The first Amendment does not give anyone rights, but restricts the power of the US government to infringe on natural rights that belong equally to all humans in all countries. People in Russia, China, Afghanistan, etc, most definitely have a right to voice their opinions on US elections and try to sway the results.
Something to consider. Bernie has been screaming about citizens united the loudest. And you are definitely distressed about outside people caring about local election results
Moreover, claiming that someone doesn't spend money in "your" district is pointless posturing, unless you do somehow know exactly who spends what and where.
Moreover, claiming that someone doesn't spend money in "your" district is pointless posturing, unless you do somehow know exactly who spends what and where.
On that front, I think it's more about gist. And I get the gist. The natural counterpoint is that I have to spend money dealing with things resulting from decisions coming out of that district
That's precisely what I'm talking about. You want to voice your opinion from your district, fine. What I am against, and which I stated in my post, is the use of outside influence to boost local candidates. And it's not just about money either. I'm even against things like Trump or the RNC endorsing and holding rallies for local candidates.
Corporate donors gets a little sticky since a corporation may have facilities and workers in many districts. The way I'd simplify it though would be to say corporations can only donate to candidates in the district in which their corporate HQ is located. That means foreign companies with facilities in the US would be completely taken out of the political process. Which I think we can all agree is a good thing.
Okay, then I'll point out that Sanders has been the loudest on Citizens United. Other than that, you'll have to figure out if you actually care about this issue
Keep in mind about people upset about improper elections, bad techniques can also be memetically exported. Someone showing how to successfully gerrymander (fer ex) is a threat to my democracy
Did they actually do it? The WP story implies but does not clearly state that the vote took place during the 9/11 memorial. The implication has been challenged.
Did they actually do it? The WP story implies but does not clearly state that the vote took place during the 9/11 memorial. The implication has been challenged.
Republicans dominating a nearly half-empty North Carolina House chamber used an unexpected vote Wednesday to override Democratic Governor Roy Cooper's veto of the state's two-year budget, prompting accusations of trickery and deception from Cooper and other Democrats, many of whom were attending 9/11 commemoration events during the sudden vote.
That's new. The original WP story only implied that the vote was held during the 9/11 memorial. This one actually states it. That factual point has been challenged.
That's new. The original WP story only implied that the vote was held during the 9/11 memorial. This one actually states it. That factual point has been challenged.
The first article I read about it was on Business Insider, written on September 11th. At the time, they could only find one Democrat attending ceremonies. It's interesting how framing works, because now I read each article looking for evidence of the claim that multiple Democrats were attending ceremonies.
It's really notable that the minority leader very obviously appears to have been lied to. It's strong evidence that he was deceived
Ok. My representative doesn't have a voice on your district though. All my representative does is vote on bills presented before him. Just because the result of that vote may have an impact on your district does not mean my representative has a voice in your district.
It means exactly that! You elect someone who tells us what to do.
Also I don't like the implication that you are somehow entitled to a voice in my district just because federal laws my rep votes for may may impact you. I mean, a lot of US policies have an impact on other nations, does that mean they should be allowed to interfere in our elections? The answer is no. Just because something impacts you does not automatically entitle you to a voice in that thing.
May impact me? Most everything the federal government does impacts me. I think the Iraqis were justified running ads in your district before we invaded them after 9/11. Should they be allowed a voice if your representative wanted to invade their country?
You don't live in my district, you don't spend your money in my district, you don't pay taxes in my district, therefore you are not entitled to a voice in my district.
No, I don't elect someone that tells you what to do. I elect someone that will fight for the best deal for where I live. If you don't like what my rep is doing then you elect someone in your district that will oppose my rep in Congress.
No. Again, they don't live here and their interests aren't aligned with the interests of my district. I really don't care how much of an impact my rep's actions have on other communities. Outsiders simply are not entitled to interfere in my district. To do so is to act against the principles of US-style federalism.
No, my rep didn't take anything. Federal money is spent according to a consensus among all the reps in Congress. So if my district is being favored over yours, then you need to elect more persuasive representatives.
Your general attitude strikes me as one of a busybody. One who just can't leave others alone and focus on your own household, metaphorically. Stop worrying about what your neighbors are doing and pay attention to keeping your own backyard in order.
Keep in mind I'm not saying you shouldn't do anything about outside forces that might be harming your district. You just need to go about it in a different way. Instead of trying to meddle in a community you aren't a part of, focus on making changes to your community to adapt. For example: if all the businesses in your district are leaving because a neighboring district is more attractive for whatever reason, instead of trying to influence policy in that district to make them less attractive for businesses, you should vote for policies and politicians in your own district that will make your district more economically attractive for businesses.
I vote libertarian and you vote Republican and I'm the busybody?
So when I point out your representative is telling us what to do, you defend your busybody representative by telling me to elect someone to stop them? How does that change the fact your representative is telling us what to do? Your argument was we cant have a voice in your district while you elect busybodies who tell everyone else what they can or cant do. Your representative isn't taking my money, he agreed with other people to take it. Fun with semantics...
Commodore's ideology basically seems to boil down to "my in-group has an absolute right to cause negative externalities, so any attempt to limit the harm we cause others is tyranny. People should focus on making sure their own in-groups act just as amorally to benefit themselves as the expense of everyone else. The only universal principle allowed is that everyone should pursue the narrow self interests of those who happen to live nearby."
Commodore's ideology basically seems to boil down to "my in-group has an absolute right to cause negative externalities, so any attempt to limit the harm we cause others is tyranny. People should focus on making sure their own in-groups act just as amorally to benefit themselves as the expense of everyone else. The only universal principle allowed is that everyone should pursue the narrow self interests of those who happen to live nearby."
This is the general GOP viewpoint these days isn't it? Even though its only to the benefit of at best 1/1000 of the members? It doesn't even pretend to be compassionate anymore. Its just "greed is good" "power is glory".
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Onejayhawk?
