Holybullshit said:

Can you explain it?

---

mushboy said:

in lowbrows joke hes the guy in the uniform?

---

HagbardCeline said:

lowbrow said:

I wouldnt know, im not a fascist

---

I know your snowflake ass has me ignored (afraid you would melt if your brain attempted an actual rebuttal, ignoring is only thing keeping you alive) but you don't understand the terminology, the correlation, or the consequences, so just stop at the "I wouldn't know" it is the only truthful remark you are capable of.

---

Holybullshit said:

It's the best we've got. No other system has come anywhere close to providing the same amount of security, prosperity, and freedom for any length of time. Especially for the average person.

That's just why we need limits on money in elections and politics, protect and support the free press, and make a concerted effort to remove foreign influence and interference from our info sphere.

America just has a really shitty version of it between the loose campaign finance laws, the gerrymandered house, the undemocratic senate, the EC making most state presidential elections meaningless, and lifetime tenured unelected officials on the SCOTUS with no oversight...and even it works halfway well when we actually attempt to prevent corruption and most the population is tethered to reality.

---

Enlil said:

Holybullshit said:

That's just why we need limits on money in elections and politics, protect and support the free press, and make a concerted effort to remove foreign influence and interference from our info sphere.

---

All of those are at odds with each other, and I haven't the first clue how we could do even two of them much less all.

---

You love citizens united though, thats why you're saying you dont have 'the first clue'.

Overturning citizens united is a first critical step.

Its not easy no, but necessary yes.

sudly said:

Enlil said:

Holybullshit said:

That's just why we need limits on money in elections and politics, protect and support the free press, and make a concerted effort to remove foreign influence and interference from our info sphere.

---

All of those are at odds with each other, and I haven't the first clue how we could do even two of them much less all.

---

You love citizens united though, thats why you're saying you dont have 'the first clue'.

Overturning citizens united is a first critical step.

Its not easy no, but necessary yes.

---

sudly said:

If people's lives are too easy, are you suggesting we make it harder?

And what is "too easy" relative too?

---

vicepope said:

sudly said:

If people's lives are too easy, are you suggesting we make it harder?

And what is "too easy" relative too?

---

Surviving day to day from environmental pressures, starvation, heat,cold,  animals, diseases.  Yes we should make it harder for people. If someone of us here are willing to kill the weak because there in pain i don't see why not.

---

sudly said:

vicepope said:

sudly said:

If people's lives are too easy, are you suggesting we make it harder?

And what is "too easy" relative too?

---

Surviving day to day from environmental pressures, starvation, heat,cold,  animals, diseases.  Yes we should make it harder for people. If someone of us here are willing to kill the weak because there in pain i don't see why not.

---

So because cave men lived relatively difficult lives, (without any comparable work pressure, technology, society or economy), people should struggle more?

To me that sounds sadistic.

Killing the weak because theyre in pain? Assisted death is a thing but thats for terminally ill patients.

Not a single mum trying to make ends meet.

---

Near Dylan said:

how come

---

vicepope said:

sudly said:

vicepope said:

sudly said:

If people's lives are too easy, are you suggesting we make it harder?

And what is "too easy" relative too?

---

Surviving day to day from environmental pressures, starvation, heat,cold,  animals, diseases.  Yes we should make it harder for people. If someone of us here are willing to kill the weak because there in pain i don't see why not.

---

So because cave men lived relatively difficult lives, (without any comparable work pressure, technology, society or economy), people should struggle more?

To me that sounds sadistic.

Killing the weak because theyre in pain? Assisted death is a thing but thats for terminally ill patients.

Not a single mum trying to make ends meet.

---

If you want people to increase there intelligence more to fix democracy then yes.

---

Enlil said:

Near Dylan said:

how come

---

People would still have a right to spend unlimited money on independent campaign advocacy.

---

Enlil said:

The people who own and run corporations would, however.  People could still pool their money in other forms of associations for that purpose.  Money doesn't even win elections as it is.

Donations to campaigns are already capped.  We've gone over this ad nauseum.  You're going to tell me they aren't, and then we'll haggle a bit over the fact that a campaign is different from independent expenditures, then you're going to say that independent expenditures aren't truly independent, then I'm going to say that you've identified a problem of enforcement, not law, because it's already illegal for independent expenditures to coordinate with campaigns, and then we're going to go in circles and come to the point where you claim it would all be fixed by CU being gone and me saying you're wrong...

I'm not going to do this again.

---

Baby_Hitler said:

I have an idea.

---

sudly said:

So poor or struggling people are dumb, and it would be beneficial to cull them?

---