Let's focus on two:
Here you stated:
This is logically coherent. If Money (M) = Speech (S), then Unequal M = Unequal S
Yet then you state that unequal money
doesn't mean unequal speech
if there is an arbitrary cap on it.
Suddenly Unequal M =/= Unequal S. A=B and B=C but A=/=C?
Either Money equals Speech, meaning that unequal money means unequal speech, or it does not.
I also said this, which you (not so) surprisingly ignored:
The point is to make it affordable for everyone to have a roughly equal opportunity to monetarily engage in political discourse (if we entertain the rather absurd notion that money = speech).
This was the point all along, not the asinine straw man you chose to built out of unrealistic expectations. But it's good to see you have no qualms about dishonestly taking a reasonable position to extremes, just to try and knock down a straw man.
Bravo, just so. I have the right to spend millions of dollars on speech if I wish to. The existence of the right is independent of the exercise of it.
Yet then you state that people are currently denied the opportunity to spend money on speech because they don't spend millions, while others do.
No, once more you lie about what I said. Here's what I said:
The ability of a right is not removed if a person chooses not to use it. It IS removed it they are denied using it. And being able to only spend $500 compared to $20 million is, in essence, being denied from using it.
The point is simple and obvious, even if you choose to dishonestly ignore it. Most people don't have $20 million and those who do are able to prevent those who don't from having a voice in government. Once you limit the level down to the point where everyone can have a meaningful say, then we make things far more equal and fair to all.
That is argument is dependent upon the notion that the Existence of the right IS dependent on the Exercise of it.
It's not to anyone who is honest about what I said.
Either Rights exist independent of their Exercise, or they do not.
Nonsense. When black people were threatened with violence if they tried to vote, they were effectively denied from exercising their vote. And when one poor person can't contribute more than .00000025% of what their rich neighbor can, they are effectively being denied the right to have their voice heard.
Ironic, coming from the man who refuses to even fully quote the individual he is responding to, much less actually respond to him.
I quoted and responded to you until it was blatantly obvious you were deliberately being dishonest about what I said, much like you've done many times before. I've caught you, on numerous occasions, continually posting lies you KNEW were lies and I had proven to you were lies. So when someone with a history like yours begins to fall into old patterns of dishonest posting, I tend to just ignore that person until they show some semblance of desire for honest discussion.
So this is your chance to redeem yourself. You, once more, posted lies about what I said and I have, once more, corrected them into what I actually said. Let's see if you have the decency to respond to what I actually have said and not the lies you pretended I said. It's your move.
