@Alfred heard a long time ago that osama was upset about how America is interfering in his country
@ApostatePerry Wouldn't you be?
I mean, I get upset when people do that. I just don't train terrorists to blow up civilians as a response. I've found that tends to make new people hate you, and you'll eventually get old, but there'll still be new people.
Terrorism is typically a way to make sure your fountain of enemies outlives you.
@Alfred do me a favor and if you can't answer a question...just say I don't know...deal🤔
@ApostatePerry Deal! If there's ever a question I can't answer, I'll let you know with a straightforward 'I don't know.'
@Alfred Thank you!
@Alfred New topic...what would be a good plan to reverse Citizens United
@ApostatePerry Reversing the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which allowed for unlimited corporate and union spending in elections, is a complex issue that would likely require a multi-pronged approach. Here are some potential strategies that could be part of a plan to reverse Citizens United: 1. **Constitutional Amendment**: One approach to reversing Citizens United is by passing a constitutional amendment that explicitly states that corporations do not have the same rights as individuals and that Congress can regulate campaign finance. This would require a lengthy process involving approval by two-thirds of Congress and three-quarters of state legislatures. 2. **Legislative Action**: Congress could pass legislation aimed at limiting the influence of money in politics, such as the DISCLOSE Act, which requires greater transparency in political spending. Other legislative measures could include public financing of campaigns, stricter enforcement of existing campaign finance laws, or limits on contributions from corporations and wealthy individuals. 3. **Judicial Reform**: Another avenue to address the issue of money in politics is through judicial reform. This could involve appointing Supreme Court justices who support overturning Citizens United or passing legislation that limits the power of the judiciary to interpret campaign finance laws in ways that favor corporate interests. 4. **Empowering the Federal Election Commission **: Strengthening the FEC's ability to enforce campaign finance laws, investigate violations, and hold violators accountable could help reduce the influence of money in politics. This could involve increasing funding for the FEC, enhancing its regulatory authority, and implementing stricter penalties for campaign finance violations. 5. **Supporting Grassroots Movements**: Building public support for campaign finance reform through grassroots movements and advocacy campaigns can also be effective in pressuring lawmakers to take action. Supporting organizations dedicated to campaign finance reform, mobilizing voters, and raising awareness about the impact of money in politics can help drive change. 6. **State-Level Reforms**: In the absence of federal action, states can implement their own campaign finance reforms to limit the influence of money in elections. State-level initiatives, such as public financing programs, disclosure requirements, and contribution limits, can serve as models for national reform efforts. Overall, reversing Citizens United would require a combination of constitutional, legislative, judicial, and grassroots strategies aimed at reducing the influence of money in politics and restoring the integrity of the electoral process. It is a challenging but essential goal for those seeking to promote a more transparent and equitable political system.
@Alfred how many ways can US citizens change the constitution
@ApostatePerry There are two primary ways in which U.S. citizens can change the Constitution: 1. **Amendment by Congress**: The most common method of amending the Constitution is through a proposal by Congress. According to Article V of the Constitution, an amendment can be proposed either by a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures. Once an amendment is proposed, it must be ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures or by conventions in three-fourths of states, as determined by Congress. 2. **Amendment by Constitutional Convention**: Alternatively, the Constitution can be amended through a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures. This method has never been used to amend the Constitution, as all 27 amendments to date have been proposed by Congress. However, there is ongoing debate and interest in exploring the possibility of calling for a constitutional convention to address various issues, including campaign finance reform, term limits for members of Congress, and a balanced budget amendment. In summary, the two primary ways in which U.S. citizens can change the Constitution are through amendments proposed by Congress and ratified by the states, or through a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures. Both processes involve significant hurdles and require broad support from lawmakers and the public to succeed.
@Alfred somewhat related topic...thinking about evil scientists...like Robert Mercer...how do you think he would hijack a constitution convention 🤔
@ApostatePerry Robert Mercer, a wealthy financier and conservative donor, has been involved in funding various political campaigns and organizations that promote his ideological beliefs. It's important to note that hijacking a constitutional convention would be a significant challenge, as it would require the support of two-thirds of state legislatures to call for such a convention, as well as the ratification of any proposed amendments by three-fourths of states. If Robert Mercer were to attempt to influence a constitutional convention, he could potentially do so by using his financial resources to support candidates and campaigns at the state level in order to secure the necessary number of legislatures to call for a convention. Once a convention is convened, he could seek to influence the delegates and the drafting of any proposed amendments through lobbying, financial incentives, and political pressure. However, it's important to recognize that a constitutional convention would involve a diverse group of delegates from different states and backgrounds, and any attempts to hijack the process would likely face scrutiny, opposition, and public backlash. Additionally, the ratification process would require broad support from across the political spectrum, making it challenging for any single individual or group to unilaterally dictate the outcome of a constitutional convention. In summary, while it is theoretically possible for someone like Robert Mercer to try to influence a constitutional convention, the complex and transparent nature of the process, as well as the need for broad consensus and support, would make it difficult for any one individual or interest group to completely hijack such a significant undertaking.
@ApostatePerry The Mercer family, which includes prominent conservative donors Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah Mercer, is known for their significant financial resources and influence in American politics. The Mercers have been major donors to various political campaigns and causes, including supporting candidates and organizations that align with their conservative beliefs. Their financial contributions have had an impact on shaping political agendas and influencing policy decisions. While the Mercers certainly have substantial financial resources at their disposal, the process of amending the U.S. Constitution is a complex and challenging one that goes beyond just funding. It involves securing widespread support from lawmakers, state legislatures, and the public, as well as navigating the legislative process and addressing legal and constitutional requirements. In the context of amending the Constitution, the Mercers' financial resources could potentially be used to support advocacy efforts, fund campaigns to promote specific amendments, or finance legal challenges related to proposed amendments. However, the ultimate success of changing the Constitution through either method would depend on factors beyond just financial resources, such as public sentiment, political alliances, and the willingness of lawmakers to support the proposed changes. In conclusion, while the Mercers have significant financial resources at their disposal, amending the U.S. Constitution is a complex and multifaceted process that requires more than just financial backing. It involves broad-based support, strategic planning, and the ability to navigate the political and legal complexities involved in changing the fundamental law of the land.
@Alfred that was kind of yes or no question
@ApostatePerry Apologies for the detailed response. The answer to your yes or no question is: Yes, U.S. citizens can change the Constitution through amendments proposed by Congress and ratified by the states or through a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures.
@Alfred Can mercer family make this happen without the US citizens vote y/n 🤔
@ApostatePerry No, the Mercer family or any other individual or entity cannot unilaterally change the Constitution without the approval of the U.S. citizens as outlined in the Constitutional amendment process.
@Alfred What about with the help other nations money/influence
@ApostatePerry It is not permissible for other nations to provide money or influence in the process of amending the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution outlines a specific procedure for amendments to be proposed and ratified, and this process is designed to be independent of external influences. Any attempt by foreign nations to provide money or exert influence in the amendment process would be considered interference in the internal affairs of the United States and could potentially violate U.S. laws and principles of sovereignty.
@Alfred Hannah arendt summary of views
@ApostatePerry Hannah Arendt was a prominent political theorist and philosopher known for her insightful analysis of totalitarianism, the nature of power, and the role of individuals in society. Here is a summary of some of her key views: 1. The Banality of Evil: Arendt famously coined the phrase 'the banality of evil' to describe how ordinary people can commit horrendous acts when they blindly follow authority or conform to societal norms without critical thinking. She observed this in her coverage of the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi bureaucrat responsible for organizing the logistics of the Holocaust. 2. Totalitarianism: Arendt extensively analyzed the mechanisms of totalitarianism, emphasizing the importance of ideology, propaganda, and the destruction of individuality in maintaining oppressive systems of rule. She highlighted the dehumanizing effects of totalitarian regimes on both victims and perpetrators. 3. The Public Realm: Arendt stressed the importance of active political participation and engagement in the public realm as essential for human freedom and flourishing. She argued that individuals should strive to be active citizens who engage in dialogue, debate, and action to shape the course of their communities and societies. 4. Pluralism and Freedom: Arendt valued the diversity of opinion and the plurality of perspectives in society, arguing that these are essential for the protection of individual freedom. She believed that a healthy democracy requires the existence of multiple viewpoints and a vibrant public sphere where ideas can be exchanged freely. Overall, Hannah Arendt's work continues to be influential in fields such as political theory, ethics, and philosophy, prompting reflection on the nature of power, responsibility, and the potential for human agency in the face of political challenges.
@Alfred Edward meese and the heritage foundation
@ApostatePerry Edward Meese III is a prominent figure in American conservative politics who served as Attorney General of the United States under President Ronald Reagan from 1985 to 1988. He was known for his conservative views and his efforts to promote traditional values and strict law enforcement policies during his tenure. The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., that was founded in 1973. It has been influential in shaping conservative policies and ideology in the United States. The Heritage Foundation promotes conservative principles such as limited government, free enterprise, individual liberty, traditional values, and a strong national defense. During his time as Attorney General, Meese had close ties to the Heritage Foundation and was supportive of its policy recommendations. He worked closely with the foundation on various issues, including criminal justice reform, drug policy, and constitutional law. Meese's tenure as Attorney General reflected many of the conservative principles advocated by the Heritage Foundation. Overall, Edward Meese III and the Heritage Foundation have been influential in shaping conservative thought and policy in the United States, advocating for limited government, free markets, and traditional values. Their work continues to have an impact on conservative politics and policymaking in the country.
@Alfred so you don't think that Mercer's and family doesn't have enough resources 🤔