Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

Problem's that pesky freedom of speech thing, mostly, space. There's a lot of precedent mostly saying you can't interfere with folks attempts at politickin'. You can limit how they go about it, to a degree, but the SC is probably going to kick you in the ass if you try to stop it entirely. And a lifetime ban? Stuff like that's not going to fly. You might be able to get away with it if it was a business doing something like that, in relation to their own business, but we'd be explicitly talking the government violating people's right to influence those government decisions via talkin', i.e. lobbying. Fund restrictions and whatnot are one thing, complete denial is a whole 'nother ballgame. There's not exactly a maximum time limit on the amount someone can try to influence decision making. Maybe you think that's unfortunate, but it's what we got.

Like, ferex.

Once a new guy is elected and power is peaceably transferred to new officials, why should the old officiajls be able to continue to influence government decisions?

The why is because I can influence those decisions. And you can. And anyone in this country, by and large. There's no rationing system in place for freedom of speech. You can keep someone from holding office but you're going to have a hell of a time keeping them from talkin' to the folks that do. Legally, anyway.

[Zangi]

The fifth point at least sounds reasonable. The Constitution and Bill of Rights doesn't apply to non US citizens. First amendment doesn't apply to them, they have their own nation's rules to follow. And why allow foreign groups to donate money or raise money for US elections?

You are, um, mistaken. Badly.

  Pesky corporations are people too.

[Zangi]

And, y'know, immigrants. It's not like we just show up and get citizenship instantly.

Yea, they are.  But immigrants tend not to be lobbyists.

[Spehss _]

The Constitution and Bill of Rights doesn't apply to non US citizens.

You are, um, mistaken. Badly.

You what. My understanding is that the Constitution was written in regards to how the United States government would work. The Bill of Rights was written to add onto what was written in the Constitution, in regards to what the US government can do and cannot do, and what rights citizens of the US have.

Other nations have their own rules, doctrines, plans of government, etc, and can model their own policies and laws and doctrines and whatever on the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, but that's up to other nations' governments and other nations' populations to decide. US can't say it's illegal for, say North Korea to control the North Korean press and pump out propaganda for the Grorious Reader because it violates the 1st amendment. US can condemn the action and say it's immoral but that doesn't mean the US Bill of Rights applies to what the government of the foreign nation of North Korea can and cannot do.

And, y'know, immigrants. It's not like we just show up and get citizenship instantly.

Oh, ok. I see the misunderstanding. I suppose I should have said "other people living in other countries".

[Sergarr]

I don't see what the problem is here. Government officials had their chance to influence government decisions and policies while they were working in the government. Once a new guy is elected and power is peaceably transferred to new officials, why should the old officials be able to continue to influence government decisions?

Because it helps everyone if the old officials are able to continue to contribute their experience to the common cause.

A state where new officials and old officials are not on speaking terms will rapidly devolve into a state where every such "peaceful transition" is more akin to a coup, and you don't really want to see that happen to your country.

It'll drastically reduce stability of foreign relationships, just as a most immediate example that comes to mind. And America's wealth (EDIT: and strength, can't forget that) is built on that very cornerstone.

[Zangi]

Well, another take on that, old officials will be 5 years out of date and have essentially been on vacation mode that whole time.

[Max™]

There are various bodies of international law acknowledged by the vast majority of nations on the planet, but they generally come into play when it is a grey area that isn't handled by local law or is specifically encoded as being a case where other nations can intervene in a fashion which is supported by international law if say, a nation declares that wiping out [insert ethnic/racial/religious/political/whatnot group here] is totally legal and begin just exterminating them, the rest of the world can pop in and say "yeaaah, about that, we're gonna need you to stop doing that, and... give back that stapler" since we figured it would be a good idea to go ahead and write down laws guaranteeing certain basic human rights after that whole thing with Germany and all.

[milo christiansen]

What, you don't want the McMullin to win? Just imagine - a POTUS elected with less than 10% of the popular vote! Mass joint riots from both Democrats and Republicans! It would immediately enter the political textbooks and become one of the most well-studied and notable political events of 21st century!

Actually he would be #1 in my book, but it seems a tad bit unlikely...

You are right that him getting the presidency would be awesome

[Rolan7]

Unsurprisingly, my brother *suddenly* cares a lot about the laws governing collusion between Americans United for Change, the DNC, and Clinton.  Doesn't matter that I believe the core part of the video (that activists were inviting violence upon themselves), no I'm blind for not believing this manipulative asshole's 3-second clips that imply Clinton signed off on this.  That these people were mysteriously willing to admit to her involvement too, by the way.

No we must keep an open mind and ignore this person's history of skilled deceit, and believe these clips because we'd rather not consider any other possible context than "Oh yes we're doing illegal stuff and Clinton knows!"  Fuck's sake.

He also thinks the volunteers putting themselves in harms way were in the wrong too though, which really hurts.  Because it's so similar to what I did in high school, with Critical Mass and similar... actions.  Never throw the first punch, just be heard and let *their* reactions be judged.

Meanwhile he thinks the firebombing was Clinton supporters.  Because that's totally what the "Incremental change" supporters would do, right?
Ugh, I don't mean to drive a wedge or simplify anybody's position...
HE sure does, though.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Population of Utah: 2.9 mil
Voting Rate: ~60% (Utah is technically lower, but they're weird and inconsistent about it so I'm using the national rate)
Minimum McMullin Vote To Win Utah: 26%

Minimum McMullin Vote: 452,400
US Population: 318,900,000
US Voter Turnout: 130,000,000

President McMullin received the vote of 0.348% of American voters, in a stunning display of democratic value.

[Max™]

The latest news from CNN is that the rest of the country has seceded from Utah.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Holy shit, the Donald is trying to get rid of the Iron Triangle? Wow, he's now slightly less of a vile scumbag in my opinion. Ever so slightly.

[Neonivek]

Holy shit, the Donald is trying to get rid of the Iron Triangle? Wow, he's now slightly less of a vile scumbag in my opinion. Ever so slightly.

Well... except for you know... his motives... AMERICA!

[Sergarr]

Holy shit, the Donald is trying to get rid of the Iron Triangle? Wow, he's now slightly less of a vile scumbag in my opinion. Ever so slightly.

Could it be coming from his campaign and not from the Trump himself? We've already had a few moments where they've disagreed with each other, on the issue of election's legitimacy in particular.

[Frumple]

The motive is spite, neo, not 'murrica. Which is why it's fairly likely it actually came from trump :V