Neat, so when will the Constitution levitate out of its protective case, fly across the country, and decapitate every government official that has violated it via a paper cut?
When?
Because clearly you believe that paper has power, and that people are powerless in the face of paper.
That's the whole point George W. Bush was making when he called the Constitution "nothing but a piece of paper".
Without enforcement, it can't do anything. However, when someone decides to enforce it, it is the legitimacy behind the actions taken to enforce it. And, the thing about our system of justice is that there is a way to force the government to enforce the rule of law. Only downside is that you must be intelligent and informed enough to know how to force the government to enforce the rule of law.
For example, do you know how to file a criminal complaint and demand a prosecutor prosecute someone for breaking the law? Even if he doesn't want to?
No. It's not called "guns" and it's guns that will make it impossible.
It's called "the code of criminal procedure" and "the code of civil procedure". It lays out, at a 10th grade reading level, how to get remedy when you are harmed or know someone who has caused a specific harm.
Words that if you bother to read them string together sentences which illustrate an authority given to you to justify actions that will force the government to do what the words in the paper say.
I know, it's a difficult concept. It starts with reading, which is definitely beyond most people.
So, you don't want anyone whose ever been successful in business to be president, or in Congress, unless they are willing to give away all their money?
Give away? No silly, you can cash it all in - but the ups and downs during your residency are not going to work in your favor. No chance for conflict of interest!
So, to play in politics for 2 years, you have to cash in all your stocks, even the illiquid ones. Who would do that? Certainly no one I'd want making decisions for this country.
You can buy back in when you are done. You are acting like business is more important than the welfare of the people - and that’s exactly the kind of kikenigger that shouldn’t be representing our republic.
Who would do that? Exactly the kind of person that would think about others over themselves. That’s twice you tried to misconstrue my point - get out of here with your illogical hang ups and reread OPs post. The point is to attract actual representatives - not opportunists.
Maybe there could be something that freezes those assets where any profits goes into public funds. You are being very narrow minded here.
I'm not acting like "business is more important than the welfare of the people". I'm saying that the best people in business are a better option than some faggot who doesn't know shit about running a business, who got into politics because he's a sociopath that enjoys petty power. I far more prefer someone with a proven record of running a business and making smart financial decisions than some "community organizer" with a law degree from Nigger University.
You're not thinking this through. Imagine if a billionaire like Bezos, just for example, wanted to get into politics. You're gonna make him sell his Amazon stock? Do you have any idea what that would do to the price of the stock? To the company itself? Or, what about those people who have stocks that they aren't allowed to liquidate? Like Trump's Truth Social stock. He can't run for office because he got paid in shares of stock that he isn't permitted to liquidate? Your rule would bar anyone successful from holding office or force them to tank the market or the companies they hold interest in.
best people in business are a better option than some faggot who doesn't know shit about running a business, who got into politics because he's a sociopath that enjoys petty power
Damn, you are dumb. Where did I say no businesses man is allowed? If anything, the business man with enough self made wealth will still be the top contender in this situation. You even failed to offer other options that would allow said business man to continue to prosper after leaving office, like another user here did. The entire point of this is to not allow CONFLICT OF INTEREST, much like how Pelosi and other Democrats who have made money because of their ties to USPS and other institutions; making laws that directly benefit your company over the people is a very big problem that I was trying to address, but here you are acting like a complete fucking nigger retard.
You said "no business men allowed" when you suggested that anyone with stock would have to sell their stock before they could run. The idea that they could "buy it back" when they finished being in office is ridiculous, too. Huge earners, of the type to be in business and a potential president or Senator, would have investments that would destroy the market and the companies that they are invested in if they were to sell off that investment to run.
And, this conflict of interest thing is silly.
1. You ignored the point about a Bezos figure selling off his position in Amazon and what they would do to Amazon and the market. And,
2. If a politician presents a concerning conflict of interest, file charges or vote that politician out. The relatively few who pull that shit are insignificant to the damage caused by your proposal and doesn't get to the heart of the matter.
Corrupt politicians have 6 ways to Sunday to make money off their office that have nothing to do with insider information on potential investments. The only solution to fixing that is criminal charges and/or voting them out.
To amend implies "to free from"...others suggest amendments to free ones mind from response-ability (free will of choice) by tempting one to shirk it onto representatives.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws respecting an establishment of religion; prohibiting the free exercise of religion...
Religion/religo - "to bind anew" implies using ones free will of choice to bind self to another when consenting to a suggestion. That's why the FIRST amendment prevents others control over ones choice...unless consented to.
[ + ] Tallest_Skil
[ - ] Tallest_Skil 2 points 7 monthsNov 6, 2024 07:45:30 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 7 monthsNov 6, 2024 07:58:51 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] Tallest_Skil
[ - ] Tallest_Skil 2 points 7 monthsNov 6, 2024 08:05:10 ago (+2/-0)
When?
Because clearly you believe that paper has power, and that people are powerless in the face of paper.
When will this happen.
Do tell.
Or maybe words on a piece of paper don’t matter.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX -1 points 7 monthsNov 6, 2024 09:13:45 ago (+0/-1)
Without enforcement, it can't do anything. However, when someone decides to enforce it, it is the legitimacy behind the actions taken to enforce it. And, the thing about our system of justice is that there is a way to force the government to enforce the rule of law. Only downside is that you must be intelligent and informed enough to know how to force the government to enforce the rule of law.
For example, do you know how to file a criminal complaint and demand a prosecutor prosecute someone for breaking the law? Even if he doesn't want to?
[ + ] Tallest_Skil
[ - ] Tallest_Skil 2 points 7 monthsNov 6, 2024 09:32:34 ago (+2/-0)
And when it’s ignored… nothing stops them. And when people enforce something it doesn’t contain… nothing stops them.
It’s called guns. That’s it. Nothing else can do it.
You point a gun at him or threaten to take away his pension. Nothing else works.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX -1 points 7 monthsNov 6, 2024 09:41:26 ago (+0/-1)
It's called "the code of criminal procedure" and "the code of civil procedure". It lays out, at a 10th grade reading level, how to get remedy when you are harmed or know someone who has caused a specific harm.
[ + ] Tallest_Skil
[ - ] Tallest_Skil 2 points 7 monthsNov 6, 2024 10:24:32 ago (+2/-0)
Hey, look at that. More words on paper. I’m sure that works.
Fuck off, imbecile.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX -1 points 7 monthsNov 6, 2024 11:03:22 ago (+0/-1)
I know, it's a difficult concept. It starts with reading, which is definitely beyond most people.
[ + ] Tallest_Skil
[ - ] Tallest_Skil 0 points 7 monthsNov 6, 2024 14:50:27 ago (+0/-0)
Fuck off, imbecile.
[ + ] ImplicationOverReason
[ - ] ImplicationOverReason 0 points 7 monthsNov 6, 2024 08:30:39 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Tallest_Skil
[ - ] Tallest_Skil 1 point 7 monthsNov 6, 2024 09:29:28 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] ImplicationOverReason
[ - ] ImplicationOverReason 0 points 7 monthsNov 6, 2024 11:01:29 ago (+0/-0)
b) Can one increase meaning? If so...how?
c) Mean/medius/medhyo - "middle"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/mean What's the middle in-between who said it and who heard it?
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 2 points 7 monthsNov 6, 2024 07:24:00 ago (+2/-0)
If its non-commercial, the USG has no say.
The original intent of our forefathers.
[ + ] SumerBreeze
[ - ] SumerBreeze 1 point 7 monthsNov 6, 2024 07:12:50 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 2 points 7 monthsNov 6, 2024 08:33:05 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 7 monthsNov 6, 2024 07:21:41 ago (+0/-0)*
[ + ] SumerBreeze
[ - ] SumerBreeze 1 point 7 monthsNov 6, 2024 07:28:14 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 7 monthsNov 6, 2024 07:49:42 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] SumerBreeze
[ - ] SumerBreeze 1 point 7 monthsNov 6, 2024 08:08:17 ago (+1/-0)*
Who would do that? Exactly the kind of person that would think about others over themselves. That’s twice you tried to misconstrue my point - get out of here with your illogical hang ups and reread OPs post. The point is to attract actual representatives - not opportunists.
Maybe there could be something that freezes those assets where any profits goes into public funds. You are being very narrow minded here.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 7 monthsNov 6, 2024 09:10:07 ago (+0/-0)
You're not thinking this through. Imagine if a billionaire like Bezos, just for example, wanted to get into politics. You're gonna make him sell his Amazon stock? Do you have any idea what that would do to the price of the stock? To the company itself? Or, what about those people who have stocks that they aren't allowed to liquidate? Like Trump's Truth Social stock. He can't run for office because he got paid in shares of stock that he isn't permitted to liquidate? Your rule would bar anyone successful from holding office or force them to tank the market or the companies they hold interest in.
[ + ] SumerBreeze
[ - ] SumerBreeze 0 points 7 monthsNov 6, 2024 11:30:40 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 7 monthsNov 6, 2024 11:45:29 ago (+0/-0)
And, this conflict of interest thing is silly.
1. You ignored the point about a Bezos figure selling off his position in Amazon and what they would do to Amazon and the market. And,
2. If a politician presents a concerning conflict of interest, file charges or vote that politician out. The relatively few who pull that shit are insignificant to the damage caused by your proposal and doesn't get to the heart of the matter.
Corrupt politicians have 6 ways to Sunday to make money off their office that have nothing to do with insider information on potential investments. The only solution to fixing that is criminal charges and/or voting them out.
[ + ] ImplicationOverReason
[ - ] ImplicationOverReason -1 points 7 monthsNov 6, 2024 08:39:36 ago (+0/-1)
Voting implies repelling representation onto others...an attractive opportunity for few to exploit many.
[ + ] Lost_In_The_Thinking
[ - ] Lost_In_The_Thinking 0 points 7 monthsNov 6, 2024 12:16:26 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] SundayMatinee
[ - ] SundayMatinee 0 points 7 monthsNov 6, 2024 10:43:17 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Portmanure
[ - ] Portmanure 0 points 7 monthsNov 6, 2024 07:46:16 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] i_scream_trucks
[ - ] i_scream_trucks 0 points 7 monthsNov 6, 2024 07:38:04 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] ImplicationOverReason
[ - ] ImplicationOverReason -1 points 7 monthsNov 6, 2024 08:25:42 ago (+0/-1)
To amend implies "to free from"...others suggest amendments to free ones mind from response-ability (free will of choice) by tempting one to shirk it onto representatives.
Religion/religo - "to bind anew" implies using ones free will of choice to bind self to another when consenting to a suggestion. That's why the FIRST amendment prevents others control over ones choice...unless consented to.
[ + ] x0x7
[ - ] x0x7 [op] 0 points 7 monthsNov 6, 2024 14:59:30 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Conspirologist
[ - ] Conspirologist -1 points 7 monthsNov 6, 2024 07:55:19 ago (+0/-1)
Also, put an age limit for political career.