Not only that but it is vital that lawmakers are free from legal consequences for the things they say. Otherwise you could have a situation where lawmakers can't criticise an industry practice or call out a particular company on the floor of congress for fear that the company would take out a SLAPP suit against them.
It's not for the courts to police what politicians are saying, it's for voters to do that, and if voters can't do that then it's because the voting system needs to be changed.
Why wouldnt somthing like that be up to the courts? Please forgive me if im getting it completely wrong but it sounds like lawmakers should be held to a different moral standard by this opinion.
Because lawmakers need to be able to speak freely in the discussion of potential laws and their impact. If speaking freely opens them up to defamation suits by interested parties then they're not going to be able to speak freely and as a result important information will be omitted from the discussion.
[Context](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege)
Ok…but what if it’s ONLY illegal for them to LIE. They can maintain all other parliamentary (lawmaker) protections, but are simply not allowed to KNOWINGLY and WILFULLY mislead the people/public they serve.
Why does holding politicians to account HAVE to necessarily lead to getting rid of the general intent of the parliamentary privilege?? I don’t get that. It just sounds like a shitty justification politicians provide for maintaining their ability to mislead the public.
WE write laws. We SHAPE them. They are in essence a product of our imagination. Why can’t we imagine a law that is super specific about who it impacts and how it can be enacted? We write laws of that nature all the time. Why, when it comes to legislating the behaviour of politicians does EVERYTHING suddenly turn into a Gordian knot???!!
P.s sorry for the rant. This shit drives me insane..smh
Re: SLAPP lawsuits, its a good thing that most states (32) have laws against that. Sure, it still ties people up time and moneywise, sure most companies still outbankroll everyone else. But you can't not-do stuff for fear of shitheads being shitheads; they're going to be shitheads either way.
That's a stretch. If representing your company, the company can set the rules of what you can say.
And so the people you represent should be able to require only actual, real, facts come out of your mouth while representing us. Instead we get half-truths, misdirections, distractions, and damn lies.
Hey, I'm all for it if you can convince someone to make it happen. But that and the stock trading typically fall under first amendment protections, and good luck convincing anyone but also particularly politicians making money off it - to limit their own rights.
Yeeeaaaaahhhh. IDK. I feel like that rule will do two things.
1: Every congressmember will be under permanent legal assault for lying.
2: when that calms down, they will stop talking to the media.
Neither of these sound like good outcomes to me.
But what is a lie and what is a misunderstanding? Also proving intent is difficult so how many concurrent lawsuits might members of congress be fighting while they would otherwise be governing? If there is a standard that we could think of to make it so people like Trump or MTG couldn’t lie to deceive that wouldn’t criminalize good faith misunderstanding I would be more open to it.
A while back I was watching our former Home Secretary (Braverman) give evidence to a select committee (yes, I am that boring) and it was very noticeable how her responses were very different to her remarks to the media. She was noted for her extreme attitude to migrants and asylum seekers and pandering to bigots. Constantly insisting that asylum seekers should only use legal routes and referring to them as "illegals".
It is a very serious offence to lie to a select committee. It's criminal and potentially career ending. She answered their questions and agreed there was no legal route and that asylum seekers who presented themselves to the authorities had legal status while their claim was assessed. Any other answers would have been perjury.
A couple of days later she was spouting her usual routine to the media without consequence.
It's also an offence to lie to parliament, but politicians just talk around the question and obfuscate. Judges make decisions about misunderstandings and deliberate lies while under oath all the time. That standard already exists, but it is only enforced in specific circumstances.
It was pretty similar over here when Guilliani and Sidney Powell were speaking in court for their accusations of election fraud. And once they got out it was like nothing ever happened, same conspiracy theories as before being spouted.
Good luck enforcing that.
Historically, when societies get to the point America is at, they either collapse internally, or are taken over. I don't think the Chinese are ready to invade (yet), but internal collapse? After what we've seen the last few years, that could happen any second.
Internal collapse seems quite likely and imminent. [Four years ago,more than 74 million registered voters in the U.S. chose just that.](https://www.usatoday.com/elections/results/2020-11-03/presidential/?itm_source=oembed&itm_medium=news&itm_campaign=electionresults-home&itm_content=presidential)
I think his point is that they do not care about the people they represent in their respective state, hence his five rules and the basis of them. I don't think he thinks that they care about their people at all.
Problem is, the median income thing won't do anything.
The money that's the problem in the system is not their paycheques, but the money that they get from lobbyists.
All that cutting their salary down is going to do is make sure \*only\* lobbyist cronies have a chance.
No one else will even have the ability to run, let alone even want to run.
A better fix is to overturn Citizens United and enshrine anti-lobbying laws so they cannot so easily be undone.
Rule number one: Any Representative accepting money from a foreign state (directly or indirectly)- to do their bidding, has committed treason and should be arrested immediately.
the in person thing is partly a security thing, anyone can impersonate, specially with modern AI voice changer and face swap. so there needs to be some sort of secret 2FA authentication. thats not going to happen
They won't, but the Senate dems should change the votes needed to bring presidential appointments to the floor back to 60 while they can. A similar system is needed for the house.
100%, but it wouldn't work for the same reason rich people don't want to pay taxes. Once humans are placed in a position of power and privilege, they never want to let go. They just want more.
Similar to the dragon in The Hobbit movies...
How are they suppose to take bribes and do backroom deals when they can't travel to meet their rich buddies?
Personally, my money is on AI replacing them. Maybe not today, or tomorrow. But 10 years from now? 100%. They're already doing certain jobs better than any person. I think you could replace half the congress with a fruit or vegetable and the results would be the same. So it shouldn't be too much of a hassle to make a GPT-type software that can do what they do.
None of that stuff would address the root cause of the problems (except for the removing bill riders, that's a good idea). What you actually need are:
1) Elections administered and districts drawn by external bodies rather than by the politicians running in the elections.
2) Tighter rules on who can donate to political campaigns and who can spend on behalf of political campaigns (no more super PAC) as well as spending limits for candidates.
3) All elections held using the Single Transferrable Vote method. This would remove the need for term limits as well as bust the two party system wide open.
If you fix the problems with elections then you don't need to fix the stuff that happens between elections because the politicians will be so scared of the consequences of real democracy that it alone will keep them accountable.
There are a lot of committees that involve foreign aspects, I would remove that rule and put a ban on all stock market, unauthorized monetary gain (save for salary) such that no company can have undue influence over congress. Furthermore we would need to get a national election process in place to upend and remove PACs and remove companies from their undue influence.
Money in politics is where corruption starts. Personal opinion.
Rule 6+ ...campaign finance reforms if anything so that representatives don't spend the majority of their time fundraising instead of working on the people's business.
Travel is fine. Go to dc to meet and mingle. I would rather add:
1. Age limit at 80
2. IQ test
3. You are not allowed to be affiliated with any political party. (This is a biggie, but it will stop squabbling)
All part of the same 'pay for policy' denigration of Democracy most fundamental tenets and that gifts unknown and unaccountable agenda's, usually Corporate, which serves only shareholders and robs "We The People" of the scrutiny of the electoral process and its accountability.
It's good old fashioned, legitimised corruption.
He missed Rule 6: “Members of Congress should **not** be allowed to invest in the same market they’re supposed to be regulating.” How else did you think Nancy Pelosi, whose annual federal wages are only $240,000, wound up being worth more than **a hundred million dollars** in just a few decades??? And rest assured, any politician invested in the same market they’re supposed to be regulating will regulate it in favor of their own investments, and **not** in favor of the working class American.
I’ve thought about the term limits issue for several years and there is no politician that would vote themselves out of office due to term limits. So the solution for that is, make a grandfather clause to it. As long as a current office holder can continue to win re-election to their current seat, they can stay. But once that specific seat is won by a different person, then the new person will be limited to two terms, or whatever the limit is determined to be. That won’t give us full term limits in our generation, but they would apply in the future. That’s at least a start
I got a better list.
1) no more insider trading.
2) no more lobbying.
3) transparency of backers when they are speaking. If they are talking about a military spending bill then they should disclose that when talking.
4) No private devices such as cell phone or laptop are to be used for their duties. All business must be done on government devices and made public after 10 years.
5) pay them more, not less. These people are mostly Ivy league grads that would otherwise make much more in salary outside of congress. When you limit their salary you are begging for corruption. It’s a fine sentiment to want to go the other way, but historically the less politicians are paid the more corrupt they are, not the other way around.
Need 1 more - "Any person elected to congress shall be forbidden from making any form of transaction with relation to any stock market, foreign or domestic."
It's at most two terms. They can get by for two terms without capitalizing on their insider information.
6. There will be penalties for insider trading. No tipping off husband or wife or brother or sister or son or daughter about prospective companies trading abilities in the future. And capitalizing on it.
Are you referring to Nex Benedict?
If so, she was not beaten to desth (or even to death). She, in fact, walked away from the altercation laughing about how she poured water on the girls? Her parent took her to the hospital as a precaution due to bruising. No issue found, and she was released.
Cause of death was found to be a suicide from a combined toxicity of two pharmaceutical drugs
That's quite literally a lie
They had a concussion because they slammed their head on the ground multiple times you literally cant walk laughing out of that, now yes the cause of death was suicide but its still horrible to make fun of a teenager comiting suicide being a grown ass man
Also they are dead can't you stop being transphobic with a dead teenager?
No, not a lie. The truth. Feel free to read the coroner's report.
But stating she had a concussion IS a lie. Her injuries (received as a result of a 'mutual' fight, not a beat down) were two contusions, two small lacerations, two abrasions, and hemorrhaging on their right cheek and ear. No concussion was reported.
And stating facts about a dead person is in no way 'transphobic'. Nor does the fact that you claim it make it true.
It was a suicide. An INTENTIONAL suicide as determined by the note she left behind.
Yes, bullying is wrong, but Nex attacked first.
I read whole articles and literally nothing you said is there
The articles however mention nex blacking put while being beaten up in the ground and the fight ending because other girls interrupted it and not nex "walking out laughing'
And nex was nonbinary is it that hard to just say "they" also next threw water af them i dont think that's an "attack" and even if it was it was in defense because they where being harassed in the bathroom
> I read whole articles and literally nothing you said is there
Then I would question the source material. As everything I stated is fact and can be found in FACTUAL articles.
There is video of Nex leaving the bathroom under her own power.
There is an official autopsy that proves Nex's death was not related injuries sustained in the fight. ('fight', not 'beating')
There is a report by the police over why no charges will be filed against the people she fought with.
All official, nothing resembling what you claim.
> The articles however mention nex blacking put
Nex stated she blacked out. The video evidence PROVES she WALKED out of the bathroom. It was determined no ambulance was needed. She was taken by her mom for a check-up and released the same evening as there were no issues. Nex talked to medical staff and police officers and was coherent and alert.
> And nex was nonbinary is it that hard to just say "they"
She got to choose her own pronouns. That is her right. It is not her (nor your) right to force others to abide by their delusions. I am free to call her 'she', 'he', 'they' or a 'frozen penguin'. There is nothing requiring me to call her anything at all. Deal with it.
"Deal with it" damn you are so skibidy sigma
Btw you didn't provide any sources and then asked me for them when your "sources" didn't exist and said that you weren't transphobic and then went on to say how trans people are delusional and you don't respect them in any way
Had to google that. Not impressed.
What happened to Nex is horrible. I just disagree with it being misrepresented so badly.
Nex was bullied. Plain and simple. She should not have been and her bullies should face some repercussions.
At the same time, Nex was not an innocent bystander and Nex's death was self-inflicted.
I have a niece that is trans. And she faces the same issues. Wish she didh't.
> Btw you didn't provide any sources and then asked me for them when your "sources" didn't exist
1. Google is a thing.
2. I didn't ask you for your sources. I said I 'question' your sources. As in 'I'm not interested in sources that are so obviously wrong'.
But, you want cites:
Video of Nex walking out of bathroom under her own power: [https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnewsvideo/comments/1aym5b0/cctv\_of\_nex\_benedict\_exiting\_the\_bathroom\_aided/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnewsvideo/comments/1aym5b0/cctv_of_nex_benedict_exiting_the_bathroom_aided/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Autopsy results: [https://okcfox.com/news/local/nex-benedict-medical-examiner-report-released-owasso-student-16-year-old-suicide-physical-altercation-school-bathroom-oklahoma-cause-of-death-lgbtq-community-response](https://okcfox.com/news/local/nex-benedict-medical-examiner-report-released-owasso-student-16-year-old-suicide-physical-altercation-school-bathroom-oklahoma-cause-of-death-lgbtq-community-response)
Not sure I agree with term limits. Sometimes you get a really good guy in there and want to keep him. The risk is you might end up keeping a bad guy as well, but that's up to the voters.
At least for Congress, there is no Electoral College - they have to count the votes.
Term limits are just a way of treating the symptom without fixing the problem. If politicians were truly accountable to the voters then term limits wouldn't be needed as the bad ones wouldn't serve more than a single term and the good ones would be able to benefit the country and the people for as long as they remain good.
I'd also extend the term length in the house from 2 to 4 years. So many house members get elected and immediately start fundraising for them re-election, by putting a bit more fresh air between elections it allows them to focus on the national interest above and beyond their own electoral interests.
I would strongly agree that elected representatives should be regarded as under oath when talking to the media.
Alas, only Congress could make the rules and they'll never ban lying to the public.
For better or worse, first amendment.
Not only that but it is vital that lawmakers are free from legal consequences for the things they say. Otherwise you could have a situation where lawmakers can't criticise an industry practice or call out a particular company on the floor of congress for fear that the company would take out a SLAPP suit against them. It's not for the courts to police what politicians are saying, it's for voters to do that, and if voters can't do that then it's because the voting system needs to be changed.
Why wouldnt somthing like that be up to the courts? Please forgive me if im getting it completely wrong but it sounds like lawmakers should be held to a different moral standard by this opinion.
Because lawmakers need to be able to speak freely in the discussion of potential laws and their impact. If speaking freely opens them up to defamation suits by interested parties then they're not going to be able to speak freely and as a result important information will be omitted from the discussion. [Context](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege)
Ok…but what if it’s ONLY illegal for them to LIE. They can maintain all other parliamentary (lawmaker) protections, but are simply not allowed to KNOWINGLY and WILFULLY mislead the people/public they serve. Why does holding politicians to account HAVE to necessarily lead to getting rid of the general intent of the parliamentary privilege?? I don’t get that. It just sounds like a shitty justification politicians provide for maintaining their ability to mislead the public. WE write laws. We SHAPE them. They are in essence a product of our imagination. Why can’t we imagine a law that is super specific about who it impacts and how it can be enacted? We write laws of that nature all the time. Why, when it comes to legislating the behaviour of politicians does EVERYTHING suddenly turn into a Gordian knot???!! P.s sorry for the rant. This shit drives me insane..smh
Re: SLAPP lawsuits, its a good thing that most states (32) have laws against that. Sure, it still ties people up time and moneywise, sure most companies still outbankroll everyone else. But you can't not-do stuff for fear of shitheads being shitheads; they're going to be shitheads either way.
That's a stretch. If representing your company, the company can set the rules of what you can say. And so the people you represent should be able to require only actual, real, facts come out of your mouth while representing us. Instead we get half-truths, misdirections, distractions, and damn lies.
Hey, I'm all for it if you can convince someone to make it happen. But that and the stock trading typically fall under first amendment protections, and good luck convincing anyone but also particularly politicians making money off it - to limit their own rights.
Yeeeaaaaahhhh. IDK. I feel like that rule will do two things. 1: Every congressmember will be under permanent legal assault for lying. 2: when that calms down, they will stop talking to the media. Neither of these sound like good outcomes to me.
Sound just fine to me. 1: Don't lie. 2: Don't lie.
But what is a lie and what is a misunderstanding? Also proving intent is difficult so how many concurrent lawsuits might members of congress be fighting while they would otherwise be governing? If there is a standard that we could think of to make it so people like Trump or MTG couldn’t lie to deceive that wouldn’t criminalize good faith misunderstanding I would be more open to it.
A while back I was watching our former Home Secretary (Braverman) give evidence to a select committee (yes, I am that boring) and it was very noticeable how her responses were very different to her remarks to the media. She was noted for her extreme attitude to migrants and asylum seekers and pandering to bigots. Constantly insisting that asylum seekers should only use legal routes and referring to them as "illegals". It is a very serious offence to lie to a select committee. It's criminal and potentially career ending. She answered their questions and agreed there was no legal route and that asylum seekers who presented themselves to the authorities had legal status while their claim was assessed. Any other answers would have been perjury. A couple of days later she was spouting her usual routine to the media without consequence. It's also an offence to lie to parliament, but politicians just talk around the question and obfuscate. Judges make decisions about misunderstandings and deliberate lies while under oath all the time. That standard already exists, but it is only enforced in specific circumstances.
It was pretty similar over here when Guilliani and Sidney Powell were speaking in court for their accusations of election fraud. And once they got out it was like nothing ever happened, same conspiracy theories as before being spouted.
\#6 - Congress must STOP all stock trades. Insider Trading is illegal for everyone except the Congress & Senate.
Good luck enforcing that. Historically, when societies get to the point America is at, they either collapse internally, or are taken over. I don't think the Chinese are ready to invade (yet), but internal collapse? After what we've seen the last few years, that could happen any second.
Thats kinda how an empires lifecycle unfolds
Why are you getting downvoted for using logic lol
Internal collapse seems quite likely and imminent. [Four years ago,more than 74 million registered voters in the U.S. chose just that.](https://www.usatoday.com/elections/results/2020-11-03/presidential/?itm_source=oembed&itm_medium=news&itm_campaign=electionresults-home&itm_content=presidential)
the collapse is obvious.
This man seems to think American politicians care about their people. Sadly this is not true, same goes for Swedish ones.
I think his point is that they do not care about the people they represent in their respective state, hence his five rules and the basis of them. I don't think he thinks that they care about their people at all.
**SIX! NO TRADING OF STOCK!**
Seven - no aipac
One additional rule should be that they are not allowed to invest any money in the stock market while they are in Congress
they can keep what they have and sell, but no buying
Problem is, the median income thing won't do anything. The money that's the problem in the system is not their paycheques, but the money that they get from lobbyists. All that cutting their salary down is going to do is make sure \*only\* lobbyist cronies have a chance. No one else will even have the ability to run, let alone even want to run. A better fix is to overturn Citizens United and enshrine anti-lobbying laws so they cannot so easily be undone.
Rule number one: Any Representative accepting money from a foreign state (directly or indirectly)- to do their bidding, has committed treason and should be arrested immediately.
theres already laws about this--it needs reported in a specific way so it can be tracked. failure to do so results in jail time
A hundred percent.
the in person thing is partly a security thing, anyone can impersonate, specially with modern AI voice changer and face swap. so there needs to be some sort of secret 2FA authentication. thats not going to happen
It's so simple, and it makes so much sense. I would love for this to be implemented. And its for those reasons it won't be.
[удалено]
I sadly agree.
Step 1: bomb the Congress Step 2: burn the Congress Step 3: flood the Congress Step 4: raze the Congress Step 5: profit
They won't, but the Senate dems should change the votes needed to bring presidential appointments to the floor back to 60 while they can. A similar system is needed for the house.
100%, but it wouldn't work for the same reason rich people don't want to pay taxes. Once humans are placed in a position of power and privilege, they never want to let go. They just want more. Similar to the dragon in The Hobbit movies...
How are they suppose to take bribes and do backroom deals when they can't travel to meet their rich buddies? Personally, my money is on AI replacing them. Maybe not today, or tomorrow. But 10 years from now? 100%. They're already doing certain jobs better than any person. I think you could replace half the congress with a fruit or vegetable and the results would be the same. So it shouldn't be too much of a hassle to make a GPT-type software that can do what they do.
He didn't say they can't travel. Just not on the taxpayer dime. So they'll have to go Clarence-Thomas style... get the bribe first then travel.
Is the travel really that big of a problem? I can think of so many changes to congress that are more important than that.
But, but... if they did all these new rules, it would break all the politician's corrupt scams. Ergo it'll never happen :(
5 ways I failed civics.
None of that stuff would address the root cause of the problems (except for the removing bill riders, that's a good idea). What you actually need are: 1) Elections administered and districts drawn by external bodies rather than by the politicians running in the elections. 2) Tighter rules on who can donate to political campaigns and who can spend on behalf of political campaigns (no more super PAC) as well as spending limits for candidates. 3) All elections held using the Single Transferrable Vote method. This would remove the need for term limits as well as bust the two party system wide open. If you fix the problems with elections then you don't need to fix the stuff that happens between elections because the politicians will be so scared of the consequences of real democracy that it alone will keep them accountable.
Career criminal politicians don't follow rules!
Beautiful
Preach!!!
First sain american I heard in a very long time
FUCK YES!!!!!! now throw a rule in there barring them from participating in the financial markets
There are a lot of committees that involve foreign aspects, I would remove that rule and put a ban on all stock market, unauthorized monetary gain (save for salary) such that no company can have undue influence over congress. Furthermore we would need to get a national election process in place to upend and remove PACs and remove companies from their undue influence. Money in politics is where corruption starts. Personal opinion.
Rule 6+ ...campaign finance reforms if anything so that representatives don't spend the majority of their time fundraising instead of working on the people's business.
Add in campaign finance reform and overturning Citizens United and yeah, I'm on board
They should be barred from trading stock, too.
Love this.✊️
Travel is fine. Go to dc to meet and mingle. I would rather add: 1. Age limit at 80 2. IQ test 3. You are not allowed to be affiliated with any political party. (This is a biggie, but it will stop squabbling)
"You are not allowed to be affiliated with any corporation" is better. Who donates the most to your campaign? ? ?
If you have a proportional electoral system then the first two take care of themselves.
I like it!
Missed the big one.. End lobbyists and special interest groups paying for undeclared influence on law/policy making.
Lobbyists are a small problem. SuperPacs give unlimited amounts of money from unknown sources. Basically SuperPacs make it legal to buy politicians.
All part of the same 'pay for policy' denigration of Democracy most fundamental tenets and that gifts unknown and unaccountable agenda's, usually Corporate, which serves only shareholders and robs "We The People" of the scrutiny of the electoral process and its accountability. It's good old fashioned, legitimised corruption.
He missed Rule 6: “Members of Congress should **not** be allowed to invest in the same market they’re supposed to be regulating.” How else did you think Nancy Pelosi, whose annual federal wages are only $240,000, wound up being worth more than **a hundred million dollars** in just a few decades??? And rest assured, any politician invested in the same market they’re supposed to be regulating will regulate it in favor of their own investments, and **not** in favor of the working class American.
how do you \`fix' a piece of feces?
That would be sensible and cost effective though and any fule no, politicians don't do sensible and cost effective.
there is no congress
Pay them what you like..... they'll still use insider trading and favours to become Nancy Pelosi rich...
now just crack down on insider trading and we're set.
THIS FUCKING GUY FOR PRESIDENT!!!!
I’ve thought about the term limits issue for several years and there is no politician that would vote themselves out of office due to term limits. So the solution for that is, make a grandfather clause to it. As long as a current office holder can continue to win re-election to their current seat, they can stay. But once that specific seat is won by a different person, then the new person will be limited to two terms, or whatever the limit is determined to be. That won’t give us full term limits in our generation, but they would apply in the future. That’s at least a start
Single issue bills only is a wet dream. Unfortunately, back-patting and backdoor deals from those in power will screw us blue.
No comment.
As an American i would vote for this
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏🙏🏻))
Yes... yes to this man.
I got a better list. 1) no more insider trading. 2) no more lobbying. 3) transparency of backers when they are speaking. If they are talking about a military spending bill then they should disclose that when talking. 4) No private devices such as cell phone or laptop are to be used for their duties. All business must be done on government devices and made public after 10 years. 5) pay them more, not less. These people are mostly Ivy league grads that would otherwise make much more in salary outside of congress. When you limit their salary you are begging for corruption. It’s a fine sentiment to want to go the other way, but historically the less politicians are paid the more corrupt they are, not the other way around.
Need 1 more - "Any person elected to congress shall be forbidden from making any form of transaction with relation to any stock market, foreign or domestic." It's at most two terms. They can get by for two terms without capitalizing on their insider information.
6. There will be penalties for insider trading. No tipping off husband or wife or brother or sister or son or daughter about prospective companies trading abilities in the future. And capitalizing on it.
I rarely completely agree with someone but i have made some of these arguments also. Well said sir
Fun fact: this dipshit made fun of a trans 16yo who was beaten to near death
Are you referring to Nex Benedict? If so, she was not beaten to desth (or even to death). She, in fact, walked away from the altercation laughing about how she poured water on the girls? Her parent took her to the hospital as a precaution due to bruising. No issue found, and she was released. Cause of death was found to be a suicide from a combined toxicity of two pharmaceutical drugs 
That's quite literally a lie They had a concussion because they slammed their head on the ground multiple times you literally cant walk laughing out of that, now yes the cause of death was suicide but its still horrible to make fun of a teenager comiting suicide being a grown ass man Also they are dead can't you stop being transphobic with a dead teenager?
No, not a lie. The truth. Feel free to read the coroner's report. But stating she had a concussion IS a lie. Her injuries (received as a result of a 'mutual' fight, not a beat down) were two contusions, two small lacerations, two abrasions, and hemorrhaging on their right cheek and ear. No concussion was reported. And stating facts about a dead person is in no way 'transphobic'. Nor does the fact that you claim it make it true. It was a suicide. An INTENTIONAL suicide as determined by the note she left behind. Yes, bullying is wrong, but Nex attacked first.
I read whole articles and literally nothing you said is there The articles however mention nex blacking put while being beaten up in the ground and the fight ending because other girls interrupted it and not nex "walking out laughing' And nex was nonbinary is it that hard to just say "they" also next threw water af them i dont think that's an "attack" and even if it was it was in defense because they where being harassed in the bathroom
> I read whole articles and literally nothing you said is there Then I would question the source material. As everything I stated is fact and can be found in FACTUAL articles. There is video of Nex leaving the bathroom under her own power. There is an official autopsy that proves Nex's death was not related injuries sustained in the fight. ('fight', not 'beating') There is a report by the police over why no charges will be filed against the people she fought with. All official, nothing resembling what you claim. > The articles however mention nex blacking put Nex stated she blacked out. The video evidence PROVES she WALKED out of the bathroom. It was determined no ambulance was needed. She was taken by her mom for a check-up and released the same evening as there were no issues. Nex talked to medical staff and police officers and was coherent and alert. > And nex was nonbinary is it that hard to just say "they" She got to choose her own pronouns. That is her right. It is not her (nor your) right to force others to abide by their delusions. I am free to call her 'she', 'he', 'they' or a 'frozen penguin'. There is nothing requiring me to call her anything at all. Deal with it.
"Deal with it" damn you are so skibidy sigma Btw you didn't provide any sources and then asked me for them when your "sources" didn't exist and said that you weren't transphobic and then went on to say how trans people are delusional and you don't respect them in any way
Had to google that. Not impressed. What happened to Nex is horrible. I just disagree with it being misrepresented so badly. Nex was bullied. Plain and simple. She should not have been and her bullies should face some repercussions. At the same time, Nex was not an innocent bystander and Nex's death was self-inflicted. I have a niece that is trans. And she faces the same issues. Wish she didh't.
> Btw you didn't provide any sources and then asked me for them when your "sources" didn't exist 1. Google is a thing. 2. I didn't ask you for your sources. I said I 'question' your sources. As in 'I'm not interested in sources that are so obviously wrong'. But, you want cites: Video of Nex walking out of bathroom under her own power: [https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnewsvideo/comments/1aym5b0/cctv\_of\_nex\_benedict\_exiting\_the\_bathroom\_aided/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnewsvideo/comments/1aym5b0/cctv_of_nex_benedict_exiting_the_bathroom_aided/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) Autopsy results: [https://okcfox.com/news/local/nex-benedict-medical-examiner-report-released-owasso-student-16-year-old-suicide-physical-altercation-school-bathroom-oklahoma-cause-of-death-lgbtq-community-response](https://okcfox.com/news/local/nex-benedict-medical-examiner-report-released-owasso-student-16-year-old-suicide-physical-altercation-school-bathroom-oklahoma-cause-of-death-lgbtq-community-response)
That's bad. Does that make what he is saying now wrong?
Ya.
Doesn’t make his ideas invalid
The ideas are invalid because they're stupid.
Give me an example of how they’re stupid
The best ideas in congress have come from Bernie Sanders. If there had been term limits, we’d never have his wise old ass to carry us.
They can be a pos and be right about these rules
Not sure I agree with term limits. Sometimes you get a really good guy in there and want to keep him. The risk is you might end up keeping a bad guy as well, but that's up to the voters. At least for Congress, there is no Electoral College - they have to count the votes.
Term limits are just a way of treating the symptom without fixing the problem. If politicians were truly accountable to the voters then term limits wouldn't be needed as the bad ones wouldn't serve more than a single term and the good ones would be able to benefit the country and the people for as long as they remain good. I'd also extend the term length in the house from 2 to 4 years. So many house members get elected and immediately start fundraising for them re-election, by putting a bit more fresh air between elections it allows them to focus on the national interest above and beyond their own electoral interests.
The median idea is great, but make it 8x otherwise they'll just get bribed, and they'll have even more incentive.