Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)

Status
Not open for further replies.

tehy

Banned deucer.
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ary-clinton-honest-transparency-jill-abramson

the ppl itt claiming clinton is lying will just quibble over the source ("this paper is owned by a person who once chatted with bill clinton therefore the Clinton machine's hand was so far up the writer's ass as to be actually crafting sentences" etc) but to most people and groups - politifact among them - hillary clinton is not only basically honest and trustworthy, but the most honest and trustworthy politician currently in the campaign. Of course you can disagree; I dont necessarily agree with that assessment, and shes certainly not the most authentic or charismatic. But the idea of her as a nefarious liar both about policy intentions and past actions is fictitious and harmful. It's a much of a misconception as the "system is rigged" (in a broad sense, im aware certain states had shoddy or actually malicious systems of counting and delegate-choosing) argument, and these fictions being promulgated and given validity worries me greatly
the ppl itt claiming clinton is lying will just point out that Clinton once claimed to be shot at by bosnian fucking snipers.

all of the lies that Hillary Clinton tells, and this is key, are not even political lies. Yes, all politicians lie, but they usually do so in a predictable manner (i.e. it benefits them personally to lie) and so you can generally tell (either that, or they lie about their cheating on wives and etc.). Hillary tells lies about completely random shit for no reason; in my personal opinion, her default reaction in some cases is to lie as a defensive response. By the way, I'm sure Politifact isn't biased; see, another thing Hillary does is, rather than lie about how great her preferred policy is, she takes the unprecedented step of just flipping around depending on who she is talking to (also putting on accents and mannerisms, which is something Honest People do (trademark)).

edit: part of the reason i stopped giving a damn about politifact is shit like this, which i recalled seeing and managed to find

http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...-trump-says-president-obama-wants-us-take-25/

i mean clearly it's a stupid fucking statement (and in all likelihood gotten off some random conspiracy blog, as the article shows), but 'obama wants to X' is not disprovable because you would have to look in Obama's mind to disprove it. I'd be fine if Politifact spun off a sister site which looked into political statements like this and talked about the likelihoods and etc, but there's a difference between 'he quoted a fake statistic' and 'he thinks Obama wants to do something', you realise?
 
Last edited:
I don't. For either of them. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would prefer to see the two of them in jail (for what he did to Scotland, and for what she has been accused of doing to the women who her husband has raped, and for her e-mail scandal. I wish I wrote down the specific statute that one individual says that she violated, which he also said would have landed any other individual behind bars for 10 years, and hence the meme "Hillary for Prison 2016" that has been going around.

If Trump turned out to be in any way a good President, I'd be very, very, pleasantly surprised. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if he were an unmitigated disaster, and a blot in our history that would be best shoveled into the ashbin of history.
 
"Hillary for Prison 2016" isn't going anywhere, and even if it did somehow get anywhere, there's already existing precedent which would work in her favour. Unless of course you think that the trio of Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and George Bush are also going to jail.

Spoiler: they won't. ever.

Granted there are differences between those instances and what happened with Clinton, but they are minor at best. The big one is that Clinton went about using a private server at her own house, whereas none of the previous 3 did which opens up a few more security issues but that's about it, and that last point about security is largely irrelevant because that's not even what is being investigated, nor does it matter that much because it's not actually a crime. Go to subsection b for things regarding private servers, and yes, she did in fact comply with the regulations. What is being investigated, and no this isn't a formal indictment yet like a few misinformed people in here have said, is mishandling of classified information, about 104 instances out of 50,000 pages of emails. Or, if anyone wants to do the math, an infinitely small amount. Now, if you're keeping up with this, you'll see that she did in fact send classified information out through her email, however, the next step is to figure out if that information was classified at the time and to determine whether or not that information should be deemed classified or not, especially since one of those classified emails is apparently just a copy of an Associated Press article which is hardly top level information.

The big picture here is that none of them, Powell, Rice, Bush, or Clinton, actually did anything wrong. This is just another case of a non-issue being trumped up for the sake of partisan attack purposes. If you've been banking on her being indicted soon, I wouldn't hold your breath.

edit: By the way, Patraeus did get indicted for something similar and he only got 2 years probation and a $100,000 fine so yeah, Hillary for prison is just another dumb political meme for people who can't understand politics outside of reading headlines and facebook posts
 

Kevin Garrett

is a competitor
is a Top Tutor Alumnusis a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Site Content Manager Alumnusis an Artist Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnusis the Smogon Tour Season 12 Championis a Three-Time Past SPL Champion
Hillary for prison is just another dumb political meme for people who can't understand politics outside of reading headlines and facebook posts
While there are people out there who say what they mean and mean what they say in regards to Hillary for prison, for a large segment of society it is about tonality. The beliefs and feelings that are elicited through a message are more powerful than the accuracy of the content contained within.
 
While there are people out there who say what they mean and mean what they say in regards to Hillary for prison, for a large segment of society it is about tonality. The beliefs and feelings that are elicited through a message are more powerful than the accuracy of the content contained within.
And that explains why Trump gained so much popularity. The way in which he delivers his message and his brutal honesty resonated with a large part of the Republican base; they elicited the belief that he was competent and was a guy who knew his shit and could get shit done. Even though a lot of what he says is complete crap, people are willing to buy it. And thats the worrying part, that a person can basically just BS their way into becoming President.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JES

tehy

Banned deucer.
I'm on mobile so I can't really do this justice but

shaian said:
about 104 instances out of 50,000 pages of emails. Or, if anyone wants to do the math, an infinitely small amount.
'Your honor, you will notice that I had encountered red lights 50,000 times in my life and ran them only 100 times, an infinitely small fraction of the time, so why are you taking my license?'

Doesn't really work that way.

As to the rest; first article you link implicates only Colin and he states it's only routine non-classified business. Second doesn't implicate George Bush at all but just a user of the 'GW43' server, wikipedia says that's some us attorney or w/e but he sure ain't bush; the law you link to says you can't delete e-mails and Hillary did, plus the more relevant law is "You can't keep classified info in an insecure location".

By the way, as I recall one of those emails contained the real names of via operatives in the field...not so innocent now, huh?

To cap this off; fuck George Bush and you know it, this is certainly shady and I wish it's been looked into. But at most, we have suspicion that they did anything seriously wrong, whereas with Hillary we know for sure.

Petraeus got that punishment for printing some info, putting it in his house, and showing one other person. So far, one guy has copped to hacking Hillary's server, so her and Petraeus's crimes are only equal if you believe her server, which in the words of the hacker and tons of security experts, was 'easy as shit to hack' was somehow never hacked. Hey, I've met people who believed weirder stuff than that...

To put it simply; Kevin, no, this is not as simple as 'tone over reality'. And it's annoying that a post like shaian's prompts so much chin wagging and 'oh those silly right wingers' because, not to be intractably rude or anything but this post was pretty ill-informed and made use of some pretty questionable logic. (Seriously, where did you get the idea that George Bush used that server?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: JES
'Your honor, you will notice that I had encountered red lights 50,000 times in my life and ran them only 100 times, an infinitely small fraction of the time, so why are you taking my license?'

Doesn't really work that way.
see, in this metaphor you seem to operate under the assumption that i didn't address this in quite literally the next few sentences after the sentence where you drew upon the "104 instances" bit. Yes, she did email classified information but was the information classified at the time. now im not sure how time works in your current universe but in this one time operates in a roughly progressive fashion and things which occur at time x typically occur before time z, for example, i send an email containing information at time x, but that information becomes classified at time y, i cant get charged for sending out classified information at time z because of the emails i sent out at time x because it wasnt illegal to do so since said information wasnt classified at the time.
the law you link to says you can't delete e-mails and Hillary did, plus the more relevant law is "You can't keep classified info in an insecure location".
same law, literally right underneath the specific section b which is concerned with private emails and servers:

(c) Agencies may elect to manage electronic mail records with very short-term NARA-approved retention periods (transitory records with a very short-term retention period of 180 days or less as provided by GRS 23, Item 7, or by a NARA-approved agency records schedule) on the electronic mail system itself, without the need to copy the record to a paper or electronic recordkeeping system, provided that:
(1) Users do not delete the messages before the expiration of the NARA-approved retention period, and
(2) The system's automatic deletion rules ensure preservation of the records until the expiration of the NARA-approved retention period.

now you might say she deleted them without proper record, but they were recorded in a technical sense since emails sent within us government institutions used @state.gov format which automatically archive themselves. and you might say, but what about emails that weren't sent to those .gov emails? well the thing is that there are quite a few scenarios that the secretary of state might have to use a private email, something that is accepted by literally everyone including the national archives, and it wasnt until 2014 that private account emails had to be copied to official accounts in order to be recorded.
By the way, as I recall one of those emails contained the real names of via operatives in the field...not so innocent now, huh?
big. if. true. but that was first reported by fox, who if you should recall were a big part of that whole "make this email thing bigger than it is" effort, and those names were actually more like "references about" and didn't contain names of operatives or sources. i recommend looking at the 2nd paragraph under the header "security designations" since i understand that reading the entirety of things isn't your strong-suit. and for the record, the new york post, fox, and breitbart arent reliable and they were the bulk of the sources i came across trying to find out more about this since most reliable institutions literally had nothing outside of what i found at the ny times...
To cap this off; fuck George Bush and you know it, this is certainly shady and I wish it's been looked into. But at most, we have suspicion that they did anything seriously wrong, whereas with Hillary we know for sure.
i recommend you read more about this because no, it's not suspicions.
Petraeus got that punishment for printing some info, putting it in his house, and showing one other person. So far, one guy has copped to hacking Hillary's server, so her and Petraeus's crimes are only equal if you believe her server, which in the words of the hacker and tons of security experts, was 'easy as shit to hack' was somehow never hacked. Hey, I've met people who believed weirder stuff than that...
did you somehow miss the point i was trying to make which is he got indicted for something similiar, and all he got was... if clinton got indicted, she would most likely get hit under the same law as petraeus
And it's annoying that a post like shaian's prompts so much chin wagging and 'oh those silly right wingers' because, not to be intractably rude or anything but this post was pretty ill-informed and made use of some pretty questionable logic. (Seriously, where did you get the idea that George Bush used that server?)
1. you somehow missed my whole point and assumed i was criticizing republicans.
2. "a user of the 'GW43' server, wikipedia says that's some us attorney or w/e but he sure ain't bush" like what the fuck is this? it was a whole group of white house upper staff, including karl rove which may have prompted him to resign, and was tied in to a controversial dismissal of a group of federal prosecutors.
3. 2 parts: 1) it was the bush administration using it, including as i already said, several upper staff members including the deputy chief of staff so if he didnt use it personally he was well aware of it and 2) pedanticism doesnt make you intelligent, you're still a moron
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tehy

Banned deucer.
hi tehy, im not sure in which universe my post didn't address at least a few of those concerns, but i highly recommend you stop reading from that one. now im not sure how to simplify this enough for you, sadly smogon doesnt have the option to use a crayola-style font but let me try:
see, in this beautifully ignorant metaphor you seem to operate under the assumption that i didn't address this in quite literally the next few sentences after the sentence where you drew upon the "104 instances" bit. Yes, she did email classified information but was the information classified at the time. now im not sure how time works in your current universe but in this one time operates in a roughly progressive fashion and things which occur at time x typically occur before time z, for example, i send an email containing information at time x, but that information becomes classified at time y, i cant get charged for sending classified for sending out classified information at time z because of the emails i sent out at time x because it wasnt illegal to do so since said information wasnt classified at the time.
i'm unsure how 'names of spies' could possibly not be 'classified at the time'. In fact, how on earth could a piece of information be classified after it was generated? Can you even provide a single example of how that could work at all? If something is not OK for the public to know, then there's no reason for that to happen after the fact.

So maybe what you're referring to is that it wasn't stamped with the word 'classified' at the time? If so, please say so, that way I can really go in on you. Seriously, if that's what you meant, say the word and it will be on like Donkey Kong.

shaian said:
same law, literally right underneath the specific section b which is concerned with private emails and servers:

(c) Agencies may elect to manage electronic mail records with very short-term NARA-approved retention periods (transitory records with a very short-term retention period of 180 days or less as provided by GRS 23, Item 7, or by a NARA-approved agency records schedule) on the electronic mail system itself, without the need to copy the record to a paper or electronic recordkeeping system, provided that:
(1) Users do not delete the messages before the expiration of the NARA-approved retention period, and
(2) The system's automatic deletion rules ensure preservation of the records until the expiration of the NARA-approved retention period.

now you might say she deleted them without proper record, but they were recorded in a technical sense since emails sent within us government institutions used @state.gov format which automatically archive themselves. and you might say, but what about emails that weren't sent to those .gov emails? well the thing is that there are quite a few scenarios that the secretary of state might have to use a private email, something that is accepted by literally everyone including the national archives, and it wasnt until 2014 that private account emails had to be copied to official accounts in order to be recorded.
do note that other people who used the e-mail systems apparently only sent them to government e-mails (edit: colin powell, not the attorney business, my b /edit), whereas Hillary didn't, unless you have evidence otherwise? But again, classified info

shaian said:
big. if. true. but that was first reported by fox, who if you should recall were a big part of that whole "make this email thing bigger than it is" effort, and those names were actually more like "references about" and didn't contain names of operatives or sources. i recommend looking at the 2nd paragraph under the header "security designations" since i understand that reading the entirety of things isn't your strong-suit. and for the record, the new york post, fox, and breitbart arent reliable and they were the bulk of the sources i came across trying to find out more about this since most reliable institutions literally had nothing outside of what i found at the ny times...
i'm curious - if you can declare the New York Post to be 'not reliable' on the basis of...anyways, can I declare the New York Times to be 'not reliable', on the basis of... anyways

here's a good bit from the washington times, first link i clicked:

'One of the messages is an extensive missive from David Satterfield, a top U.S. diplomat to Egypt, who told top officials in the White House and the State Department about negotiations in the Sinai. The entire contents of the messages are now deemed “secret,” though there is no indication they were marked as such at the time. The message was forwarded to Mrs. Clinton by top aide Jacob Sullivan.'

washington post:

The emails often were sent in response to another State Department official whose original note has also been redacted in the publicly released version.

...

For example, Clinton wrote an email in July 2012 to Deputy Secretary of State William Burns and other top department officials with the subject line “Agrement [sic] for Egypt.” The email includes a short paragraph that has been entirely redacted by the State Department followed by one line from Clinton: “What’s the status?”


your best-case argument is that this is just the government agencies being ornery, and it's not that this couldn't be the case, but there's a long way to go until you get there. Even if it is them being ornery, that doesn't necessarily exclude criminality from the conversation.
shaian said:
i recommend you read more about this because no, it's not suspicions.
disagree
shaian said:
did you somehow miss the point i was trying to make which is he got indicted for something similiar, and all he got was... if clinton got indicted, she would most likely get hit under the same law as petraeus
did you somehow miss the point I - key point, I, not you - was trying to make, is that he got indicted for something much less serious, and what he got was...

shaian said:
2. this part i found particularly irritating since you literally dont know anything about a major us political scandal but you somehow still try to pretend like you know something about it: "a user of the 'GW43' server, wikipedia says that's some us attorney or w/e but he sure ain't bush" like what the fuck is this? it was a whole group of white house upper staff, including karl rove which may have prompted him to resign, and was tied in to a controversial dismissal of a group of federal prosecutors.
i think i pretty clearly acted like i had googled it and clicked a wikipedia link, which apparently was more homework than you did so

shaian said:
3. 2 parts: 1) it was the bush administration using it, including as i already said, several upper staff members including the deputy chief of staff so if he didnt use it personally he was well aware of it and 2) pedanticism doesnt make you intelligent, you're still a moron
edit:

2 parts: 1) at best, you miscommunicated pretty badly here by linking to an article via the words George Bush when the article doesn't clarify your point at all, 2) given that this wouldn't necessarily cause George Bush to be put in a fucking prison cell, that's not pedantry. Seriously, jail time and impeachment are not details, and neither is a lack of active involvement in crimes that cause these things.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
While there are people out there who say what they mean and mean what they say in regards to Hillary for prison, for a large segment of society it is about tonality. The beliefs and feelings that are elicited through a message are more powerful than the accuracy of the content contained within.
I feel Hillary for Prison is the same type of argument as Bernie's argument for imprisoning bank executives, just for a different political base. It highlights issues with government that should be fixed by structural changes, but the actual argument for imprisonment is really rather weak.
 

Kevin Garrett

is a competitor
is a Top Tutor Alumnusis a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Site Content Manager Alumnusis an Artist Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnusis the Smogon Tour Season 12 Championis a Three-Time Past SPL Champion
And that explains why Trump gained so much popularity. The way in which he delivers his message and his brutal honesty resonated with a large part of the Republican base; they elicited the belief that he was competent and was a guy who knew his shit and could get shit done. Even though a lot of what he says is complete crap, people are willing to buy it. And thats the worrying part, that a person can basically just BS their way into becoming President.
Trump is a very competent person, his success is not an accident at all in both business and politics. It is one thing to question and debate over his effectiveness to govern through the principles he operates his business empire, but quite another to suggest he is incompetent. People are very quick to incite him on receiving a fortune from his father to claim he isn't as great as he claims to be. While that is a true fact, also look at all the people who received a fortune and lost it all from a lucrative lifestyle and/or failed ventures in the business world that left them broke. Thousands of people receive a paycheck from his company every week.

To put it simply; Kevin, no, this is not as simple as 'tone over reality'.
I did say that there is a group of people who really do believe Clinton should face charges that lead to imprisonment. I think she should be indicted and face trial. If that does not happen, both the government and her campaign will lose because it would appear that she plays by a different set of rules than the rest of the country. That will fuel further distrust of the government and increase the swell in the growing populist movement.

I feel Hillary for Prison is the same type of argument as Bernie's argument for imprisoning bank executives, just for a different political base. It highlights issues with government that should be fixed by structural changes, but the actual argument for imprisonment is really rather weak.
Yeah, that's a good comparison. The only difference is that Hillary for prison makes for a great slogan. In politics, most people don't have time to do loads of research to decide on their candidate. Anything that can be said to attract and rally a voter behind a cause or belief that might not hold water when analyzed in detail is how they make a living.
 
Trump is a very competent person, his success is not an accident at all in both business and politics. It is one thing to question and debate over his effectiveness to govern through the principles he operates his business empire, but quite another to suggest he is incompetent. People are very quick to incite him on receiving a fortune from his father to claim he isn't as great as he claims to be. While that is a true fact, also look at all the people who received a fortune and lost it all from a lucrative lifestyle and/or failed ventures in the business world that left them broke. Thousands of people receive a paycheck from his company every week.
Ofc he is an effective businessman, but that doesn't make him qualified to be President(in fact, it hardly does). It is clear from Trump's behavior and mannerisms that he is very egocentric and ruthless, not someone who would compromise. While these traits served him well in the real estate business, that doesn't mean that he would be a good President. How can we trust that he has America's best interests in mind when he makes outlandish statements like building a wall or banning Muslims from entering the US, clearly to get more voters by his side?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JES
Yeah, that's a good comparison. The only difference is that Hillary for prison makes for a great slogan. In politics, most people don't have time to do loads of research to decide on their candidate. Anything that can be said to attract and rally a voter behind a cause or belief that might not hold water when analyzed in detail is how they make a living.
Yeah, I think there should be a holiday in September or November, so voters can get their shit together, and research who best how to fill in their ballots. Unfortunately, not everyone pays attention to social media politics, and anyone in the know knows that corporate news media keeps voters uninformed, as well as shape the view of the world the way TPTB want things to appear. The fact that TPTB like voters to remain uninformed, and allows the voters to blindly vote in their supporters means it will take a lot of work for something like this to happen.

Trump is possibly a worse nightmare of what happens when you keep the masses uninformed/misinformed. And whatever happens isn't just primarily the voter's fault. But the news media as well. And the political establishment more making the perfect political climate for this sort of thing to fester in the first place.

But if TPTB hope I'm going to vote for Hillary just to keep Trump out of office, they have another thing coming. Whatever happens, it is their fault.

Um...sorry for the rant. Again.
 
labor day.
Uh, okay. That celebrates the American labor movements. It isn't a holiday specifically mean to give Americans time to research what boxes they are going to check on their ballots in November (and how many have even gotten the idea of using Labor Day for that very purpose?).
 

vonFiedler

I Like Chopin
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
Uh, okay. That celebrates the American labor movements. It isn't a holiday specifically mean to give Americans time to research what boxes they are going to check on their ballots in November (and how many have even gotten the idea of using Labor Day for that very purpose?).
I think the point is that nobody ever celebrates Labor Day, so if you just want a day for people to have the time for this stuff, that's one.
 
I think the point is that nobody ever celebrates Labor Day, so if you just want a day for people to have the time for this stuff, that's one.
Yeah, I that's a good point, and I have to admit, it's a good idea. Though how many people are actually bright enough that they'd even think to use Labor Day for such a purpose on their own?
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Why does Hillary keep calling Trump a "loose cannon"? Surely, she can come up with a better insult/label. I mean, the kind of voter who will be interested in Trump is not going to be put off by the phrase "loose cannon"-- if anything, they would be attracted to it.

I'm not against a Hillary presidency, I think she'd do a good job overall-- but for all her "tactical" manuvering, she's kind of just sucking and dropping the ball when it comes to messaging. Like really-- why is she just sucking so bad at this?

She's got no inspiring message
She's got no strategy to appeal to Bernie supporters or get them to her side
Despite getting more votes, there's no vigor/momentum behind them
She calls Trump a loose cannon-- I mean what?

Calling Trump a loose cannon makes me question if she's even been watching this race or knows anything about the Trump campaign. srsly?


It's like Obama said, I wanna Feel the Bern! not:




I voted for Bernie, but honestly Hillary's campaign kinda sucking at grabbing the initiative is the thing that worries me the most about the situation overall.
 
Last edited:
I think that Hillary should be railing against the financially controlled election system. She should be constantly making the campaign promise that this will be the last Presidential Election where big money has any factor.

I don't care too much about socialism. I'm neutral on that. But money needs to be dragged out of politics (kicking and screaming if necessary). Getting it out of the highest office would be a nice first shot in that political war. I feel that if we get money out of politics, politicians will be less focused on how to fund their parties, or how to get campaign contributions and favors, and more focused on how to serve the voters who got them into office in the first place. Then it will be easier to deal with the other issues facing our country.

That would get the Bernie votes, because they want the system to be fixed, not stay fixed! Of course, if the Supreme Judge she appoints fails to someone who sides with activists against Citizens United, that could (rightfully) destroy her political career, or at least place her under lashing criticism. It would also convince me that she'd at least get the ball rolling in the right direction, or else.

Hillary still has the national election to start doing this, and climate change is also a huge issue amongst progressives like me. I feel that by not making this a huge part of her campaign like Bernie has, she's just pegging herself as someone who won't get what must be done, but just be more of the same. I don't want more of the same. Not one bit. If this is her way of playing it safe, then she needs to stop it.

If she has no intent on fighting to get money out of politics in any fashion, then she doesn't deserve my vote. It is that simple.
 

Bull Of Heaven

99 Pounders / 4'3" Feet
is a Pre-Contributor
That's a tougher case to make when you're backed by big money, especially if you start this late in the process. How many Bernie voters would believe her?
 
Last edited:
That would get the Bernie votes, because they want the system to be fixed, not stay fixed! Of course, if the Supreme Judge she appoints fails to someone who sides with activists against Citizens United, that could (rightfully) destroy her political career, or at least place her under lashing criticism. It would also convince me that she'd at least get the ball rolling in the right direction, or else.
Two things

1) It's a Supreme Court Justice, not a Supreme Judge (Not hating or anything, but would just like to clarify)

2) I'm pretty sure you're not against Citizen's United, but are actually against lobbying/corporate donors. Citizen's united did allow for campaign donations by corporations and other activist groups, but its main intent was to allow corporations/activist groups to make political media. If Citizen's United was overturned, you could say goodbye to things like political satire, opinionated talk shows/tv programs, etc. On the other hand, what you're describing is corporate donations / lobbying, which is really where you see the corrupt politicians.

Also, trying to legislate against Supreme Court decision (Recently exemplified by Oklahoma's anti-abortion law) would technically be unconstitutional, and would never become law.
 
Because those things didn't exist before that? You're being played.
My point is is that people didn't really care about restricting political satire before it became legal precedent. If Citizen's is repealed, with the mass amount of media coverage that will certainly garner, it's a possibility that can't be ignored.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 1)

Top