This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Preventing undue influence on elections by corporations seems like a super good reason to me.
Yeah, that's a reasonable position. The Supreme Court disagreed, but it was 5-4, so there are obviously reasonable arguments on both sides.
Example of where we align and where we don't.
If this is the goal, don't they have bigger fish to fry than a "documentary" here or there? Under the guise of "preventing undue influence" it seems like there are dozens of other commonly accepted practices that should be addressed. All of which would have a much larger direct impact in achieving said goal.
Hillary is totally going for the estranged GOP vote, she will leave the progressive wing in the dust.
This is so illberal. It's antidemocratic. We can never, ever justify restrictions on real, actual speech. I sometimes think these sort of authoritarian attitudes have opened the door for the sorts of authoritarian attitudes we see from Trump and his supporters.
A corporation is not a person and therefore shouldn't have all of the free speech rights that a person has. I'm not advocating limiting an individuals free speech (although most everyone accepts individual contribution limits, right?) but that of corporations with a tremendous amount of power to influence elections - that is not what comes to mind when I think 'free speech'.
All entities - political parties, churches, synagogues, movie companies, ISP's, network tv, cable and digital tv companies, book publishers, charities, book clubs, etc. x infinity - are not persons. You cannot distinguish one man's speech from the entity which he uses to broadcast it.
So get rid of electioneering laws? You're OK with hundreds of Trump or Clinton employees standing directly outside a polling place saying whatever they want to people as they enter? Interesting. Can they lie about the candidates? Threaten voters?
No I was trying to say this earlier. I'm all for transparency rules and would go even further than McCain Feingold in that regard. I'm for most maybe all contribution limits.
More of the same, what's expected -- including the denial. Hillary has ALWAYS [insert lies stating she behaves the exact opposite of whatever she's accused of doing this time] evidenced by [#### that's obliquely related and not Germaine].
I simply draw the line between actual speech and fungible money. It's that simple to me.
By the way, even putting aside First Amendment considerations and just looking at things from a policy perspective, the Citizens United case shows how hard it is to draft legislation that prevents undue influence on elections by corporations without being terribly overbroad. Citizens United was a small, independent filmmaker that wasn't going to have an undue influence on the election at all, but under McCain-Feingold, it was banned from showing its movie. If we're worried about the influence of moneyed special interests, Citizens United was the wrong case for the FEC to push. The case had nothing to do with moneyed special interests.
When proven wrong, act like a holier than thou arrogant donkey. You've got that mastered. But you really need to work on your comparisons. It's embarrassing reading the ones you have today. Surely you can resort back to Southpark to make yet another point.
Apparently, those who don't end up as politicians in Washington DC. I do agree that we have to choose from less than perfect options frequently. I'd argue that there is no such thing as a perfect option. What confuses me is those who continue to settle and don't demand more thinking that's going to help. It's been a decline for a while...at some point we have to stop digging. There's always a reason to keep digging....there's never a perfect time to stop.
you can vote for someone other than Trump or Hillary- there ARE other options on the ballot.. Gary Johnson for me
agreed. to the establishment it's "taking your ball and going home" or "refusing to participate".you can vote for someone other than Trump or Hillary- there ARE other options on the ballot.. Gary Johnson for me
Petulance: bad.
She's wiffing big time on the sane. Honestly, I don't think she really cares if they are sane or crazy as long as they vote for her. It makes absolutely no difference to her.
Not one sentence in that article supports your assertions. It supports mine. Like I said all of the cutting and pasting won't change a thing! So for once please don't!
She learned from 2008, got more shameless (installed co-campaign chair at DNC, bolder in courting big money -- [speechescough] -- and funneling pay-to-play deals through the Foundation.). She turned it up to 11 this time, on the corruptionometer. Everyone knew it was "her turn" including everyone willing to pay for influence.
I hate the no nested quotes thing....I had to go back a ways to figure out what was said originally. After reading, I tend to agree with BFS here. The reason they decided to reduce their security on State computers was so they could get emails from Hillary. So, now, we know that Hillary had her own server that was significantly lacking in security (to the point where State computers thought it was phishing type emails) and in order for State computers to communicate with it in any reliable manner they decided to reduce the State computer security. I have no idea how many PCs we are talking about but we are talking about computers on a network that's been hacked (the network and computers on it...perhaps not these specific computers though) reducing their security below a level that's already been shown to be "hackable". That seems like a good idea and a wonderful display of judgment. And for what exactly?
Enterprise spam filters don't really tell us anything about the security level of the sending server. For example I'd guess that the servers that the servers used to collect ransomware bitcoins are rather secure. And while the very real concern that a user could install such malware that does an end around of the security on their PC and/or network based on an otherwise blocked email, turning off the spam filter does not otherwise reduce any other security settings on any individual PC or on the network.
Rats! You got me - I was really hoping no one would notice. Nothing slips by you.squistion said:
