case, the Government's actual position, and why the court decided the way that it did.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/citizens-united-its-about-free-speech
It's also worth noting that Democrats were engaging in the same sorts of speech as the film the Citizens United case revolved around, but they were consistently given a pass by the government either because they were "legitimate filmmakers" (in the case of Michael Moore) or because the speech was funded by a PAC and not a private corp or union.
I don't believe that I misunderstood, I've read the case as well as the concurring and dissenting (in part decisions). I'll believe corporations have the same rights as people when Texas executes one.
Stevens said it the way I think on this one:
The basic premise underlying the Court’s ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker’s identity, including its “identity” as a corporation. While that glittering generality has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law. Nor does it tell us when a corporation may engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose.
In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.
As far as this goes:
It's also worth noting that Dems have historically raised considerably more money through PACs the Republicans, and so were considerably less affected by restrictions prior to the supreme court decision.
I could really give a rat's rear end who it affected more, or who raises the most money through PAC's, it makes absolutely no difference to me, this decision was flat wrong, IMO.
Adrenaline_6
12-24-19, 12:21
Speaking of parties, a $1.4 trillion spending budget just got passed. Both parties are at fault (those loyal to lobbyists). This shows how actually f*cked up we are as a country and people. These people give zero sh*ts about us - it is about them, money and their power alone. We are past the point of fixing this traditionally with the voting people. The representatives don't care when voted in.
A full on revolution is the only thing that will fix this lobbyist control unfortunately, and I don't see people giving up there internet and social media to do it - we are screwed - we are only allowed to play with the time clock to a certain amount to make us think we have some control. All an illusion. Resistance is futile.
My answer is: BOTH.
Both parties need major reconstruction. They have both lost touch with the pulse of America and the people.
I’d prefer this party:
Equal parts Conservative, nationalist, anarcho-capitalist and constitutionalist.
The party of:
Let’s budget wise, leave people the F alone and put into place the most minimal regulations and laws for society to function and ruthlessly enforce them.
No nation building. Any war we decide to fight we win by completely destroying the enemy and have a clear goal of what winning is or we don’t go.
Brutal trade agreements in our favor. We are the market, we should dictate the market.
End of the war on drugs.
Total control of the border. Limited immigration.
Space exploration like mad to mine resources off planet and control the space around our planet first. We win.
Abortions to all who want to be sterilized afterwards and never receive any form of government assistance ever again.
Remove 90% of the alphabet agencies. Total reform of all federal programs and agencies from top to bottom.
True flat tax. One amount everyone pays the same. No percentages. Can’t pay- don’t get to vote.
I agree this. With the addition of revoke the Patriot Act, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
I agree this. With the addition of revoke the Patriot Act, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
With you on Patriot Act. In terms of data mining, .gov isn't our only enemy.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.