Political Discussions are some of my most controversial topics. I have political opinions, as most do. I voice them here. Please, see if you agree with what I think.
Thank you for visiting my site! Please check out my YouTube videos.
Here’s my first video. It is an introduction to my campaign:
Here’s my second video. It talks a bit about myself, and asks for people to get the word out about my campaign:
Here’s a video of my campaign kickoff speech given at Kirby’s Beer Store on March 3, 2024. Thank you to Carrie Nation and The Speakeasy for allowing me to preempt their show with my speech. Thanks to Kathy for recording this!
Thank you for checking them out! Please share the videos all around! Thank you!
Don’t forget to check out my articles!
Thank you for your support! It’s an uphill road ahead, but this is how it begins. :]
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE HERE ASSEMBLED THAT:
Section 1. All bills be limited to one topic, including any direct legislatorial or procedural changes pertaining to the topic. And that all bills which may be considered separate topics be split into individual topics before being presented to Congress, in the spirit of sharing clarity. Topics may be reliant upon another bill being passed, and such bills may be written with a preamble of “1Considering Bill xx [and xx, etc.] to be passed into law, BE IT ENACTED…”
1 All intended effects in law shall be presented by the bill writer at the time of presentation to Congress, including specific references where it would affect current and/or pending bills and/or laws. Any pending bills or laws unbeknownst to the bill writer must be presented by Congress members in the know, if consideration is deserved. Only by passing into law of a new bill may any law be interpreted as being bound to another bill or law, giving due consideration to the powers vested in the Judicial Branch of the U.S. A.
Section 2. Terms:
“One Topic” – So far as a topic may be perceived to include a very similar or related topic, it should not.
So, how does the two party system benefit you? How does the two party system benefit America? How does the two party system benefit itself?
The two party system narrows down your choices to two people who carry opposing views on many things. This way, you have both sides not necessarily saying to vote for their candidate, but saying not to vote for the other candidate. Is that the way it should be? Could there be a system where we choose a decent candidate, not just someone who is “not him/her”? (Could one side “throw the election” by having a terrible candidate?)
I think if we got rid of the party system all together, there would be more money available for other people to run, the parties just gravitate the money toward themselves. Did you know that much of elected officials’ time is used making phone calls and making appearances at events to gain more money for their party? Why not gain money for their personal election fund; or better yet, have the election system be affordable enough so they do not have to spend a bunch of time on sales calls?
What does the party system provide for The People of The United States of America? From my standpoint, it provides us a narrowed pool of candidates, almost fed to us. It assures that there will be people that, no matter what is the right decision, will choose whatever their party says, since they are wanting to be re-elected. (As a disclaimer, there are some elected officials, currently belonging to parties, who are good for The United States.)
As nice as it would be to have a no party system, we have sunk ourselves into a hole which will be difficult to get out of. The party system assures the ability to narrow electable candidates, thus making the people backing those candidates a lot of money. If we were to end this system, those “backers” would miss out on the big bucks they so desperately desire. Since they have had the big bucks for so long, they are pretty well settled in, but there is a way to dislodge them.
More involvement from good, unaffiliated people could be the first step.
Term limits and more people in the Electoral College could be the next steps… There are 538 members of the Electoral College, which is one for every 700,000 people. Do you know how many the constitution says we can have? It says we can have one for every 30,000 people, depending on interpretation.1 Though many people think a bigger government is a bad thing, it would ensure a more diverse set of voices would be heard, instead of two voices. Did you know that no matter the vote in some states, parties can buy an Electoral Collegian’s vote? Does that seem like a huge flaw?
Another thing the two party system leaves us subject to is a single party supermajority. This vulnerability in the system was exploited by the current policy makers in 2009-2011. I will continue with that thought soon.
Did I get your blood boiling?…. Good. Let other people know what you think and let’s get this ball rolling. NO MORE PARTY SYSTEM! NO MORE PARTY SYSTEM!
If you could describe to me the benefit of a two party system, I will hear you out. Add a comment.
1My interpretation of the constitution is thus: Article II, Section 1, second paragraph: “Each state shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature therof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:…”
~I take this as meaning that we can have as many Electors as each State is entitled to, and I take that it does not mean that the number must exactly equal the current number of Senators and Representatives.
This point brings us to Article I, Section 2, third paragraph: “…The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative…” along with Article 1, Section 3, first paragraph: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State…”
~These sentences are where I got that 30,000 deal from.
The death penalty, or capital punishment, is the harshest judicial decree available in 32 states, available nation-wide if sentenced in federal or military court. Many of the 18 states who chose not to have the death penalty available did so upon their induction into statehood.
While there are many reasons why people were put to death in the past, the current law of the land, the 8th Amendment, disallows cruel and unusual punishment for a crime. Since 1776, several court cases have had rulings interpreting this phrase, and the death penalty has been narrowed down to only be allowed in cases of aggravated murder, given that the murderer is mentally competent.
There are a number of ways in which one can be put to death, usually at the choice of the prisoner to be executed, including: Electrocution, hanging, gas chamber, firing squad, and (most popularly) lethal injections.
Now, why do we put people to death? A person is born at the behest of a being more than man (or woman). Is it just for a person, or group of people, to determine whether others’ actions are worthy of death?
Here is how I see it: We will say that a person decides to shoot a person in a phone booth. The person they shot has a spouse and other relatives. These relatives want justice for the death of their loved one. Some in the group may believe that the just punishment would be for themselves to be able to kill the murderer. This is not possible, legally. Since some of the relatives want blood and are not able to take it themselves, they allow a judge and jury to decide whether this person should die for their crime. If the court decides that the murderer is guilty and it is available for them to levy the death penalty and this penalty is chosen, the relatives of the person may feel as if justice has been served. Thus, the judge, jury, relatives, and all inhabitants of the state or country are vicariously killing a person through the hands of an executioner.
Why did the relatives want the murderer to die? Is it for closure? Would they have more closure if they were allowed to take the murderer’s life with their own hands?
I do not believe one can achieve closure through causing the death of one who killed their loved one. Rather, I believe that closure can be better achieved by keeping the murderer alive, imprisoned forever. How would this benefit the bereaved? It is my belief that their anger and bloodlust is caused by a deep unknowing of why the criminal acted the way they did at the time. It is also my belief that the criminal may not know why they acted as they did at the time and by cutting their life short, they may never understand why.
By keeping the prisoner alive, in time the murderer may realize why they acted as they did and possibly feel remorse for their actions. At the time of realization, the bereaved may be able to learn from the murderer why their relative was killed. This will possibly give the relatives some closure, to know why and that the killer does have remorse for their past actions and do fully realize why they are being punished.
A society which uses death as a penalty will promote others to use death as a form of punishment for any situation a person sees fit, whether it is that they were directly or indirectly harmed by the person they want to kill or whether it is a random act of hatred toward society.
I see life imprisonment as a more just punishment for murder, seeing as it is a punishment from the state. The state provides rights and freedoms to its citizens, but a supreme creator provides life, therefore the state should only be able to restrict what it provides and no more.
Do you believe it is just to sentence someone to death for the crime of aggravated murder? If not or if so, please comment below.
