It is clear to me that you do not understand the difference between a right and a law. I do not believe you ever will.
It's fascinating that I can't get you guys to explain yourselves. I'm not a child so "Because I said so" doesn't actually work.... :doh
I have no access to a billion dollars. I don't have that right.
I shouldn't have to become a billionaire to have an equal voice in society.
There are ~600 billionaires in a country of 300 million.You have the same right to earn a billion dollars as anyone else. Equal rights under the law means govt wont treat you different soley based on your wealth or lack of. You have one vote, so does a rich guy. You can run for office, so can a rich guy. You can petition govt, so can a rich guy.
There are ~600 billionaires in a country of 300 million.
By those odds, I have a roughly 1/500,000 of working my way up to reaching billionaire status. Those are ridiculously long odds just to reach the billion dollars necessary to reach 1/36th of either of the Koch brothers respective $36 billion dollars.
That's unrealistic that I should have to outearn 299.999 million other people just to have the ability to keep equal speaking power with an elite segment of the population. That's not protecting free speech, that's protecting a plutocracy.
My congressman is Darrell Issa. I didn't vote for him. Ever. Is that fair?I live just north of you. I am a registered Republican. At least for the foreseeable future, I have ZERO chance of seeing issues I believe in passing the state legislature. My candidate of choice will likely NEVER get elected to the state legislature or to the US congress. Is that fair?
I believe it is.
My congressman is Darrell Issa. I didn't vote for him. Ever. Is that fair?
I believe it is.
I'm advocating reducing spending and financial influence on elections as a means of reducing corruption and the duopoly of ideas.So why the concern over billionaires?
The SEIU has ripped off the taxpayers in California after buying Democrat legislators in Sacramento. Do you have a problem with those millions spent to buy favors, or is it just the billionaires you envy who you object to?
I'm advocating reducing spending and financial influence on elections as a means of reducing corruption and the duopoly of ideas.
I am increasingly shifting towards favoring government funded elections.Right. But what the SEIU does is not an issue. Either your all in, or you're not in at all.
I am increasingly shifting towards favoring government funded elections.
The naive idealist in me likes to think that if we can reduce the focus on fundraising from politicians we can reduce influence and corruption throughout their terms. If that's not achieved greater reform can always be enacted.But how do you get the rest of the money corruption out of elected office. When scandal was uncovered in the In Home Support Services program in California, and SEIU union members were shown to be committing fraud, my local Assembly Member introduced a bill calling for an investigation. Her bill was sponsored by the SEIU. Needless to say, it didn't go anywhere, while the SEIU collected tens of millions per year in dues paid for by taxpayers.
Elections are one thing. How about the rest, or does that not matter to you?
I'm advocating reducing spending and financial influence on elections as a means of reducing corruption and the duopoly of ideas.
There are ~600 billionaires in a country of 300 million.
By those odds, I have a roughly 1/500,000 of working my way up to reaching billionaire status. Those are ridiculously long odds just to reach the billion dollars necessary to reach 1/36th of either of the Koch brothers respective $36 billion dollars.
That's unrealistic that I should have to outearn 299.999 million other people just to have the ability to keep equal speaking power with an elite segment of the population. That's not protecting free speech, that's protecting a plutocracy.
I'm advocating reducing spending and financial influence on elections as a means of reducing corruption and the duopoly of ideas.
Opportunity doesn't end at "try," that's simply where it should begin.As I said, you have the same right to try. Thats what equality is.
Once I have my first billion in campaign financing amassed I'll seek your ethical divining rod to ensure it's spent properly.You would make more headway if you simply stopped voting for corrupt politicians. Go spend a billion to convince others to do the same.
As I said, you have the same right to try. Thats what equality is.
Opportunity doesn't end at "try," that's simply where it should begin.
Once I have my first billion in campaign financing amassed I'll seek your ethical divining rod to ensure it's spent properly.
Leveling the playing field between billionaires and the rest of us is fundamental for pursuit not to be a meaningless endeavour.Under the law it does. Its called pursuit of happiness, not achievement.
Leveling the playing field between billionaires and the rest of us is fundamental for pursuit not to be a meaningless endeavour.
If your definition of "socialism"' is anything left of plutocracy, then sure. Socialism.So, socialism.
If your definition of "socialism"' is anything left of plutocracy, then sure. Socialism.
"Leveling the playing field" is a continuum that can include shaving off the tippy tops of the biggest mountains all the way down to bulldozing and steam rolling the entire surface.Its not. Its what you said. Reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator. Social equality.
"Leveling the playing field" is a continuum that can include shaving off the tippy tops of the biggest mountains all the way down to bulldozing and steam rolling the entire surface.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?