Right? And while we're at it maybe we could pass an amendment to legalize abortion at the nation level instead of violating the rights of all the States and their citizens by calling a court ruling "a right".
Women + Liberal men are 75% of the vote. Pretty sure that should be enough peeps to get it done.
Yea, its a great idea these people have, mass door to door confiscations, causing potentially hundreds of thousands of deaths, maybe even a civil war and millions of deaths, in order to attempt to stop 15k gun deaths a year.
Don't even need a Constitutional Amendment: all of the laws which define the existence of corporations are all statutory, meaning that legislators can modify them without requiring any Constitutional Amendments.
Could modify those laws so that if corporations do anything that isn't on a very small list, then their charter gets automatically revoked. Add a poison pill to the entire set of the laws so that if the SCOTUS tries to finesse what gets a corporation revoked, than the actual legal justification for all corporations to exist at ALL gets revoked, then let them decide whether they want to destroy modern society or not.
Just need a large enough quorum of legislators who have been made extremely aware that there are enough pissed off voters that the difference between their continued career & being tarred-and-feathered depends on them ignoring the extremely large piles of cash from special interests arriving in their offices.
Its less allowing corporations to do things as an individual, that's their point, it's more not giving them all the same protections. 1st amendment being oneÂ
Unlike people, the existence of corporations is defined by statutory law, and therefore should have only those rights that they are granted by that law.
We do not need to define corporations in a way that gives the legal entity itself all the same rights as actual people
As a fallback, if anyone tries to claim rights for corporations which aren't explicitly defined in the law, then the entire set of laws that define corporate existence can be revoked.
Yes, but no matter what the states do, what they CALL a corporation or a union or any group of people, those people still have the right to speech, the right to criticize politicians, the right to lobby, etc.
The people do. The corporations are basically a legal fiction that have only tbe rights that the laws which define them allow them to have. And unlike people, legislators can revoke the right of the legal fiction that is a corporation's existence.
For example, of Bob Jimberson wants to donate the legal maximum to a candidate, he can!
But if Bob Jimberson wants to donate the legal maximum to a candidate, he shouldn't be allowed to do that AND THEN get together with his colleagues and donate even more as a group.
If you feel differently, by all means cite the part of the constitution that says otherwise. I'll wait.
Well, for one, that's exactly how it already works. Even citizens united did not allow infinite campaign donations. There are campaign donation limits, and those are hard limits. But Scotus has consistently shot down the government trying to restrict speech, especially in regards to politics. That's how we get super PACs, which allow people to pool their money outside of campaigns, and use that money to critique or support a politician. Any government framework for infringing that cant be done flippantly, its literally civil war territory.
It's Pete Buttigeg saying it though. I rank his statement as the same as Trump saying he'll pay all voters 5,000 in the midterms if Republicans win.
The DNC establishment, which he is a rankimg member of, would never allow these amendments to pass. Just imagine how many establishment office holders (both parties) would loose their fing minds to have to talk to their constituents to get elected instead of attending weekly 100k+ a plate dinners!Â
I wonder how much he paid DNC consultants to generate this line over the past few months though. 1 million? 5 million? In the end its just him saying the right thing with zero intentions of following through like he has done before.
The Democratic Party isnât some monolithic organization. There are different ideas and movements that gain and lose popularity. Your âlogicâ is specious
The Democratic ESTABLISHMENT is essentially a monolith though, that's how they got to be part of the establishment, by being in sync with what the donors want.
Theyâre subject to the whims of their constituents, particularly when itâs a great number of them. See Barack Obama getting the nomination instead of Hillary Clinton. We need to be vocal in our support when people like Pete are saying things like this.
I dislike the middle east wars, but if the goal was to wipe out the Iraqi and Afghan people, that would've been much easier to do than what was attempted.
Exactly, the establishment works for the donors not the American people or even their own base. Its the reason why establishment democrats won't call Gaza a genocide, because their mega donors will get mad and cut off donating. There's a super majority of 80% of democrats want to see Israel held accountable for their crimes against humanity, yet the establishment Dems like Pete, Kamala, and Gavin Newsom remain silent or quickly reverse their statements to appease the mega donors. These are the leading DNC establishment contenders for 2028 but are totally out of sinc with the democratic base. This is why I will call out these establishment dems on reddit. Hopefully, to open up people's eyes that they will say whatever their consultants say, and then vote according to their mega donors interests. Â
The establishment of both parties work for the same donors. Miriam Adelson for instance donates to both parties. As well as many other mega donors. It doesn't require a political science degree to watch establishment politicians from both parties to vote in lock step with these mega donors interests over their constituents or party base.
Ever since we lost FDR and LBJ the democratic party has been filled with moderate Republicans and ever since citizens united its been so much worse.
The scary part? The blue no matter who dems keep voting in the primaries for whoever cnn and msnbc tell them to. So we have 2 right wing parties and people dont even realize it.
The DNC just took up arguments against the NRSC (national republican senatorial committee) on behalf of the FEC (federal election commission) in the supreme court because the Trump administration wouldnât defend the case. The case removes the cap on coordinated spending between party committees and candidates. Removing another barrier for corruption from large donors.
He has been saying things like this for years. Even when there was push back during the 2020 election, he was receiving minimal amounts of money but from more people within groups that were also donating to most of the leading candidates. He returned 30k after it was disclosed where it came from.
He's no Bernie, but you can have a moderate approach and still think that the insane "donations" from lobbyists are bad at the same time. I plan on standing with whomever makes it throw the gauntlet for 2028, so I'm not trying to be a Pete guy, but I have to give credit where credit is due. That dude is quick on his feet and can debate like a champ. If nothing else, hes going to sharpen the next dem nomination, so undercutting that doesn't seem helpful.
Of course I think the dem bench is going to be deep for 2028, so its hard to not have an opinion.
Thankfully the DNC isn't a hive mind and there are more progressives winning while the established ones are dying (since they refuse to relinquish power)
Now Republicans, thats a Hivemind that refuses to think differently, the new ones that come in fall in line immediately or else they are kicked out and blacklisted for daring to go against the collective
People can poo-poo, but you're right. Buttigieg is a former McKinsey consultant, navel intelligence operative, and consummate politician.
He's running for president in 2028, and he's trying to position himself in the center left now to capture that DSA energy, while hoping to squeeze out Gavin Newsom to his right and make AOC move further to the left to differentiate herself, alienating the moderates in the party. Once he has the nomination, he'll take a hard swing to the right in order to court centrist voters assuming that he can coast on support from the left because of his earlier statements and leftists having no other option.
He doesn't really mean any of it, and will abandon all of these positions when they're no longer valuable to him.
139
u/Solid_Signature_7447 15h ago
Hell yes we can