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.
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.
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?
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.
Key phrase.
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.
Clearly not, since you’re advocating the promulgation of more propaganda.
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.
Yeah, they decide between two people running billion dollar campaigns. Clearly an advertisement for a functioning democracy.
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, 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.
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.
Well, here’s one hopeful sign: George Soros’ son starts anti-SuperPAC SuperPAC! 
Unfortunately, the uberrich elite seems to include a hundred Richard Mellon Scaifes or Koch Brothers for every Soros or Buffett . . . 
Still, it’s something! 
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.
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.
Nice try.
And as long as the broad changes don’t violate the Constitution, that’s great.