Ah yes.
Everyone "hates your freedoms".
PS. Oops. Today I ordered "french fries" instead of "freedom fries". Uh oh!
At work, we have weekly meetings to review current and potential issues and see how we can solve them, or at least put in place steps to minimize consequences. I met plenty of your type before and have recommended termination on many of them. Your type love to produce reports after analyses after studies after inspections and so on and on and on. Rarely do they ever offer solutions, even compromised ones, especially when we have to deal with factors beyond our controls that even compromised solutions are better than none because they would help us in the short term while we search for better solutions in the long term.
It is supposedly said...
Blackstone's formulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer
I have no problem agreeing to that despite knowing the crime issues that often conflict with public safety and justice. The one solution is to relax the rules for the state to enforce laws to ensure public safety. But the moral offense of punishing an innocent person is gross enough that I, and many people, have no problems rejecting that solution and opting to live with the knowledge that we will have to spend more resources to prosecute the correct people and increased risks of suffering a crime against us.
Regarding this debate, you cower behind the shield of 'analysis', dragging the problem on and on without offering any solutions, even compromised ones. In theory, limiting contribution is a curtailment of a person's right and freedom of speech because financially supporting one's favorite is a form of speech. But since there are many other ways of expressing one's speech, whether in trying to sway a political figure into one's side or to help a candidate into political office, should we be going after those other ways to try to minimize the corruption in the political system ?
It is a fair question in the interest of debate but you refuse to answer it. All you want is to endlessly debate on the flaws of democracy, as if you can convince us that you will lead us into some new revelations.
Criticism: 'The rich' have a disproportionate access to political figures and influence.
Fine...That is a fair criticism and no American here have even tried to deny that, especially in our practice of democracy. We knew about it a couple hundred yrs ago.
But equally fair is the demand for solutions and the pressure for
OPERATIONAL details is when people like you beat their fucking feet, either in running away or in a song and dance routine more on how evil is 'the rich'.
If limiting non-financial versions of the right and freedom of speech for 'the rich' is on a steep slippery slope and that offends you as much as relaxing the rules on the law so much that an innocent person would be punished, then have the courage to say so. But such an admittance would pretty much cut short the discussion and that would deny you the chance to blather on and on and on about 'the rich' and their evil ways.
This is why no American on this forum should take yours and others' criticisms about US seriously. Not because we believe our system and way of life are flawless, but because as you amply demonstrated -- no solutions proposed.
No solutions proposed because you do not know as much about US as you claimed to be.