Political Discussion

RenegadeMonster said:
Basically, in America, winning the 2024 election would be Trump's "get out of jail free" card for the next 4 years.
Click to expand...

Well totally. It’s similar to the fact that the creeper Berlusconi couldn’t be convicted in Italy whilst he was in office, but…

If he is convicted before 2024 can he then run and be elected?
 
Joe Mac said:
Well totally. It’s similar to the fact that the creeper Berlusconi couldn’t be convicted in Italy whilst he was in office, but…

If he is convicted before 2024 can he then run and be elected?
Click to expand...
There's nothing to prevent someone convicted of a crime from running for president. If you have a felony, you can't vote in a good number of states though. Cool country.
 
Lee Newman said:
Yeah, but amendments are tough and also have to be ratified by the states.
Click to expand...

Would it require a constitutional amendment if it isn’t specifically allowed or barred by it? Surely a piece of legislation by the houses would be sufficient? Not that I’m pretending that would be easy either.
 
Joe Mac said:
Would it require a constitutional amendment if it isn’t specifically allowed or barred by it? Surely a piece of legislation by the houses would be sufficient? Not that I’m pretending that would be easy either.
Click to expand...
It very well could be. However this type of legislation would require a supermajority in the senate to pass. And let's face it. We won't get a single vote from the Republicans on this while they just waive the constitution in the the Democrats face.

It's more a insurmountable hill where this type of approach is just as impossible as getting a supermajority of the states to ratify a constitution change. Our power is split to 50/50 for pretty much anything to pass as we become more divided.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
Federal judge says insurers no longer have to provide some preventive care services, including cancer and heart screenings, at no cost
Click to expand...
I hate how divided we are as a nation. We should all be outraged by this. But only some of us are.

While others, typically republicans, are agreeing with ruling. Their view is "Insurance companies are in the business of collecting premiums, not paying money out". And any government mandate dictating what money a private company pays out is not constitution and bad for business.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
I hate how divided we are as a nation. We should all be outraged by this. But only some of us are.

While others, typically republicans, are agreeing with ruling. Their view is "Insurance companies are in the business of collecting premiums, not paying money out". And any government mandate dictating what money a private company pays out is not constitution and bad for business.
Click to expand...
The problem is that most people need some sort of insurance, even if it’s government issued, to access medical care. Thus, this again becomes an issue of whether we think medical care is a right or if it’s a voluntary service. The problem with it being a service only issued to people who can pay for it, is that it leaves a large number of people with little to no access to medical care. This limited access plays out in terrifying and dangerous ways across society, and it begs the question of whether or not we can call ourselves a functioning society because the main reason we formed social groups was/is to protect the most vulnerable people from death and harm. If we no longer do that, are we really a society? If we are no longer a society, is this why we are seeing the division in our country? Is the lack of safety net for the most vulnerable the crux of the problem in our democracy? I really think so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top