GOP superPACs plan to spend $1 billion on electons this year

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

The voters decide what the election results are and why. Not you.

Of course. And voter opinions can be swayed by immense money advantages. Allowing just a few individuals to provide that money makes those few individuals more influential than millions of people.

Not good for democracy.

So? This isn't about those.

Because I have proven, beyond any doubt, that for compelling reasons the government may limit speech. So even if you believe that political donations equal speech, it is still possible under our laws to limit it.

Very wealthy people being able to put a toe on the scale and flip things to their side by unlimited spending isn't good for democracy. It's dangerous, because it means that the richest people will decide policy. Even more than they do now.

Keep trying.

I'm making my case. I can't force you to understand.

I'm going to say this yet again. I've said it many times, but it doesn't seem to sink in. Pay attention.

OF COURSE I know speech can currently be limited for good reason.

YOUR reasons aren't even close to being good enough.

Got it now?

Turning the US into a plutocracy run by monied interests plenty important. When corporations got to do what they wanted we had children in mines and you could set Lake Erie on fire.

Not liking election results is absolutely most unacceptable reason for limiting speech. If the voters want a plutocracy, it's their choice.

Ah, so we get to the nut. You don't care if the country destroys itself. Again, sedition is about overthrowing the country. It is limited. Turning the country into a corporate hellhole is equally dire. And should be limited as well.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

So if they were NOT coordinating, is it not legalized bribery? Yes or no?

No.

Simple question. Is there a right to spend money on speech, as long as you don't coordinate it with a candidate? Yes or no?

yes, but it is reasonable to limit the amount spent.

Why is $250 a magic number? What if 1,000 people in a local club all gave $250? That's $250,000. They might expect something for their club in return. What about that situation?

$250 is a drop in a the bucket, sir. They can expect what they like, or hope for what they like. If you are talking about them aggregating their contributions in some way, I would oppose that too. One thousand $250 donations are drops in the bucket. A $250,000 donation is a bribe.

Answer the question first. It's a simple question. Can speech alone be bribery? Why would you not want to answer that?

Sure, speech can be bribery. Such as, "Put this little rider in the next bill you can that gives my company a break on tariffs for these chemicals, and I'll give you a half a million dollars in campaign donations through CorruptPAC."

Now, you asked a lot of questions, it's time you answered a few, if you can manage it. Do you honestly believe that a wealthy person/corporation who writes a check does not expect some fairly specific actions on the part of the Congressman in return? Do you think it is beyond his means to clandestinely communicate what he wants? Do you think the SuperPACs are telling the truth when they say they "do not cooordinate?"

[elucidator]

Sure, they could easily be telling the truth. GeeDubya did not endorse the Swiftboat attacks on Kerry, why should he?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

Of course. And voter opinions can be swayed by immense money advantages. Allowing just a few individuals to provide that money makes those few individuals more influential than millions of people.

Not good for democracy.

The VOTERS decide. That IS democracy. You don't seem to get that.

Because I have proven, beyond any doubt, that for compelling reasons the government may limit speech. So even if you believe that political donations equal speech, it is still possible under our laws to limit it.

No, you haven't even come close to proving that.

Very wealthy people being able to put a toe on the scale and flip things to their side by unlimited spending isn't good for democracy. It's dangerous, because it means that the richest people will decide policy. Even more than they do now.

No, the VOTERS are deciding. You don't seem to get that. When someone wins an election, it means the VOTERS decided.

Turning the US into a plutocracy run by monied interests plenty important. When corporations got to do what they wanted we had children in mines and you could set Lake Erie on fire.

And the voters put a stop to that.

Ah, so we get to the nut. You don't care if the country destroys itself.

No, I care very much. I just don't believe we need to destroy our democracy to restore it.

Again, sedition is about overthrowing the country. It is limited. Turning the country into a corporate hellhole is equally dire. And should be limited as well.

So why don't you just propose not having elections any more, since you think the voters are making such stupid decisions?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

No.

So why are you talking about coordination when you believe its bribery even without it?

yes, but it is reasonable to limit the amount spent.

No, it's not. Just as you cannot limit how much speech someone expresses, you can't limit how much they express by limiting how much money they spend. You can't use word limits, time limits, space limits, etc. nor spending limits. No limits on speech.

$250 is a drop in a the bucket, sir. They can expect what they like, or hope for what they like. If you are talking about them aggregating their contributions in some way, I would oppose that too. One thousand $250 donations are drops in the bucket. A $250,000 donation is a bribe.

No, I'm saying what if 1,000 club members each send their own $250, in separate envelopes, and each ask for something for their club? No aggregation. What about that?

Sure, speech can be bribery. Such as, "Put this little rider in the next bill you can that gives my company a break on tariffs for these chemicals, and I'll give you a half a million dollars in campaign donations through CorruptPAC."

But you said money isn't speech!

Can SPEECH alone be bribery, as in "you do this for me, and I'll say nice things about you." Yes or no?

Now, you asked a lot of questions, it's time you answered a few, if you can manage it. Do you honestly believe that a wealthy person/corporation who writes a check does not expect some fairly specific actions on the part of the Congressman in return?

Sometimes they want something specific, yes. Sometimes they just want the guy to win and do whatever he says he'll do and that's enough.

Do you think it is beyond his means to clandestinely communicate what he wants? Do you think the SuperPACs are telling the truth when they say they "do not cooordinate?"

You just said coordination doesn't matter above.

[lance strongarm]

It's July 4. I am celebrating our freedom from tyrants and those who think they are smarter than the rest of the people and think this justifies manipulating democracy and speech to "fix" the outcome of elections.

[elucidator]

We don't think we are smarter than all the rest of the people, we're just pretty sure we're smarter than you.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

The VOTERS decide. That IS democracy. You don't seem to get that.

And swaying the VOTERS with unlimited money is a bad thing.

No, you haven't even come close to proving that.

I have proven it utterly and without reservation.

Fact: The government says that your speech, if it involves sedition is limited.
Fact: The government says that your speech, if it involves yelling fire in a theater is limited.
Fact: The government says that your speech, if it is claiming something you product cannot do is limited.

These are facts, and no amount of hysterical denials on your part can change them.

No, the VOTERS are deciding. You don't seem to get that. When someone wins an election, it means the VOTERS decided.

Yes. And manipulating the voters with unlimited money is a bad thing.

And the voters put a stop to that.

And we'll have it again, if unlimited political money allows monied interests to get the electoral results that promote their profitability over public good.

No, I care very much. I just don't believe we need to destroy our democracy to restore it.

You have not rationally demonstrated that limiting the amount of money in political campaigns destroys our democracy.

In fact, the very argument is utterly stupid, because there are already limits on our speech and it did not destroy our democracy. In fact, the argument is doubly stupid, because until Citizens United helped create Super PACS, there were limits and it did not destroy our democracy.

You simply don't know what you're talking about and are emotionally over-reacting because you perceive some weird assault that isn't there.

So why don't you just propose not having elections any more, since you think the voters are making such stupid decisions?

Because I love democracy. You are the one advocating its death.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

So why are you talking about coordination when you believe its bribery even without it?



No, it's not. Just as you cannot limit how much speech someone expresses, you can't limit how much they express by limiting how much money they spend. You can't use word limits, time limits, space limits, etc. nor spending limits. No limits on speech.



No, I'm saying what if 1,000 club members each send their own $250, in separate envelopes, and each ask for something for their club? No aggregation. What about that?



But you said money isn't speech!

Can SPEECH alone be bribery, as in "you do this for me, and I'll say nice things about you." Yes or no?



Sometimes they want something specific, yes. Sometimes they just want the guy to win and do whatever he says he'll do and that's enough.



You just said coordination doesn't matter above.

As I thought, you somehow neglected to answer my questions, after I answered all of yours. I cannot say I am surprised.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

.... I cannot say I am surprised.

Sure you can! And if you say it loud enough, often enough, with enough talking heads nodding in solemn agreement, people will believe you. The gostak distims the doshes! Damn right they do!

[Mijin]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

I am celebrating our freedom from tyrants and those who think they are smarter than the rest of the people and think this justifies manipulating democracy and speech to "fix" the outcome of elections.

Again, most developed countries have limitations on how much advertising groups like PACs can do, and it doesn't seem to stifle the debate. In fact, it enriches the debate because more people have heard more POVs, and (depending on the exact rules) it can prevent cheap tricks like trying to spread a lie when there is little time for your opponents to fully rebut.

But sure, you limit the amount of advertising and it's an unstoppable slippery slope to beheading dissidents.

U S A ! U S A !

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by elucidator

We don't think we are smarter than all the rest of the people,

Of course you do!

You think you can handle speech, but others can't. You want to ban speech so others can't hear it because they don't act on it the way you think they should.

You drip with arrogance.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Mijin

U S A ! U S A !

Yep, USA! First Amendment! Deal with it.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

As I thought, you somehow neglected to answer my questions, after I answered all of yours. I cannot say I am surprised.

Nope, I answered yours, and now you're dodging mine.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Of course you do!

You think you can handle speech, but others can't. You want to ban speech so others can't hear it because they don't act on it the way you think they should.

You drip with arrogance.

Eat your heart out.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

And swaying the VOTERS with unlimited money is a bad thing.

I have proven it utterly and without reservation.

LOL. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.

I'm not one of the stupid idiots you think most of the voters are, dude.

Fact: The government says that your speech, if it involves sedition is limited.
Fact: The government says that your speech, if it involves yelling fire in a theater is limited.
Fact: The government says that your speech, if it is claiming something you product cannot do is limited.

So?

These are facts, and no amount of hysterical denials on your part can change them.

I've never denied them.

You don't seem to be capable of understanding. So here we go again:

The existence of a few narrow exceptions don't justify huge ones.

Yes. And manipulating the voters with unlimited money is a bad thing.

The voters are not children that can be "manipulated." If you think so, you hate democracy.

And we'll have it again, if unlimited political money allows monied interests to get the electoral results that promote their profitability over public good.

The VOTERS give them electoral results.

How many times do I have to explain this?

You have not rationally demonstrated that limiting the amount of money in political campaigns destroys our democracy.

Sigh.

In fact, the very argument is utterly stupid, because there are already limits on our speech and it did not destroy our democracy. In fact, the argument is doubly stupid, because until Citizens United helped create Super PACS, there were limits and it did not destroy our democracy.

You can't limit speech. Even if you think such limits don't destroy democracy. Even if you think it helps democracy. You can't do it. It's not your choice. You can't decide that speech is good or bad for democracy.

The voters do.

You simply don't know what you're talking about and are emotionally over-reacting because you perceive some weird assault that isn't there.

I know plenty about this, thanks.

Because I love democracy. You are the one advocating its death.

If you like democracy, stop spitting on the voters and calling them stupid and claiming they need your help in making decisions on how to vote.

[lance strongarm]

The voters are free from arrogant people who say they can't govern themselves and need the government to decide what they should see and hear, thanks to the First Amendment.

Happy July 4th!

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

LOL. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.

I'm am demonstrating why my position is correct. You are screaming without explanation that your position is correct.

There is a difference.

I'm not one of the stupid idiots you think most of the voters are, dude.

I don't think voters are necessarily stupid idiots. I take no position on whether you are. You are obviously too emotional to approach this rationally.

So?

There are currently limits to speech. So it is possible to limit speech and be in accord with the first amendment.

I've never denied them.

You have stated that the first amendment prohibits limiting speech. But I have just shown you where we limit speech. So you're wrong.

You don't seem to be capable of understanding. So here we go again:

The existence of a few narrow exceptions don't justify huge ones.

You have not demonstrated that limiting political donations is a huge exception to speech.

The voters are not children that can be "manipulated." If you think so, you hate democracy.

I don't think voters are children. Voters need to be 18. I think that advertising works. And that unlimited money in politics allows the very rich to get what they want more often than they otherwise would.

The VOTERS give them electoral results.

The voters can be swayed by advertising campaigns.

How many times do I have to explain this?

Once, if you did it with a compelling, intelligent argument. But shrieking isn't that.

Sigh.

I'd be tired too if I were with anger over inchoate fears.

You can't limit speech.

I have shown you that we do already limit speech.

Even if you think such limits don't destroy democracy. Even if you think it helps democracy. You can't do it. It's not your choice. You can't decide that speech is good or bad for democracy.

The voters do.

How profound.

I know plenty about this, thanks.

Then why do you keep saying that speech can't be limited? If you know that, are you being dishonest when you say otherwise?

If you like democracy, stop spitting on the voters and calling them stupid and claiming they need your help in making decisions on how to vote.

I've never claimed that. Please don't misrepresent what I say.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

...Please don't misrepresent what I say.

Just a second, there! If he's not allowed to misrepresent what you say, then you're limiting his free speech, which is impossible! Gotcha! I win! Neener neener!

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Just a second, there! If he's not allowed to misrepresent what you say, then you're limiting his free speech, which is impossible! Gotcha! I win! Neener neener!

I'm PMimg Skald right now to ask for his flaming bee cannon.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

I don't think voters are necessarily stupid idiots. I take no position on whether you are.

False. Your entire argument depends on it.

There are currently limits to speech. So it is possible to limit speech and be in accord with the first amendment.

You have stated that the first amendment prohibits limiting speech. But I have just shown you where we limit speech. So you're wrong.

So does that mean you can take away any speech you want, whenever you want? Of course not. That would mean there was no First Amendment.

If you want to make an exception, it has to be a really really good one. Yours fails completely.

You have not demonstrated that limiting political donations is a huge exception to speech.

I have, completely.

Look, you're going to start yelling and screaming, and claiming you've proven everything, and denying what I've said, and say I'm yelling and screaming. We obviously have nothing more to say to each other. Let's end this.

The voters can be swayed by advertising campaigns.

And that is their RIGHT. They can be swayed by whatever speech they want to be. Deal with it.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

False. Your entire argument depends on it.





So does that mean you can take away any speech you want, whenever you want? Of course not. That would mean there was no First Amendment.

If you want to make an exception, it has to be a really really good one. Yours fails completely.



I have, completely.

Look, you're going to start yelling and screaming, and claiming you've proven everything, and denying what I've said, and say I'm yelling and screaming. We obviously have nothing more to say to each other. Let's end this.



And that is their RIGHT. They can be swayed by whatever speech they want to be. Deal with it.

As I say, buying elections is a threat to the very integrity of our system of government. It is parallel to sedition and easily just as big an issue.

Also, could you please stop saying I said things I didn't say? I'm not being dishonest with you, you're the one not making any arguments.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

As I say, buying elections is a threat to the very integrity of our system of government. It is parallel to sedition and easily just as big an issue.

Okay, one more chance.

You throw this silly term "buying elections" around.

Define that. What's it mean? How does one buy an election? Who is the seller? How can one buy something that is provided voluntarily (a vote)?

You can't just go throwing meaningless statements like that around and expect me to accept them.

Also, could you please stop saying I said things I didn't say? I'm not being dishonest with you, you're the one not making any arguments.

You have repeatedly done the same thing to me, even after I've corrected you. So yeah, let's have none of that.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Sometimes they want something specific, yes. Sometimes they just want the guy to win and do whatever he says he'll do and that's enough.

So, if a guy wants something specific from a candidate, and writes him a half million dollar check, and that information is transmitted to the candidate Somehow, isn't that bribery?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

So, if a guy wants something specific from a candidate, and writes him a half million dollar check, and that information is transmitted to the candidate Somehow, isn't that bribery?

If he gives it to him personally, yes.

If he gives it to his campaign, not necessarily. It's going to help him win office, not buy him a yacht - no conflict with the public interest there. He may want something specific in exchange for his money - or he may simply want to help the candidate win because the candidate has promised to do what he wants with our without the money.

But, as you know, this is not about giving money to a candidate at all. It's about speech on behalf of a candidate. And speech can be accomplished with or without money.

If I pay you to post 1,000 posters about how great a candidate for mayor is, and tell him what I did and ask him for a favor, to you that's bribery. So suppose I just go out and post the posters myself? No money involved at all, just speech. Yet the effect is the same. Is that bribery too? That's why I ask if speech alone can be bribery.

And to take this further, suppose I'm the president of a club and I urge my members to vote for a candidate. They do and he wins. I go to the candidate and tell him what I did, and what my members did - no money involved, just speech and votes. I ask for something in return. Is that bribery?

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Okay, one more chance.

You throw this silly term "buying elections" around.

Define that. What's it mean? How does one buy an election? Who is the seller? How can one buy something that is provided voluntarily (a vote)?

One sets up a system to buy elections when you allow unlimited political donations.

America has a huge disparity in how much money is held by the richest and poorest. For instance, the "top one percent" holds 42% of the country's wealth. The bottom 80% own 7% of the country's wealth.

If you allow unlimited spending, you set up a system where that top one percent literally can outspend the rest of the country. This allows them to blanket their message in advertising, and perhaps more importantly simulate "ground game" by hiring people to go door to door (which used to be done via volunteers, so it was necessary to have a message that resonated with people, but recently Walker's 8 to 1 advantage allowed him to just pay people to go door to door and get the vote out).

If the richest people can dominate the public sphere, and you get ten commercials for every one your opponent runs, you're going to win some elections. This is because advertising works. It isn't a sure thing, because some districts are simply too safe to be swayed by advertising.

But many aren't too safe. A small electoral advantage (from unlimited money) creates a situation where the candidates chosen by the wealthy are going to be more likely to win over time. This will drive policy to favor the wealthy. Specifically, fewer regulations on their businesses and fewer taxes on them personally. Keep in mind that every tax cut will drive up the deficit or cut a program that doesn't favor the richest people in America, further damaging the country.

Also remember that when you didn't have environmental regulations you could set Lake Erie on fire.

Also, as it happens, this will be a Republican advantage, so you can say hello to other Republican ideas that they will now have the power to legislate. Gay oppression laws, reduced access to birth control, banned abortion, privatization of whatever programs they can get away with. And a whole lot more.


So, allowing the very wealthy to create an un-level playing field (moreso than before anyway) is a bad thing. It is against American values, and would cause significant damage to our democracy. So, it rises to the level where limiting spending (if you think spending is speech) is worthwhile, because of the damage not limiting it would do to the public good.

Remember, sedition is illegal. Why? Because it threatens the continuing government of the US. Unlimited political spending does the same.






And now Lance will scream something along the lines of, "First Amendment!!1111 Your'e an arrogant communist!!"

You can't just go throwing meaningless statements like that around and expect me to accept them.

They have meaning for anyone that's honestly listening to what I'm saying.

You have repeatedly done the same thing to me, even after I've corrected you. So yeah, let's have none of that.

You've never corrected me that I'm aware of. You keep pretending that it's impossible to limit speech (which assumes that political donations are speech) even when I show you multiple examples of the US limiting speech.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

You've never corrected me that I'm aware of. .

I've thoroughly addressed all your claims, repeatedly. You keep repeating lies about me. Please don't participate in a conversation to which you have nothing more to add.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

I've thoroughly addressed all your claims, repeatedly.

My claims center around the idea that we currently limit speech if the need is great.

You keep repeating lies about me.

Do I? You're the one who keeps saying I think voters are stupid. I don't. Well, not all of them, certainly some people are stupid and they get to vote too.

Please don't participate in a conversation to which you have nothing more to add.

I just answered your question in detail and this is the response?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

My claims center around the idea that we currently limit speech if the need is great.

And I have explained in detail my response to that, several times. Go back and read the thread. I'm tired of going over it with you.

Do I? You're the one who keeps saying I think voters are stupid. I don't. Well, not all of them, certainly some people are stupid and they get to vote too.

Yes, you think the voters are stupid. You've made that very clear.

I just answered your question in detail and this is the response?

You've added nothing new. You repeat the same arguments, ignoring my replies and corrections. I see no point in continuing this.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

And I have explained in detail my response to that, several times. Go back and read the thread. I'm tired of going over it with you.

You really haven't.

Yes, you think the voters are stupid. You've made that very clear.

Please don't misrepresent what I say. I'm not being dishonest with your stances.

You've added nothing new. You repeat the same arguments, ignoring my replies and corrections. I see no point in continuing this.

You haven't corrected me. You have repeated your position.

I have the advantage of being factually correct. We currently limit speech. The question is if unlimited political spending meets the criteria of limiting speech (if you accept that political donations = speech).

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

You really haven't.

Yes, I have.

Please don't misrepresent what I say. I'm not being dishonest with your stances.

Yes, you are.

You haven't corrected me. You have repeated your position.

Yes, I have.

I have the advantage of being factually correct. We currently limit speech. The question is if unlimited political spending meets the criteria of limiting speech (if you accept that political donations = speech).

Sigh.

This STILL isn't about political donations. I've explained that many times.

And I've never said we don't limit speech - and explained many times why you are confused about that.

There's no point. Give it up.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Yes, I have.



Yes, you are.



Yes, I have.



Sigh.

This STILL isn't about political donations. I've explained that many times.

And I've never said we don't limit speech - and explained many times why you are confused about that.

There's no point. Give it up.

So we do limit speech. Which means that for some hypothetical problem that is important enough we can limit speech.

So, if unlimited political spending leads to a large enough problem we can limit speech.

The question is, how much of a problem does uncontrolled political spending cause.

I say, really big and provide an argument for why.

You say, no problem at all, and provide no argument for why or rebuttal for my argument.

See the problem?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

So we do limit speech. Which means that for some hypothetical problem that is important enough we can limit speech.

Yes. I've said so.

So, if unlimited political spending leads to a large enough problem we can limit speech.

Okay, keeping in mind that political speech enjoys the very highest level of protection.

Oh, and thanks for admitting that money is speech.

The question is, how much of a problem does uncontrolled political spending cause.

I say, really big and provide an argument for why.

You say, no problem at all, and provide no argument for why or rebuttal for my argument.

See the problem?[/quote]

Yes, I see the problem - I've spent a great deal of time rebutting you and all you can say is that I've provided nor argument or rebuttal. Why should I rebut you again when you seem to have missed it the first dozen or so times? You should go read the thread again. Until you get over this, stop wasting my time.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Yes, I see the problem - I've spent a great deal of time rebutting you and all you can say is that I've provided nor argument or rebuttal. Why should I rebut you again when you seem to have missed it the first dozen or so times? You should go read the thread again. Until you get over this, stop wasting my time.

I'd be angry and dismissive too, if I were fighting for a plutocracy.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

I'd be angry and dismissive too, if I were fighting for a plutocracy.

You're doing that circumstantial ad hominem thing again (and you're also completely wrong, because you don't know me).

This is why I've asked you to stop posting if you can't provide substance.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

You're doing that circumstantial ad hominem thing again (and you're also completely wrong, because you don't know me).

This is why I've asked you to stop posting if you can't provide substance.

I have backed up my arguments. We can limit speech for good reason. This is a fact.

One of those reasons is sedition, because it threatens the government of the US.

Allowing the ultra wealthy to sway elections also threatens the government of the US.

So that really would put the ball in your court for why it's a good idea to allow the ultra wealthy to sway elections.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

Allowing the ultra wealthy to sway elections also threatens the government of the US.

So that really would put the ball in your court for why it's a good idea to allow the ultra wealthy to sway elections.

The VOTERS decide whether to elect those who the ultra-wealthy favor, and whether this "threatens the government of the U.S."

NOT you.

It's already completely fucking loony that you compare election results with sedition - sedition is pretty much the opposite - but I'll skip past that part.

Do you get it now? Or are you going to keep jumping up and down about how you don't like the choices that a majority of voters keep making yet somehow you want to "protect" democracy?

This IS democracy. You lost. Get over it and try again next time. Use your freedom of speech to try to convince voters to see it your way.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

The VOTERS decide whether to elect those who the ultra-wealthy favor, and whether this "threatens the government of the U.S."

And the voters can be swayed by huge money advantages. When those advantages come from a single donor, that's a distortion of democracy.

NOT you.

Try bolding for emphasis, it will make you look less angry.

It's already completely fucking loony that you compare election results with sedition - sedition is pretty much the opposite - but I'll skip past that part.

Of course you'll skip past it. Because you have no argument. You're shouting, not debating.

Do you get it now? Or are you going to keep jumping up and down about how you don't like the choices that a majority of voters keep making yet somehow you want to "protect" democracy?

Protecting democracy is what I'm advocating. If money didn't distort the process we wouldn't have campaign finance laws. You want elections to go to the highest bidder. That's not a good thing.

This IS democracy. You lost. Get over it and try again next time. Use your freedom of speech to try to convince voters to see it your way.

What exactly do you think I'm doing right this second?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

I have backed up my arguments. We can limit speech for good reason. This is a fact.

One of those reasons is sedition, because it threatens the government of the US.

Allowing the ultra wealthy to sway elections also threatens the government of the US.

So that really would put the ball in your court for why it's a good idea to allow the ultra wealthy to sway elections.

You're just repeating your empty assertions, ignoring my replies.

This is over.

Can't wait for the next election, when they voters will decide all this instead of you.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

And the voters put a stop to that.

No, they didn't. Five supreme court justices did.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

It's July 4. I am celebrating our freedom from tyrants and those who think they are smarter than the rest of the people and think this justifies manipulating democracy and speech to "fix" the outcome of elections.

In other words, advertisers?

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

You drip with arrogance.

Honestly, how do you think you come across when you attempt to scry and interpret elucidator's cognitions?

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

The existence of a few narrow exceptions don't justify huge ones.

They do demonstrate the inviolable tenets you hold sacred are not so, though.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

This IS democracy.

Yeah, five people kicking a bill down the well against the wish of the populace.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

And the voters can be swayed by huge money advantages. When those advantages come from a single donor, that's a distortion of democracy.

Let's go over this one more time:

The voters can be swayed in any way they wish.

Got it?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

In other words, advertisers?

That doesn't even make sense.

They do demonstrate the inviolable tenets you hold sacred are not so, though.

Nope.

Yeah, five people kicking a bill down the well against the wish of the populace.

It's shocking that you don't understand the basic principles of our government, such as the fact that the Constitution limits what government can do, even when a majority of voters want it. I am serious - it is shocking.

Now, the reason most people oppose Citizens United is because, like you, they don't understand it. They believe the crap that has been reported about it, such as the lie that it involves corporate personhood, or that it involved donations to candidates. I'll bet if I explained it to someone before revealing the name of the case, they'd answer differently.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Let's go over this one more time:

The voters can be swayed in any way they wish.

Got it?

Oh, really? So candidates could just hand them money to sway their vote?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

Oh, really? So candidates could just hand them money to sway their vote?

Sigh.

The voters may be swayed by any speech, advertisement, argument, information, etc. they wish. Got it now?

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Sigh.

The voters may be swayed by any speech, advertisement, argument, information, etc. they wish. Got it now?

So I guess you are INFURIATED that it is illegal that candidates cannot simply buy votes. Money is speech after all and here we are forbidding it!

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

I'll bet if I explained it to someone before revealing the name of the case, they'd answer differently.

Yeah, I'm sure there's an effective frequency where people subject to enough propaganda will eventually change their minds. Worked with public healthcare.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

The voters can be swayed in any way they wish.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

the Constitution limits what government can do, even when a majority of voters want it. I am serious - it is shocking.

[elucidator]

Lance hasn''t declared victory for more than 24 hours. Shouldn't somebody check on him?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

So I guess you are INFURIATED that it is illegal that candidates cannot simply buy votes. Money is speech after all and here we are forbidding it!

Nobody has ever said money is speech. Not me, not any court.

Spending money on speech is protected just like the speech itself. That's what the courts said, and I agree. And it makes perfect sense.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Yeah, I'm sure there's an effective frequency where people subject to enough propaganda will eventually change their minds.

How do you know you weren't affected by propaganda in your opinion about the issue on this thread? And does that make your opinion worth less?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Lance hasn''t declared victory for more than 24 hours. Shouldn't somebody check on him?

You should get out of the house more.