is the only way to prevent "paid for" politicians. If the president is limited, so should be everyone else.
How do we make that happen? No politician would vote for it.
Comments (108)
sorted by:
is the only way to prevent "paid for" politicians. If the president is limited, so should be everyone else.
How do we make that happen? No politician would vote for it.
Call a constitutional convention of states to draft new amendments to the constitution:
1st amendment protects not just from government but also from private businesses, the internet is an extension of the public square, online privacy by default by law, mass Collection, tracking, and/or sale of an individual‘s data/location is a breach of the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments
2nd amendment clarified to allow for purchasing, ownership of, carrying openly or concealed of, and use of handguns, rifles, and shotguns for use in hunting, self-defense, national defense, and resisting government tyranny
citizenship by birth to citizen parents or naturalization only
term limits on governors, mayors, and State and federal congress and staffers. (For congress and staffers, I would be ok with 10 years at State+ another 10 at federal level)
undo 17th amendment to return selection of US senators to state legislature, mandatory id to vote nationwide
Edit: oops I almost forgot,
nationwide ban on abortion
end federal war on drugs, send the decision About wether to legalize, regulate, and tax them back to the states
abolish income tax and property tax on residential homes and small businesses
I like these, but would 1 mean we'd not be able to deport liberals from our own forums? I see the argument that very big ones like Twitter and Reddit had become public forums, but... It's messy.
Also mixed feelings on term limits. I see the argument for them. I'm not against them. But I'm not sure I'm for them. They can manipulate a lot and make their entire career about staying in power, but at the same time, a limit says we the people are too stupid to pick our own reps for as long as we like them.
Interested in your views since you seem to have thought on these issues a lot.
I wouldn’t say I’ve given these topics a lot of thought, just some. Anyway, For free speech, I was thinking more along the lines of financial services not being allowed to deny you service because you are a conservative or a Christian. There are currently plenty of limits on free speech that I agree with like no defamation and no inciting violence, panic, or sedition, and no public indecency.
As for term limits, the longer someone is in office, they are more likely to become much more politically powerful, are much more likely to be corrupted by that power or by special/ foreign interests, and they become much more likely to remain in office either by the incumbent advantage or by voter/election fraud. I don’t like that there are so many people elected to office that have been there for 20, 30, or even 40 years. It makes those people drift out of touch with the people who elected them.
I agree with financial institutions being, by nature essential services. ISPs as well. Full first amendment rights for all consumers. Little less sure where I stand on websites-some, for certain, are completely private businesses; in our case, we present ourselves as a topical forum with a specific accepted slant. Even other .wins are technically separate entities from TheDonald, we don't host them as subreddits. Nobody would begin an interaction with this site without knowing you have to be pro-Trump to post or vote.
Defamation, calls to violence, all that but public indecency I agree with, and I think freedom of speech is so under attack on the broader issues that I'll be happy when the day comes when arguing the line of public indecency becomes majorly relevant. Should Gilbert Godfrey be able to read the raunchiest lines from 50 Shades of Gray on a public street corner? Should I be able to have a private but naughty conversation in a public place where someone, including children, may overhear? I think yes to both, but I do also see the difference to those two for debate.
I'm taking in different viewpoints on term limits and still unsettled where I fall. I do agree with all of your points about it, especially in light of Obama's abuse of power to keep his own party in power; imagine what he could and would have done if he personally were running again, if it were to maintain his own power rather than to make sure she got Her Turn.
So thanks for the insight!
The individual website issue certainly IS nuanced, and I would hope there would be an aspect of freedom of association applied. I’m okay with websites like us where we say that this is our viewpoint and only come here if you agree. The left should be allowed to have this as well, as long as they are open and honest about it, without pretending they are fair, balanced, and neutral.
As for the public indecency, what I was mainly thinking of was stuff like the nyc gay pride parade type stuff where people are running around naked and/ or with dildos strapped all over themselves. Really I’d be fine as long as there is no public nudity, or clearly violent or sexual language in places that children could reasonably be expected to be at that time of day. A comedian on stage doing a raunchy or vulgar set would be fine with me, anyone who doesn’t like it can either not buy a ticket, or get up and leave. Demonic drag queen story time at the local library’s kids corner? Hell no. As for where the line between those two should be, I have no clue.
These days, I'm forced to wonder that if Constitutional Amendments are important enough to enshrine as critical limits to government, why aren't they also for every individual, organization or company as well. Maybe I haven't thought it through well enough (entirely possible), but it seems like that would ensure a society closer to the one we envision.
I have a hard time with the whole premise due to how local elections are so easily bought by Soros.
That said:
'#1 Any service funded by data collection & sales is a public forum. Any paid/donation funded services should not be held to the public forum standard. Also any entity that receives government funding will be considered a public forum area.
'#4 Four years each would be better IMO, but eight at the very most for staffers.
'#8 pulls be better IMO 'No individual shall pay more than 10% of their income per year in tax & shall choose which taxes to pay for with that 10% (property, sales, income/town, state, federal)
I would add:
'#9 All local police chiefs & top law enforcement positions in states shall be elected officials.
Could you clarify what you mean? Are you saying let people pick between:
paying property taxes at local level
paying sales taxes at state level
paying income taxes at federal level
Or are you saying let people chose which way to pay (property, sales, or income) and who gets the money (local, state, federal)?
How would sales taxes work in any of those scenarios? How would businesses know wether we have opted to pay sales taxes or not? How would businesses know who the tax money should go to? How would the government know that we had actually been paying the sales taxes? Would the local, state, or federal government have access to our banking records to see when we buy things to check that we are properly paying sales taxes? I don’t think optional sales taxes would be very practical.
Let the people choose which way to pay & which level of government gets those funds. Cap the amount that can be paid in tax of every single individual based on their ability to produce value.
Good point in the sales tax regarding businesses not knowing, though it could be as easy as setting a federal flat sales tax, income tax goes to states, and any sale done online or through a CC/Debit transaction should be easy enough to track.
End of the day any of these should be paid at the end of the year by individuals instead of by others (ie employers paying half of the income tax).
If we didn't change things up, POS systems could easily request that sales tax be paid to the state & ask if your yearly deductible had been met.
In reality a flat tax of some sort is the easiest to make work.
Let the people choose which way to pay & which level of government gets those funds. Cap the amount that can be paid in tax of every single individual based on their ability to produce value.
Good point in the sales tax regarding businesses not knowing, though it could be as easy as setting a federal flat sales tax, income tax goes to states, and any sale done online or through a CC/Debit transaction should be easy enough to track.
End of the day any of these should be paid at the end of the year by individuals instead of by others (ie employers paying half of the income tax).
If we didn't change things up, Point Of Sale systems could easily request that sales tax be paid to the state & ask if your yearly deductible had been met using a tax account/card that tallied the total paid every year.
In reality a flat tax of some sort is the easiest to make work.