Wacka Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Have to laugh at the locations of the upcoming political rallies in Buffalo. Trumps is at the FNC (about 20K capacity), Sanders may be at UB(about 8K?). Where is the Hildabeast's?- Pierce Arrow Museum.
keepthefaith Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 Have to laugh at the locations of the upcoming political rallies in Buffalo. Trumps is at the FNC (about 20K capacity), Sanders may be at UB(about 8K?). Where is the Hildabeast's?- Pierce Arrow Museum. Yes, but superdelegates are worth 100K voters so she doesn't need a big crowd.
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 No one, least of all me, is talking about silencing political speech. My entire argument has been that the way the system is currently designed, the unfettered cash flowing into the system is absolutely disenfranchising a large chunk of Americans and silencing their voice. Speech is not money. Money is not speech. You're repetition of this phrase doesn't make it true. It's been explained to you quite logically, and many times, why money is in fact speech. You can't wish away the very real, and very different, costs of speaking across different mediums.
Deranged Rhino Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 You're repetition of this phrase doesn't make it true. It's been explained to you quite logically, and many times, why money is in fact speech. You can't wish away the very real, and very different, costs of speaking across different mediums. It has yet to be explained logically to me, if it had been I would have changed my mind. Money is a speech amplifier it is not speech. There is zero logic behind the legal notion (and now precident) that a hundred dollar donation is the same in value as a one million dollar donation. If we want to live in an oligarchy, bring it to a vote. But let's not backdoor it.
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 It has yet to be explained logically to me, if it had been I would have changed my mind. Money is a speech amplifier it is not speech. There is zero logic behind the legal notion (and now precident) that a hundred dollar donation is the same in value as a one million dollar donation. If we want to live in an oligarchy, bring it to a vote. But let's not backdoor it. Yes it has. I made the argument, and you begrudgingly agreed with me. Also, it's not that the hundred dollars is equal to the million dollars; it's rather that each dollar holds equal value in regards to what means of speech it seeks to purchase.
reddogblitz Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 Yes it has.I made the argument, and you begrudgingly agreed with me. Also, it's not that the hundred dollars is equal to the million dollars; it's rather that each dollar holds equal value in regards to what means of speech it seeks to purchase. BS $ != speech
Deranged Rhino Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 Yes it has. I made the argument, and you begrudgingly agreed with me. Also, it's not that the hundred dollars is equal to the million dollars; it's rather that each dollar holds equal value in regards to what means of speech it seeks to purchase. (Not trying to be a pain, I honestly don't remember the italicized) It is though, at least when it comes to the eyes of the politicians soliciting the donations. That's why the law needs to change. Money has value and an unbelievable power to corrupt in our society, this is without question. Writing a law which ignores this reality is theoretical smoke and mirrors because no matter how you define speech, money is money. More money has more value than less money while the quantity of speech does not define its value. The two are in no way equal. So setting up the system so that it ignores this reality is codifying bribery, not protecting speech. What you're advocating for isn't equality in speech, you're advocating that people with more means should have a greater ability to corrupt the system than those of lesser means. That is why it's so dangerous to a democracy. Speech is protected in this country because the founders knew the very real power that unending resources have to stifle it. Their focus was on centralized governments, but the logic behind that applies to big corporations in our modern world perhaps even more than it does centralized governments.
DC Tom Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 BS $ != speech It is when it determines who gets heard, and who gets shunted to the sidelines. Which, save for extremely rare occasions, it always has.
reddogblitz Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 It is when it determines who gets heard, and who gets shunted to the sidelines. Which, save for extremely rare occasions, it always has. There is a big difference in saying something long enough and loud and being able to legally bribe politicians which is what Citizens United has done. If they were using all that money to trumpet their ideas, you'd be right. But they're using it to influence politicians to pass laws that benefit them. In a political science class you may be right. $ != speech speech = speech
Nanker Posted April 8, 2016 Author Posted April 8, 2016 Hey, I admit Hillary is not much to look at, but we should refrain from making fun of her appearance. Well at least I didn't come right out and call her a B word.
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 Here's a boot-licking newspaper column for ya: http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2016/04/hillary-clinton-not-qualified-bernie-sanders-should-retract-his-statement-and-apologize.html/
Azalin Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 Here's a boot-licking newspaper column for ya: http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2016/04/hillary-clinton-not-qualified-bernie-sanders-should-retract-his-statement-and-apologize.html/ "But no one has yet been able to make a straight-faced argument that what’s lacking are qualifications."
B-Man Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 Reminder Clinton outreach to black voters is going well.
keepthefaith Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 Here's a boot-licking newspaper column for ya: http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2016/04/hillary-clinton-not-qualified-bernie-sanders-should-retract-his-statement-and-apologize.html/ Reading the comments below the article, someone posted this: "You're an idiot". Apparently that's a universal opinion and not one that is owned by a poster here.
GG Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 There is a big difference in saying something long enough and loud and being able to legally bribe politicians which is what Citizens United has done. If they were using all that money to trumpet their ideas, you'd be right. But they're using it to influence politicians to pass laws that benefit them. In a political science class you may be right. $ != speech speech = speech I think his point is that nothing has really changed over the years, and Citizens United reversed an unconstitutional law that was stifling free speech. But why should you learn about the issue when all you need is an op-ed that tells you what to think.
B-Man Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 Clinton team blasts reporters with noise machine during Hillary fundraising speech. (as Tom says) To be fair.................it was probably less screechy, than listening to Hillary actually speak. .
DC Tom Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 Clinton team blasts reporters with noise machine during Hillary fundraising speech. (as Tom says) To be fair.................it was probably less screechy, than listening to Hillary actually speak. . What was Trump doing at a Hillary event?
Doc Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 Looks like HiLIARy has prodded the bear and is about to feel the Bern.
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 (Not trying to be a pain, I honestly don't remember the italicized) It is though, at least when it comes to the eyes of the politicians soliciting the donations. That's why the law needs to change. Money has value and an unbelievable power to corrupt in our society, this is without question. Writing a law which ignores this reality is theoretical smoke and mirrors because no matter how you define speech, money is money. More money has more value than less money while the quantity of speech does not define its value. The two are in no way equal. So setting up the system so that it ignores this reality is codifying bribery, not protecting speech. What you're advocating for isn't equality in speech, you're advocating that people with more means should have a greater ability to corrupt the system than those of lesser means. That is why it's so dangerous to a democracy. Speech is protected in this country because the founders knew the very real power that unending resources have to stifle it. Their focus was on centralized governments, but the logic behind that applies to big corporations in our modern world perhaps even more than it does centralized governments. Speech is protected in this country because the Founders deeply feared a government empowered to silence political speech, that's why it was bundled with the freedom to assemble. The Founders engaged in treasonous behavior, in the eyes of their English King, by doing both of those things; and the new Government was put in place with this in mind. It's also incredibly important to point out, for the second time now, that the Founders had no interest at all of giving the common man much say in how government was run. The common man is ignorant, under-educated, and prone to much worse decision making than those in what Jefferson called "the natural aristocracy of men with virtues and talents", whom he argued should always be in charge of the government. In fact, the Founders were all of this natural aristocracy. They were the wealthiest land owners on America, and were men of great vision. To these ends, when they dissolved the old government under The Articles, they did so without the support of the citizens of the several states. The new Government under the Constitution was put in place to pull power away from the common man in favor of their own personal financial interests. Under the Articles, the common citizens of the states refused to pay taxes for the debt incurred by the Revolution; and the Founders themselves would have been on the hook for the debt. The new government they put in place was intended to place permanent insulation between the common citizen (whom himself was narrowly defined in order to further insulate) and the men of means and talents whom they intended the government be run by. The franchise itself was restricted to property owning white males, and even that elite group wasn't permitted to vote for the Senate which was to be elected by whom the states put forward as their own best in their own legislatures. The Presidency was not permitted to be obtained by popular election, but rather by the powerful elite comprising the Electoral College, who are under no legal obligation what-so-ever to cast their ballot for any particular candidate. You may wish that money doesn't equal speech, but in any free society it most certainly does, as my ability to project my opinion extends only so far as my dollars will carry it; and that is fair and that is just, as we all live by that exact same rule. Any argument opposed is nothing more than an admission that you don't like the opinions that run counter to yours that may be supported by more monied interests, and therefor you wish to steal their freedom in order to silence them.
Recommended Posts