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

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

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?

I don't. If I needed to post the same thing twenty times in a row for anyone to agree with me, then it would make my opinion worth less though.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

I don't.

So how do you know you're right? Perhaps you're the one who has been propogandized and I'm the one who has managed to rise above it.

If I needed to post the same thing twenty times in a row for anyone to agree with me, then it would make my opinion worth less though.

So you're saying that you are capable of judging the worth of an opinion even when it is repeated a long time?

Do you think some people aren't? And therefore those people shouldn't hear certain opinions? And how do you know who they are? Shouldn't those people not be allowed to vote at all if they lack such basic thinking skills?

[2ManyTacos]

Obama outraised by $35 million in June

At this point, will there be any appreciable difference in the election given how much money BOTH campaigns are going to be spending. Even though Obama has been outraised, his reelection effort still has a shitload of money to get its message out, and even if it is ultimately outraised I can't imagine that the election outcome will be swayed much either way due to all this spending. At some point all of it just becomes a wash and people make up their minds.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos

people make up their minds.

Key phrase.

[doorhinge]

Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos

Obama outraised by $35 million in June

At this point, will there be any appreciable difference in the election given how much money BOTH campaigns are going to be spending. Even though Obama has been outraised, his reelection effort still has a shitload of money to get its message out, and even if it is ultimately outraised I can't imagine that the election outcome will be swayed much either way due to all this spending. At some point all of it just becomes a wash and people make up their minds.

That's just one month. Obama has been outraising Romney for months and outraising the GOP for several years. It's Obama's performance while in office that is curtailing donations to his campaign and encouraging donations to his opponents campaign.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

So how do you know you're right? Perhaps you're the one who has been propogandized and I'm the one who has managed to rise above it.

Clearly not, since you're advocating the promulgation of more propaganda.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

So you're saying that you are capable of judging the worth of an opinion even when it is repeated a long time?

Yes, no matter how many times you repeat fallacious arguments, I won't buy them. In fact, if it were costing you money to post the same tired arguments here, I'd vote to limit the amount of money you could waste posting. There'd be a compelling interest to do so (your money could be better spent elsewhere) and you'd have ample other channels to spread nonsense (free republic). Of course, you operate under the same assumptions as advertisers and other propagandists: repeat a false accusation often enough and it becomes gospel.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Key phrase.

Yeah, they decide between two people running billion dollar campaigns. Clearly an advertisement for a functioning democracy.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Clearly not, since you're advocating the promulgation of more propaganda.

But how do you know you just think that because of the propaganda from the other side? How can you know you're not the one brainwashed, since you'd be brainwashed to think you're not brainwashed?

Keep thinking about this, it will dawn on you.

Yes, no matter how many times you repeat fallacious arguments, I won't buy them. In fact, if it were costing you money to post the same tired arguments here, I'd vote to limit the amount of money you could waste posting. There'd be a compelling interest to do so (your money could be better spent elsewhere) and you'd have ample other channels to spread nonsense (free republic). Of course, you operate under the same assumptions as advertisers and other propagandists: repeat a false accusation often enough and it becomes gospel.

Yes, I'll say something, and you'll say something else, and it will be a discussion, and then you'll scream about "propaganda!" and then we'll do it some more. The pattern is clear.

Yeah, they decide between two people running billion dollar campaigns. Clearly an advertisement for a functioning democracy.

Yep.

If the voters want more choices, like people with less money, they can vote for them in primaries. Nothing stopping them. Yet they keep voting for whoever spends the most money. That's their choice.

Even if you do have a point, banning speech is not a way to fix it.

[BrainGlutton]

Well, here's one hopeful sign: George Soros' son starts anti-SuperPAC SuperPAC!

It’s a super PAC that hates super PACs.

Jonathan Soros, son of a prominent liberal financier, is helping to launch an independent advocacy group with hopes of spending up to $8 million targeting House lawmakers, primarily Republicans, who oppose public matching funds for elections and other campaign finance reforms.

The new super PAC, called Friends of Democracy, will file its first disclosures with the Federal Election Commission later this month and plans to zero in on 10 to 15 House races with television ads, mailings and Web messaging, Soros and other organizers said Thursday.

Like all super PACs, Friends of Democracy will be able to raise unlimited funds from wealthy individuals, corporations or unions--precisely the kind of system that the group is fighting against.

“We openly acknowledge the irony of being a super PAC trying to address money in politics,” Soros said in an interview in Washington. “But our goal is to eventually decrease the influence of this kind of group...We don’t see any other path to real legislative change.”

Soros’s father, George, is a well-known contributor to liberal causes whose role in spending more than $23 million during the 2004 elections made him a bête noire among conservatives. The elder Soros has announced plans to give $2 million to a pair of liberal groups this year, as well.

Unlike his father, Jonathan Soros, who stepped down last year from day-to-day management of his family’s New York-based investment fund, has not been particularly active in politics until now. He gave $100,000 in seed money to start Friends of Democracy and said his father is not involved with the group.

Soros launched the super PAC with David Donnelly, executive director of the Public Campaign Action Fund, and Ilyse Hogue, formerly with the liberal groups Media Matters and MoveOn.org.

Donnelly said the group will likely target Republican lawmakers such as Reps. Dan Lungren (Calif.), Charlie Bass (N.H.), Nan Hayworth (N.Y.), Jim Renacci (Ohio) and Chip Cravaack (Minn.) and at least a handful of Democrats who also oppose campaign finance limits. The super PAC also plans to offer support to candidates who advocate for reform.

Unfortunately, the uberrich elite seems to include a hundred Richard Mellon Scaifes or Koch Brothers for every Soros or Buffett . . . Still, it's something!

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

That's their choice.

Your point flounders when considering the approval rating of Congress. I've already pointed out that people support broad changes in the system. Typically, those wishing for electoral reform don't have a multimillion dollar marketing form for their campaigns.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Well, here's one hopeful sign: George Soros' son starts anti-SuperPAC SuperPAC!

More hilarious irony.

Kind of like the incorporated groups (which are not people) using unlimited donations of money (which is not speech) to use their freedom of speech to buy ads to try to overturn Citizens United.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Your point flounders when considering the approval rating of Congress.

Nice try.

I've already pointed out that people support broad changes in the system.

And as long as the broad changes don't violate the Constitution, that's great.