Bull Ring Challenge to Boss on Congress, Corporations and Citizen Responsibility for Votes on federal laws

[emilynghiem]

This is a fun challenge to Boss who seems to hold individuals responsible for electing members of Congress as enough to check the VOTES that Congress delivers on federal laws.

I argued that corporate interests had unequal influence and pull, so that once the damage is done to taxpayers in favor of corporate interests, then this requires more corrections than single individuals can pursue. It requires federal lawsuits that require corporate level lawyers and entities such as Hobby Lobby to challenge, where individuals saying NO to ACA mandates get run over and kicked out of court unanswered and unrepresented.

I argue this is not equal, between the influence of citizens vs. corporate interests with COLLECTIVE resources and influence on govt officials, unequal to the individual citizen.

Since Boss keeps insisting individual citizens are responsible for electing Congress, and thus the votes these reps produce, I want to challenge Boss to answer WHO is responsible for fixing damages by federal decisions made in favor of corporations?

EX:
A. Headwaters Forest in CA was gutted by MAXXAM Corporation
who pays for that
1. taxpayers who already bailed out est. 1.6 billion in junk bonds and interest for MAXXAM to buy Pacific Lumber and the land holdings through a hostile takeover, crash the company to raid the pension funds and clearcut the forest, etc.
and who already paid an addition 500 million or so to buy out parts of the forest
2. the "individuals" and shareholders who ran MAXXAM before it went bankrupt and had to hand over remaining land after a contested court battle over this
3. the people in government who made the financial and legal decisions to issue junk bonds that failed
at taxpayer expense

Who pays for the damage to Headwaters Forest and the restoration work to the ecosystems
and endangered species. Do taxpayers have to pay for this since we elected officials who abused
govt this way?

My answer: the people should pressure the govt to go after the wrongdoers.
and either the actual wrongdoers who profited off the destruction should pay the TRUE COST
of that profit by restoring the damage done to make all that money
OR the taxpayers who pay for this restoration costs should get credit for the loans
and investment and possibly hold the Forest land and programs as COLLATERAL on the debts bailed out

So whoever takes responsibility gets ownership of the land and programs.
but I say NO to govt and corporations controlling it without taking responsibility for the full cost.
that's like giving a negligent abusive parent custody of kid, who isn't feeding that kid but
starving and damaging that poor kid to the point of dying. Either fix it or give up custody of that kid.
But NO to paying the abusive parent to abuse kids and never be held accountable.

B. ACA mandates that favor corporate insurance companies and impose
costs and penalties on individual citizens who didn't CONSENT to this contract

Who should pay for the 24 billion cost of the federal shutdown over contested budget issues with ACA

1. the Congress reps and President and Justices who votes FOR and SIGNED this ACA
though it was contested by half the nation whose beliefs were violated and creeds were discriminated against
2. the corporations who benefited and should pay back the money or else whoever
SUPPORTS ACA should pay the collective costs of funding and making it work
3. the taxpayers should foot the bill since we are the ones who elected the Congress members
and President

again my answer is that taxpayers should hold parties and govt leaders responsible for
recognizing right to health care is a belief similar to right to life, and either treat creeds with
equal weight and respect, or don't pass either one through govt laws where it is biased
toward one and discriminates against the other. or this is unconstitutional violation of equal protections.

I hold that the members of Congress and parties who pushed for the ACA should take responsibility
for paying back costs and for funding the mandates as optional/voluntary;
while opponents are equally required to pay back costs of similar unconstitutional violations,
including contested Iraq War contracts at taxpayer expense, and pay for health care reforms
that those people and parties believe in.

And any corporations that made money off the business agreements in ACA without consent
of taxpayers should get those funds covered by supporters of ACA, not by opponents.

It doesn't make sense to me to punish the taxpayers 1-3 times over
just because Congress pushed a bill past the dissenting voices and votes,
that favored corporate insurance interests over the opposition of taxpayers
who support either free market or Singlepayer/universal care WITHOUT corporate insurance getting paid.

Boss if you believe it is enough to voice our complaints to Congress,
my Congress rep is Sheila Jackson Lee. Who is yours? I'm happy to cowrite
and cosign a letter to both our reps and to the President and Supreme Court.

If individuals count equally as those forming large corporations,
then our dissent and consent should weigh the same. whether it is a single
person say yes or no, or a whole group with collectively more money and resources than we have.

I'm happy to establish your standards of holding individuals accountable.

So if you agree, can I challenge you to help me write a letter to just
Lee, Pelosi, Obama, Roberts, and your Rep and see if we can do just that?

Thanks Boss
if we have to go through a federal lawsuit then that proves my point.
If we can work one on one with individuals through govt and parties,
then we can fix the mess your way by addressing damages caused by corporate abuse of govt.

 

[emilynghiem]

Here's another example, Boss
Who is responsible for the deaths, poisoning and restitution in the Flint Michigan case of contaminated water:
A. the taxpayers who voted for the Governor, state and city officials?
B. the officials who either made poor decisions or committed negligence or reckless disregard for life and safety?
C. the physical laborers who actually performed the work orders to change water supply sources?
D. the individual people for drinking the water?
E. the people with knowledge of the crisis and ability to address and fix this, but failed to do so?

============

EMAIL from Michael Moore:

The crisis in my hometown of Flint, Michigan keeps getting worse.

As I explained in my email below, we already knew that Gov. Rick Snyder and his appointed emergency manager effectively poisoned children and their families by giving them drinking water full of lead and other toxins. They stopped using clean water from Lake Huron and started using dirty water from the extremely polluted Flint River. They believed it was more important to "cut costs" than protect public health.

The actual costs are staggering -- including children who will experience a lifetime of pain and suffering thanks to lead poisoning.

This week, we learned that 10 people died in Flint from Legionnaire's Disease, a dangerous and virulent illness usually spread through water. Those deaths came after the city was ordered to switch its water source to the Flint River.

Gov. Snyder has asked the federal government to declare a state of emergency in Flint. But he's still in office. He hasn't resigned. He hasn't been arrested. That must change.

More than 75,000 Democracy for America members have signed my petition urging Gov. Snyder to resign and be arrested for his crime of poisoning Flint's drinking water. Will you join them? Sign my petition today and let's bring justice to the people of Flint.

Thank you for fighting back.

Michael Moore
Filmmaker and Flint native

 

[Boss]

Emily, you continue to point to incidents where some corporate entity may have influenced some politician or group of politicians to get away with something. It's like you don't think that I know these things happen or something. Like I am naive and dumb... just not paying attention to what's going on... but I pay very close attention and I am well aware of these things. You're just not grasping my point.

Ultimately, it is the politician who is influenced by the corporation. Whether the corporation has "undue" influence is only a consideration when the politician is susceptible to that influence. Now.... people come in all shapes, sizes and flavors. Some are weak and malleable, can be pressured or persuaded with money or power, can be bought for a price, etc. Other people are above reproach, strong in their principles and can't be influenced. We are supposed to be electing those kind of people to represent us. The kind you would trust with your PIN number... your house key... your children.

We've gotten away from that because we seem to have accepted that it's someone else's fault if a person ends up being a slimeball. Here, you want to blame the corporation instead of who they are influencing. I'm saying, the corporation are only doing what they can get away with. If you didn't have a lock on your front door and every time you leave your house, people come in and steal your stuff... is that THEIR fault or YOUR fault? I guess one could argue it is both, but I think it's mostly YOUR fault for not locking your door. Now, if you locked your door and they broke in... different matter, that is criminal. If corporations are breaking the law and bribing public officials, that's a crime and we should punish anyone involved.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, you continue to point to incidents where some corporate entity may have influenced some politician or group of politicians to get away with something. It's like you don't think that I know these things happen or something. Like I am naive and dumb... just not paying attention to what's going on... but I pay very close attention and I am well aware of these things. You're just not grasping my point.

Ultimately, it is the politician who is influenced by the corporation. Whether the corporation has "undue" influence is only a consideration when the politician is susceptible to that influence. Now.... people come in all shapes, sizes and flavors. Some are weak and malleable, can be pressured or persuaded with money or power, can be bought for a price, etc. Other people are above reproach, strong in their principles and can't be influenced. We are supposed to be electing those kind of people to represent us. The kind you would trust with your PIN number... your house key... your children.

We've gotten away from that because we seem to have accepted that it's someone else's fault if a person ends up being a slimeball. Here, you want to blame the corporation instead of who they are influencing. I'm saying, the corporation are only doing what they can get away with. If you didn't have a lock on your front door and every time you leave your house, people come in and steal your stuff... is that THEIR fault or YOUR fault? I guess one could argue it is both, but I think it's mostly YOUR fault for not locking your door. Now, if you locked your door and they broke in... different matter, that is criminal. If corporations are breaking the law and bribing public officials, that's a crime and we should punish anyone involved.

Hi Boss NO I never said "blame the corporation INSTEAD of the politician"
They BOTH co-conspire to violate the equal rights/protections of the citizens under the same laws.

I thought YOU were saying to blame the taxpayers and not the people running corporations as a GROUP of individuals.

So if you and I both agree to hold
* corporations responsible for pushing things they know the citizens object to
* Congress responsible for pushing things only one side consents to while the other objects
then we can start from there, and add
* taxpayers are also responsible if we don't ASK or DEMAND corrections for those abuses

If you and I agree that the responsibility for abuses is shared,
then may we proceed to the next step:

GIVEN the shared responsibility, what role does each of the above
need to play in order to REDRESS and RESOLVE the grievance or abuse?

I offer that the taxpayers should (1) inform Congress NO we DON'T accept less than consensus
on any bill that involves conflicts of beliefs and, (2) SECONDLY, we order Govt officials to go after the
wrongdoers to pay the costs, not charge it back to us if we didn't approve such wasteful spending of our resources.
And that's where you are saying the Voters come in,
we can organize by party or by state and REFUSE to back candidates or REFUSE to
allow whole parties to run candidates for office until they write up plans to obtain restitution for
past abuses of their group members

Do you like that approach? Or do you think going through lawyers
and suing through courts is the way? Can this be done by petitioning through political parties?

What way would YOU prescribe for laying down plans for which citizens will vote for
and endorse candidates to follow, instead of leaving this to random chance? Thanks, Boss!

 

[Boss]

Emily, you continue to point to incidents where some corporate entity may have influenced some politician or group of politicians to get away with something. It's like you don't think that I know these things happen or something. Like I am naive and dumb... just not paying attention to what's going on... but I pay very close attention and I am well aware of these things. You're just not grasping my point.

Ultimately, it is the politician who is influenced by the corporation. Whether the corporation has "undue" influence is only a consideration when the politician is susceptible to that influence. Now.... people come in all shapes, sizes and flavors. Some are weak and malleable, can be pressured or persuaded with money or power, can be bought for a price, etc. Other people are above reproach, strong in their principles and can't be influenced. We are supposed to be electing those kind of people to represent us. The kind you would trust with your PIN number... your house key... your children.

We've gotten away from that because we seem to have accepted that it's someone else's fault if a person ends up being a slimeball. Here, you want to blame the corporation instead of who they are influencing. I'm saying, the corporation are only doing what they can get away with. If you didn't have a lock on your front door and every time you leave your house, people come in and steal your stuff... is that THEIR fault or YOUR fault? I guess one could argue it is both, but I think it's mostly YOUR fault for not locking your door. Now, if you locked your door and they broke in... different matter, that is criminal. If corporations are breaking the law and bribing public officials, that's a crime and we should punish anyone involved.

Hi Boss NO I never said "blame the corporation INSTEAD of the politician"
They BOTH co-conspire to violate the equal rights/protections of the citizens under the same laws.

I thought YOU were saying to blame the taxpayers and not the people running corporations as a GROUP of individuals.

So if you and I both agree to hold
* corporations responsible for pushing things they know the citizens object to
* Congress responsible for pushing things only one side consents to while the other objects
then we can start from there, and add
* taxpayers are also responsible if we don't ASK or DEMAND corrections for those abuses

If you and I agree that the responsibility for abuses is shared,
then may we proceed to the next step:

GIVEN the shared responsibility, what role does each of the above
need to play in order to REDRESS and RESOLVE the grievance or abuse?

I offer that the taxpayers should (1) inform Congress NO we DON'T accept less than consensus
on any bill that involves conflicts of beliefs and, (2) SECONDLY, we order Govt officials to go after the
wrongdoers to pay the costs, not charge it back to us if we didn't approve such wasteful spending of our resources.
And that's where you are saying the Voters come in,
we can organize by party or by state and REFUSE to back candidates or REFUSE to
allow whole parties to run candidates for office until they write up plans to obtain restitution for
past abuses of their group members

Do you like that approach? Or do you think going through lawyers
and suing through courts is the way? Can this be done by petitioning through political parties?

What way would YOU prescribe for laying down plans for which citizens will vote for
and endorse candidates to follow, instead of leaving this to random chance? Thanks, Boss!

I have no way of controlling what people do or how they decide to vote. I have no solution there. If we continue to elect people who can be influenced by corporations we can't expect corporate influence to not exist. You're not going to stop corporate influence unless you get rid of corporations, which simply isn't an option in a free market capitalist society. The only way to mitigate this problem is by electing people who can't be influenced.

I'm all for holding people accountable. There is not one single corporation in this country that we can't put out of business as consumers if we so desire. We have the power as consumers, the corporation depends on consumers. So if you have a corporation who is doing something unethical or bad... boycott them and get others to do the same.

With politics, start examining the people we elect more closely. Can they be trusted? Would you give them your credit card or let them handle your bank account? Would you let your daughter go out with them or work as their intern? We have to look below the surface a bit and see through the facade and veneer. We have to stop this insane habit of voting for the charismatic and likable person because they look good or say what we want to hear. We have to look at their life as a whole, what kind of person they have been.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, you continue to point to incidents where some corporate entity may have influenced some politician or group of politicians to get away with something. It's like you don't think that I know these things happen or something. Like I am naive and dumb... just not paying attention to what's going on... but I pay very close attention and I am well aware of these things. You're just not grasping my point.

Ultimately, it is the politician who is influenced by the corporation. Whether the corporation has "undue" influence is only a consideration when the politician is susceptible to that influence. Now.... people come in all shapes, sizes and flavors. Some are weak and malleable, can be pressured or persuaded with money or power, can be bought for a price, etc. Other people are above reproach, strong in their principles and can't be influenced. We are supposed to be electing those kind of people to represent us. The kind you would trust with your PIN number... your house key... your children.

We've gotten away from that because we seem to have accepted that it's someone else's fault if a person ends up being a slimeball. Here, you want to blame the corporation instead of who they are influencing. I'm saying, the corporation are only doing what they can get away with. If you didn't have a lock on your front door and every time you leave your house, people come in and steal your stuff... is that THEIR fault or YOUR fault? I guess one could argue it is both, but I think it's mostly YOUR fault for not locking your door. Now, if you locked your door and they broke in... different matter, that is criminal. If corporations are breaking the law and bribing public officials, that's a crime and we should punish anyone involved.

Hi Boss NO I never said "blame the corporation INSTEAD of the politician"
They BOTH co-conspire to violate the equal rights/protections of the citizens under the same laws.

I thought YOU were saying to blame the taxpayers and not the people running corporations as a GROUP of individuals.

So if you and I both agree to hold
* corporations responsible for pushing things they know the citizens object to
* Congress responsible for pushing things only one side consents to while the other objects
then we can start from there, and add
* taxpayers are also responsible if we don't ASK or DEMAND corrections for those abuses

If you and I agree that the responsibility for abuses is shared,
then may we proceed to the next step:

GIVEN the shared responsibility, what role does each of the above
need to play in order to REDRESS and RESOLVE the grievance or abuse?

I offer that the taxpayers should (1) inform Congress NO we DON'T accept less than consensus
on any bill that involves conflicts of beliefs and, (2) SECONDLY, we order Govt officials to go after the
wrongdoers to pay the costs, not charge it back to us if we didn't approve such wasteful spending of our resources.
And that's where you are saying the Voters come in,
we can organize by party or by state and REFUSE to back candidates or REFUSE to
allow whole parties to run candidates for office until they write up plans to obtain restitution for
past abuses of their group members

Do you like that approach? Or do you think going through lawyers
and suing through courts is the way? Can this be done by petitioning through political parties?

What way would YOU prescribe for laying down plans for which citizens will vote for
and endorse candidates to follow, instead of leaving this to random chance? Thanks, Boss!

I have no way of controlling what people do or how they decide to vote. I have no solution there. If we continue to elect people who can be influenced by corporations we can't expect corporate influence to not exist. You're not going to stop corporate influence unless you get rid of corporations, which simply isn't an option in a free market capitalist society. The only way to mitigate this problem is by electing people who can't be influenced.

I'm all for holding people accountable. There is not one single corporation in this country that we can't put out of business as consumers if we so desire. We have the power as consumers, the corporation depends on consumers. So if you have a corporation who is doing something unethical or bad... boycott them and get others to do the same.

With politics, start examining the people we elect more closely. Can they be trusted? Would you give them your credit card or let them handle your bank account? Would you let your daughter go out with them or work as their intern? We have to look below the surface a bit and see through the facade and veneer. We have to stop this insane habit of voting for the charismatic and likable person because they look good or say what we want to hear. We have to look at their life as a whole, what kind of person they have been.

Okay Boss so with boycotts
What about boycotting both parties till they agree to
A. assess the corruption and cost to taxpayers of abuses of their candidates and leaders
(and the members of parties can make a bucket list of which charges they want to go after in teams)
B. work with law schools and law firms to set up a system of negotiating settlements and reimbursement to taxpayers
where the cost of managing the wrongs and the payback is added to the cost the WRONGDOERS agree to pay not the victims
C. and either the wrongdoers pay back the taxpayers, over time with either interest earned on the LOAN (ie not a corporate handout)
or if law abiding citizens/taxpayers/groups raise money to buy out the debt/damages, then either property/programs that
are part of correcting the problems are held as COLLATERAL by whoever bails out this debt. So if taxpayers have to
pay for corruption and abuse, at least we get land holdings or control of programs in return for our INVESTMENT.

Can we boycott parties not to spend any more money on campaigns but to put
a certain % into setting up model solutions, such as campus development and military prisons/hospitals along the border.

Can 1-5% of financial campaign contributions and/or spending go into each parties'
proposed solutions, so that the candidates get to advertise which of their ideas actually works
BEFORE people vote for candidates or their ideas?

If we have to separate faith-based beliefs from Govt, why not require the parties to PROVE their
ideas work first, by building a working model, using funds that currently go into media campaigns.
Why not build solutions and promote that through the media as the election campaigns?

What do you think of that idea Boss

Or what kind of boycott did you have in mind?

 

[Boss]

Okay Boss so with boycotts
What about boycotting both parties till they agree to...

I stopped reading here because you missed the point. I said we should boycott corporations who unethically influence politicians. Boycotting political parties is stupid because you are essentially boycotting your own voice and say in who is elected. I don't believe we get anywhere boycotting ourselves.

We need to be more active in politics and party business, if anything. Mostly, we need to be electing people of high moral and ethical character who cannot be bought or influenced. We can't fix this problem until we do that. Previously, I gave you the analogy of not having a lock on your door and the problem of people stealing your stuff when you are away... okay, you think this problem can be fixed if we put a sign in the yard that says... The stuff in this house is mine, please leave it alone! Well, guess what? That won't work. You have to put locks on your door and put criminals in your neighborhood behind bars. That's how you fix the problem, and anything short of this simply doesn't work. Planning a cook-out and inviting over all the robbers to have a sit-down and negotiation won't work. Hiring a house sitter who looks nice but is in cahoots with the burglars... doesn't work. Getting a cannon and annihilating every person who walks by your house... may work, but it's not a practical solution. The reasonable and sound solution is to put a lock on your door and demand that criminals be prosecuted and put behind bars when they commit burglary.

 

[emilynghiem]

Okay Boss so with boycotts
What about boycotting both parties till they agree to...

I stopped reading here because you missed the point. I said we should boycott corporations who unethically influence politicians. Boycotting political parties is stupid because you are essentially boycotting your own voice and say in who is elected. I don't believe we get anywhere boycotting ourselves.

We need to be more active in politics and party business, if anything. Mostly, we need to be electing people of high moral and ethical character who cannot be bought or influenced. We can't fix this problem until we do that. Previously, I gave you the analogy of not having a lock on your door and the problem of people stealing your stuff when you are away... okay, you think this problem can be fixed if we put a sign in the yard that says... The stuff in this house is mine, please leave it alone! Well, guess what? That won't work. You have to put locks on your door and put criminals in your neighborhood behind bars. That's how you fix the problem, and anything short of this simply doesn't work. Planning a cook-out and inviting over all the robbers to have a sit-down and negotiation won't work. Hiring a house sitter who looks nice but is in cahoots with the burglars... doesn't work. Getting a cannon and annihilating every person who walks by your house... may work, but it's not a practical solution. The reasonable and sound solution is to put a lock on your door and demand that criminals be prosecuted and put behind bars when they commit burglary.

But that doesn't address the fact that corporations like WalMart are too big to boycott.

And we CAN elect candidates without the two major parties deciding that race,
by doing the equivalent of SANCTIONING THEM. Basically banning them from running
due to past violations until these are rectified. So that would open the door for candidates
WHO AREN'T BOUGHT OUT BY THE COMMERCIAL CORPORATE GAME. DUH.

Boss I've said all along that when it comes to issues of BELIEFS,
this requires a CONSENSUS or somebody's equal rights are violated. And that's unconstitutional.

So we CAN check decisions by govt by demanding that issues of beliefs
require CONSENSUS in order to pass laws. So this cannot be bought out.
If someone tries to buy their way past someone, then there are objections, so NO CONSENSUS.

This would put a check on govt, NO MATTER WHO GETS ELECTED
NO MATTER WHICH CORPORATIONS INFLUENCE WHOM.

Either the policy reflects a consensus, or it cannot pass Constitutional standards
if it is biased by the belief of one side favored over the other. Both sides must agree or it's no go.

Boss I can only guess we mean the same thing
In order to have consensus we would have to have people agree to that standard.
So YES it means not having people in govt sold out to corporate interests.
But it also means all citizens agree not to buy or sell out interests either.
EVERYONE would have to agree to abide by consensus when it comes to conflicting beliefs.

So that INCLUDES what you are saying.
but it's also saying the citizens and corporations are on the same page and same standards also.
Not just the actual office holders in Govt, but all people represented by those decisions.

 

[Boss]

But that doesn't address the fact that corporations like WalMart are too big to boycott.

Total nonsense. Walmart just announced they will be closing some 1,200 stores nationwide.... Congratulations! The recent spate of Socialist railing against Walmart has effectively put about 10k people out of a job! One of the fastest growing corporations in America is Costco, who is a direct competitor of Walmart. Before Walmart was Kmart, before Kmart was Sears... there is always a top retailer and that top retailer is always subject to the laws of free market capitalism. Consumers have ALL the power... Corporations can't exist without the consumer.

Basically banning them from running due to past violations until these are rectified.

And I am staunchly opposed to banning anyone from freedom of political speech. I think you are moving in the WRONG direction with that idea. Just like with the corporation, YOU, the VOTER, hold all the cards with regard to who survives as a political party. It's precisely why we don't have Whigs anymore.

Both sides must agree or it's no go.

Again, a preposterous notion that essentially paralyzes us. Lincoln said it best... you can't please all the people all the time. The very nature of politics is disagreement and compromise. That's our brilliance as a free society, we have a system which allows that.

 

[emilynghiem]

And I am staunchly opposed to banning anyone from freedom of political speech. I think you are moving in the WRONG direction with that idea. Just like with the corporation, YOU, the VOTER, hold all the cards with regard to who survives as a political party. It's precisely why we don't have Whigs anymore.

RE: Both sides must agree or it's no go.

Again, a preposterous notion that essentially paralyzes us. Lincoln said it best... you can't please all the people all the time. The very nature of politics is disagreement and compromise. That's our brilliance as a free society, we have a system which allows that.

Good point Boss let's start by clarifying this point of what I really mean.
Not banning free speech, but banning the PASSING and ENFORCING of laws based on discriminatory beliefs that BAN or PENALIZE people of opposing beliefs that are equally valid and protected under law.

Ex: the ban on same sex marriage went too far. This should be included under religious freedom.
But neither same sex marriage or traditional marriages should be IMPLEMENTED through the state
(without consensus by all the state's people on how the law is written and enforced) because this involves
BELIEFS the govt cannot force anyone to compromise or change, much less exclude and penalize.

Ex: the ACA mandates penalize any other choices of paying for health care, even free market and charity,
and only exempt the regulated, narrowly defined options the federal govt approves. so it's basically regulating on the basis of religion or religious affiliation with pre-approved groups, or discriminating and penalizing by creed

What I'm saying is "conspiring to violate equal civil rights" is the parties being abused to PASS these biased bills and judicial rulings that are at most, split 50/50 because equal numbers of people have beliefs on both sides.

So to CLARIFY ,Boss, I am saying
IN CASES OF BELIEFS
Then we need to have either consensus or separation and let different beliefs be treated and
exercised equally in private and NOT pass any laws on the public/govt level UNLESS people
agree on the language
WHERE BELIEFS ARE INVOLVED

When laws are secular, and people agree to a 2/3 vote or 3/4 or 51% etc.
this is not a matter of BELIEF so people can agree to majority rule

WHEN IT COMES TO BELIEFS
Boss I have never seen ANYONE who agrees to violate their own beliefs
because someone else's group got the majority at 2/3 or 51% or whatever.
Even when it's 99 to 1, someone's beliefs are still supposed to be protected.

Where we go wrong is when someone's beliefs are seen as abusing or violating law,
such as letting people use free market to pay for health care is imposing burdens on taxpayers to pay
what isn't getting covered that way.
The MISTAKE is saying "only by mandating insurance can govt fix this problem"
That isn't the only way
Banning abortion isn't the "only way" -- there are ways to prevent abuse and abortion without banning it.

So when it comes to BELIEFS about
right to life, right to health care
right to bear arms, right to vote
freedom of choice, free market beliefs
people are not going to compromise their BELIEFS
THAT is where I'm saying consensus is required to protect BELIEFS ON BOTH SIDES
NOT have govt side with one and impose on the other which is DISCRIMINATION BY CREED

So you can have all the 'free speech' you want
I'm not saying to ban that.

But if the parties do NOT correct the problems and abuses they caused
by VIOLATING EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS BY PUSHING UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS
Then as PUNISHMENT for this class level violation, of depriving entire populations
of people of their free market rights without any proof or due process the penalized people committed
any crime abuse or violation whatsoever,
then that party could be sanctioned UNTIL THE PLANS FOR CORRECTION ARE SETTLED.

If they have a PLAN to correct what was enforced UNCONSTITUTIONALLY
(ie the Republican party members and leaders who also backed illicit war spending at taxpayer
expense and can be argued as owing trillions that should be helping reform the VA and helping Vets
left without adequate support)
THEN the people can choose to respect that as a solution if that's good enough.

There are no constitutional checks directly on PARTIES.
So the people can enforce these standards and agree not to use parties
in ways that collectively conspire to violate the equal beliefs and rights of others.

I certainly don't believe in abusing parties this way.
If everyone agreed that type of LEGISLATION should not be ALLOWED ANYWAY
then it would stop.

But again Boss what about legislation that has already been passed and enforced that way?
Wouldn't sanctions send a message that parties need to fix their platforms, recognize how much
are beliefs that not all the public shares, and ask NOT TO CROSS THAT LINE into "imposing
partisan beliefs by abusing govt authority to force it on others"

How do we send that message Boss
I thought demanding that parties correct and reimburse for damages from abuses
would send a consistent message that such collusion is not consistent with Constitutional
equal protections of beliefs and creeds, so we should not be passing such laws but correcting damage done by them

 

[Boss]

Okay, you started a thread about Congress, corporations and citizens responsibility for votes on federal laws. Most of this latest post is about social issues where Congress passed laws upholding traditional marriage. Then you go on and on about our BELIEFS and how we need to somehow restrict Congress from passing certain laws unless they meet certain criteria, etc.

Look... I understand, if Congress has done something that you don't agree with and you feel frustrated. I often feel that way as well but we cannot start tinkering around with the system to try and fix this. People have partisan beliefs and they have every right to lobby for those beliefs. It doesn't matter if they belong to corporations or religious groups, or even if their partisan view is the result of that relationship... it's still their right.

Now, regarding SOCIAL issues, I do not believe the founding fathers or our Constitution ever intended FEDERAL government to deal with social issues among the population. I think they had in mind that these things would be dealt with at the state and local level because the nature of our relationships are too difficult to apply a cookie-cutter approach. And this is what I hear you saying you have a problem with, but the genie is out of the bottle, we've embarked on a future where precedent has been set and many people feel it's the federal government's responsibility to make these decisions. And if not the federal government, the Supreme Court.

Granted, this probably all started with slavery and many of the issues resolved were good things... like women's suffrage and civil rights, but it's simply not how our founders intended things to be done and we're dealing with that today. So, for better or worse, it's the system we have now. That doesn't mean we have to keep on electing people who believe in statist government as opposed to federalist government. But whenever someone mentions "states rights" they are hooted down as a racist who wants to put blacks in chains and take away voting rights.

We can sit here and discuss all these things until we're blue in the face, it's not going to change. I thought our conversation was about the responsibility regarding who we elect and what those we elect are doing with regard to influence from corporations and special interests.

 

[emilynghiem]

I agree with this part Boss

Now, regarding SOCIAL issues, I do not believe the founding fathers or our Constitution ever intended FEDERAL government to deal with social issues among the population. I think they had in mind that these things would be dealt with at the state and local level because the nature of our relationships are too difficult to apply a cookie-cutter approach.

I don't agree with assuming nothing's going to change:

We can sit here and discuss all these things until we're blue in the face, it's not going to change. I thought our conversation was about the responsibility regarding who we elect and what those we elect are doing with regard to influence from corporations and special interests.

A. who we elect IS one of the responsibilities we do need to be more consistent about;
AND in addition to that, I push for these other responsibilities also:
B. writing our own policies where they do meet the criteria we are talking about on keeping social issues LOCAL and "out of federal govt" instead of trying to pass cookie-cutter laws for all
C. teaching people (both inside and out of govt, both in communities and in corporations, both workers and managers, both rich and poor, both Black and White, both Men and Women, both Older and Younger) the Constitutional principles and ethics so everyone can agree to be on the same page
D. enforcing these standards by teaching and offering assistance in MEDIATING to resolve social and belief issues so these DON'T become "federal cases"

Boss that's the only part I would take issue with you on

It takes MORE than just voting and watching who we elect

it takes writing laws and contracts and mediating conflicts ourselves,
teaching people to govern their own affairs AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE
so that way, Boss, people CAN BE EDUCATED on what we vote on,
WHICH PEOPLE REPRESENT US

Boss if people don't even know what it takes to resolve a conflict in beliefs
over marriage or transgender issues, how can we expect to elect leaders who can do this?
If we don't even know it can be resolved, or what solutions look like, we're going to vote for BS
pushed on us as the only choices.

So this DOES AFFECT who we vote for, if we resolve conflicts and
SET A HIGHER STANDARD of Constitutional policies, standards and governance

YES Boss I do believe things CAN change
and ARE INEVITABLE.

Why? Because the current standards of political bullying are unsustainable.
Neither side is ever going to agree to a policy that was "bullied past them"
So that is never going to work, not with people's beliefs.

People by nature will never settle for their beliefs being run over by others, especially not govt.
So changing this WILL change who and how we vote for policies and people.

I believe this is inevitable.
You don't see this change happening, but I say people will not put up with
anything less than CONSENT as the standard on policies that affect their BELIEFS.

I've never met a human being willing to compromise forever, they may tolerate it temporarily
if they are overpowered, but by conscience they will fight to defend their free will and beliefs.
Until then they experience depression and anger, and all levels of damage.
This bullying is not sustainable, and eventually people will beg for a better way.
When they find it, they are relieved, they WANT solutions that don't violate their beliefs.

by establishing better solutions as the standard, for equal protection of the laws to be honored,
then this will change the standards by which we vote, judge, elect and appoint.

I believe this is happening now, and will continue to catch on until it becomes the norm.