This is what I think
-
zeezelot last edited by
Post whatever you think about any subject, (it doesn't matter, who gives a hoot)
And this is what I think; it should be illegal for any special interest group to bribe or try to influence legislators of bureaucrats. Let the special interest groups bribe and try to influence the American people through mass-media with gifts and ads.
I also think any Federal law that the legislators or bureaucrats want to pass that effects more than 0.03% of the American people should be voted on by the people.
-
lem729 last edited by
Well, interesting ideas. But I think special interest groups have a free speech right to try to influence Congress and others. I mean what are special interest groups if not US citizens organized together. If one person has a right to try to persuade, why can't individuals organize collectively to try to persuade. Now bribery is a different matter. That sounds like it should be illegal illegal. As for that law that effects more than .03 percent of the American people needing to be voted on by the people, wow. Why we'd have elections every day, and forever. And imagine the advertisements running on TV every night, maybe five hours a night touting a cause. The whole nation would go stark, raving mad and have a collective breakdown.
Perhaps. -
lem729 last edited by
I have an idea, that follows from my last post. I think that in Presidential Campaigns in the US, advertising on radio and television should only be permitted for one month before the election. It would at least limit all of the lying and deception you have to listen to
-
sgunhouse Moderator Volunteer last edited by
When is the primary election? It is not unusual for primary candidates in the other party to campaign against the current President rather than the candidates in their own party - they are trying to prove to people that they are the one who could beat the incumbent after all. So you still have 6 months of ads during the first half of the year ...
And I'm of the school that thinks laws which only effect 0.03% of the population should generally not exist, unless that 0.03% is defined by some rare crime or medical condition or some such.
-
lem729 last edited by
There could be a different rule for primary elections limiting advertising on TV and radio to a set period of time before each primary -- maybe 30 days. Debates could be something outside the limitation. Of course this favors well-known candidates and hurts others, so it's probably a bad idea. Still i get tired of wall-to-wall advertising. I vaguely think I heard how in England they have more restrictions on when you can advertise on the media.
Zeezelo was not referring to laws that affect .03 percent, but those that affect "more" than .03 percent. That's a lot of laws, where we'd have to have national elections. What a circus, it would be!
-
-
lem729 last edited by
Yes. Affect is right, meaning to produce an effect on. "Effect" as a verb means "cause to happen," and isn't the right word.
-
-
zeezelot last edited by
I think there should be a law that requires women and/or couples to have a permit before having a child or children. Financial stability, mental heath issues , social stability, etc. should be checked before the permit is given.
