Suspicions confirmed

[haymarket]

the government is expressly forbidden from abridging the freedom of speech...

Buying politicians like whores on display in a glass window is not speech.

 

[haymarket]

I want the government to follow the Constitution, nothing more., nothing less.
my opinion has exactly zero to do with corporations or banks, or even money for that matter... it's entirely about what the government can and cannot do.
banning political speech is one of those big ones that they cannot do.

none of your quotes address what I asked for...btw.



the government is expressly forbidden from abridging the freedom of speech... and i'm sorry you are unable to understand that.
additionally, the first amendment does NOT provide for exemptions for corporations, union, associations, or whatever ever other entity you would like ot ban the speech of... it simply proscribes the government from abridging the freedom of speech.
read it some day, you'll see.

if you are so dead set on banning political speech of those who you belive shouldn't be allowed to speak... you'll need an amendment.... good luck with that, comrade.

And do you agree that ALL these contributions and contributors would be a matter of public record BEFORE Election Day so that the public can weight that in their right to make a informed decision?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I want the government to follow the Constitution, nothing more., nothing less.
my opinion has exactly zero to do with corporations or banks, or even money for that matter... it's entirely about what the government can and cannot do.
banning political speech is one of those big ones that they cannot do.

none of your quotes address what I asked for...btw.



the government is expressly forbidden from abridging the freedom of speech... and i'm sorry you are unable to understand that.
additionally, the first amendment does NOT provide for exemptions for corporations, union, associations, or whatever ever other entity you would like ot ban the speech of... it simply proscribes the government from abridging the freedom of speech.
read it some day, you'll see.

if you are so dead set on banning political speech of those who you belive shouldn't be allowed to speak... you'll need an amendment.... good luck with that, comrade.

Your bolded statement above is precisely that of the flat-earther who can't be convinced otherwise because all he need do is refuse to accept the plain evidence in front of his face. And you can claim "Constitution!" all you want...but the statements of the founding fathers themselves, including the one who wrote the model for the doggone thing, shows the real context of the document.

 

[Thrilla]

Buying politicians like whores on display in a glass window is not speech.

are you tryign to argue that independent expenditures on protected speech is bribery?

 

[Thrilla]

Your bolded statement above is precisely that of the flat-earther who can't be convinced otherwise because all he need do is refuse to accept the plain evidence in front of his face. And you can claim "Constitution!" all you want...but the statements of the founding fathers themselves, including the one who wrote the model for the doggone thing, shows the real context of the document.

yet still no quotes on the founding fathers being supportive of banning/ limiting political speech.... imagine my surprise ( I'm not really surprised, I know they were not supportive of such a thing, and it's a wonder why you are not aware of that simple fact)


feel free to present an argument that government is permitted to ban/limit political speech, then we can talk..... absent that, you're just an angry lefty yelling at clouds.

I've got the text of Constitution, and Supreme Court cases to substantiate my opinion... you have nothing, as usual.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

yet still no quotes on the founding fathers being supportive of banning/ limiting political speech.... imagine my surprise ( I'm not really surprised, I know they were not supportive of such a thing, and it's a wonder why you are not aware of that simple fact)


feel free to present an argument that government is permitted to ban/limit political speech, then we can talk..... absent that, you're just an angry lefty yelling at clouds.

I've got the text of Constitution, and Supreme Court cases to substantiate my opinion... you have nothing, as usual.

I provided several quotes about the danger of corporate money in politics. YOU, sir, are the one who equated money with speech despite the obvious warnings by the founding fathers of allowing political influence by corporate money.

But you're unable to accept the obvious, just for the sake of "winning" a debate in your own eyes. That's pretty sad.

 

[Thrilla]

And do you agree that ALL these contributions and contributors would be a matter of public record BEFORE Election Day so that the public can weight that in their right to make a informed decision?

who talking about contributions and contributors?.... Glen brought up Citizens United, and I answered his "argument"...CU deals with independent expenditures

but to your point, as i'm a big big fan of the right to privacy, I belive contributors should be free to be anonymous....I feel that forcing their identity to be published is wholly intended to chill their speech, and well.. their identity is irrelevant if no laws are being broken.

 

[Thrilla]

I provided several quotes about the danger of corporate money in politics. YOU, sir, are the one who equated money with speech despite the obvious warnings by the founding fathers of allowing political influence by corporate money.

I did that?... that awesome.. i'm such a smart dude, i amaze myself.

hey, you know who else finds that money is speech?.... the Supreme Court....because, well, they are not retards.... they understand the relationship of money and speech, something illiberal liberals haven't been able ot figure out since they decided that free speech is a bad thing.

But you're unable to accept the obvious, just for the sake of "winning" a debate in your own eyes. That's pretty sad

unable to accept the obvious?.. like the text of the Constitutions and settled case law on the matter?:lamo
oh, that's right.. .those are thing you are ignoring to push your agenda of having the government wholly controlling political speech.

as i've always said, sure .. there are dangers of money in politics...and i've even laid out policy positions that would not violate anyone's rights while addressing these dangers.... but illiberal folks like yourself always go back to the government controlling politcal speech.
additionally, you're never going ot get rid of banks or corporations... so ya might as well drop that wholly ridiculous agenda, Comrade.

 

[JasperL]

yet still no quotes on the founding fathers being supportive of banning/ limiting political speech.... imagine my surprise ( I'm not really surprised, I know they were not supportive of such a thing, and it's a wonder why you are not aware of that simple fact)


feel free to present an argument that government is permitted to ban/limit political speech, then we can talk..... absent that, you're just an angry lefty yelling at clouds.

I've got the text of Constitution, and Supreme Court cases to substantiate my opinion... you have nothing, as usual.

We do it already by banning foreign nationals from spending any money to influence elections, even domestic subsidiaries of foreign corps. That was easy!

Surely you're not suggesting that the Constitution demands we allow a U.S. sub of Bank of China to contribute $100 million to elect Hillary, are you? But that corp would otherwise be protected by the 1st amendment, same way anyone on U.S. soil legally is protected. But they can't contribute to elections unless a permanent resident.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I did that?... that awesome.. i'm such a smart dude, i amaze myself.

hey, you know who else finds that money is speech?.... the Supreme Court....because, well, they are not retards.... they understand the relationship of money and speech, something illiberal liberals haven't been able ot figure out since they decided that free speech is a bad thing.
unable to accept the obvious?.. like the text of the Constitutions and settled case law on the matter?:lamo
oh, that's right.. .those are thing you are ignoring to push your agenda of having the government wholly controlling political speech.

as i've always said, sure .. there are dangers of money in politics...and i've even laid out policy positions that would not violate anyone's rights while addressing these dangers.... but illiberal folks like yourself always go back to the government controlling politcal speech.
additionally, you're never going ot get rid of banks or corporations... so ya might as well drop that wholly ridiculous agenda, Comrade.

Okay...so since you're determined to stick by what SCOTUS decides, I take it that when Hillary wins and we get a significantly more-liberal judge than the one that Obama's nominated, and SCOTUS becomes 5-4 to the liberal...and all of a sudden SCOTUS decides that money's not speech anymore, you're going to defend their decision, right?

Good to know!

 

[JasperL]

who talking about contributions and contributors?.... Glen brought up Citizens United, and I answered his "argument"...CU deals with independent expenditures

but to your point, as i'm a big big fan of the right to privacy, I belive contributors should be free to be anonymous....I feel that forcing their identity to be published is wholly intended to chill their speech, and well.. their identity is irrelevant if no laws are being broken.

Their identity is very relevant. Citizens should have the opportunity to know that, say, GE contributed $10 million to elect..Trump.

And making their names public holds both the politician and the donor accountable, and there is nothing in the 1st amendment that guarantees anonymity or that free speech comes without consequences. Typical right wing BS, but a decade ago the mantra was "unlimited but with disclosure" because the light of day is what prevents corruption. And now that we've got the "unlimited" the same plutocrat lapdogs are against disclosure since it might be inconvenient for people to know who of our elected officials is bought, whose ass they are kissing, and how much it cost.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

No surprises there, at least not to most of the members of DP.

source

lol

So . . . I need to write a book and call myself 'annonymous source' and give evidence of interviewing 'annonymous sources' . . . instant best seller. People think it's truth. Retirement here I come!

 

[Thrilla]

We do it already by banning foreign nationals from spending any money to influence elections, even domestic subsidiaries of foreign corps. That was easy!

that's true enough.... so obviously we should ban chartered US corporations, US unions, US associations and US citizens from influencing elections.... right?

Surely you're not suggesting that the Constitution demands we allow a U.S. sub of Bank of China to contribute $100 million to elect Hillary, are you? But that corp would otherwise be protected by the 1st amendment, same way anyone on U.S. soil legally is protected. But they can't contribute to elections unless a permanent resident.

nope, I'm suggesting that US corporations, associations, unions, clubs, etc are permitted electioneering communication independent from campaigns or parties.
I'm not suggesting we open up our elections to foreigners, ... primarily because that a matter of national security and national sovereignty, not of speech.

 

[Thrilla]

Okay...so since you're determined to stick by what SCOTUS decides, I take it that when Hillary wins and we get a significantly more-liberal judge than the one that Obama's nominated, and SCOTUS becomes 5-4 to the liberal...and all of a sudden SCOTUS decides that money's not speech anymore, you're going to defend their decision, right?

Good to know!

I'll abide by SCOTUS's decisions... and the Text of the Constitution.....but I won't defend overturning long held precedent for the sake of partisan politics, all in order to ban free speech.
most likely, I'll move out of the US and to a country that still protects free speech rights.( I'm too old for revolution, and i'd like to see you authoritarian live under the hell you create)

in any event, even court stacking by Hillary won't help you to rid ourselves of free speech rights..... you'll have to get Congress in on the action as well... they'll have to change current law... or , in other words, purposefully and willfully create unconstitutional law.
without changing the law, the government can't limit independent expenditures... without limiting them, there's no standing for suit to be filed.
you'll also need lower courts in on the scam as well.

so yeah, regarding banning politcal speech, you've got your work cut out for you... I wholly heartedly hope you fail miserably, as I respect free speech immensely.

 

[Thrilla]

Their identity is very relevant. Citizens should have the opportunity to know that, say, GE contributed $10 million to elect..Trump.

no, thier idenoity is not relvent to the public..... if a crime is suspceted, the perinent authorities can obtain their identity as part of a proper investigation, but that's it..... the publics curiosity is without value,

And making their names public holds both the politician and the donor accountable, and there is nothing in the 1st amendment that guarantees anonymity or that free speech comes without consequences. Typical right wing BS, but a decade ago the mantra was "unlimited but with disclosure" because the light of day is what prevents corruption. And now that we've got the "unlimited" the same plutocrat lapdogs are against disclosure since it might be inconvenient for people to know who of our elected officials is bought, whose ass they are kissing, and how much it cost.

ahh, so the right to privacy is now " right wing BS"... interesting.... not surprising, but interesting.

if you deny everyones rights, you'll have the perfect society Haymarket....

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I'll abide by SCOTUS's decisions... and the Text of the Constitution.....but I won't defend overturning long held precedent for the sake of partisan politics, all in order to ban free speech.
most likely, I'll move out of the US and to a country that still protects free speech rights.( I'm too old for revolution, and i'd like to see you authoritarian live under the hell you create)

in any event, even court stacking by Hillary won't help you to rid ourselves of free speech rights..... you'll have to get Congress in on the action as well... they'll have to change current law... or , in other words, purposefully and willfully create unconstitutional law.
without changing the law, the government can't limit independent expenditures... without limiting them, there's no standing for suit to be filed.
you'll also need lower courts in on the scam as well.

so yeah, regarding banning politcal speech, you've got your work cut out for you... I wholly heartedly hope you fail miserably, as I respect free speech immensely.

Crap. "Partisan politics" was PRECISELY how money became 'free speech' - the quotes by the founding fathers made it plain that they NEVER thought that corporate money should ever have a say in our government. When a liberal SCOTUS overturns that particularly noxious precedent, our system will be returning to what it originally was. And if you don't like it, too bad. There's the border, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

It's pretty sad to see an American actually defend a billionaire's "right" to essentially buy politicians....

 

[BelieveNU]

Crap. "Partisan politics" was PRECISELY how money became 'free speech' - the quotes by the founding fathers made it plain that they NEVER thought that corporate money should ever have a say in our government. When a liberal SCOTUS overturns that particularly noxious precedent, our system will be returning to what it originally was. And if you don't like it, too bad. There's the border, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

It's pretty sad to see an American actually defend a billionaire's "right" to essentially buy politicians....

LIberal, conservative, all of em bought. So your choice of liberal, when it would be literally concervative (by def) politics that would remove the buy out system shows which side you sit. Don't mistake me, I don't think there's any true conservatives in this area left. Ha..i see what I did there. Anyways, the fact is they all souled out, so to assume that just because someone is a liberal they'd fix it is like holding your breath til they close Gitmo. Just the left strokin ya for that stranger feeling.

 

[JasperL]

that's true enough.... so obviously we should ban chartered US corporations, US unions, US associations and US citizens from influencing elections.... right?

So, you moved the goal posts! I'm shocked, I tell you.... :roll:

nope, I'm suggesting that US corporations, associations, unions, clubs, etc are permitted electioneering communication independent from campaigns or parties.

That's correct, they are under current law, but that's not the question being debated. And even the "independent" stuff is a violation of their rights to free speech if money is in fact speech. So the question concedes a limit, but you're insisting that there can be no limits on our first amendment rights - it's just false.

I'm not suggesting we open up our elections to foreigners, ... primarily because that a matter of national security and national sovereignty, not of speech.

Why is GE any different than Bank of China or Saudi Aramco? GE as an entity doesn't give a flying **** about clean air or water, U.S. jobs, pay, the poor, etc. except as those things relate to their bottom line which is the same analysis obviously foreign corps make. And if we prohibit "GE" from using it's multi-$billion balance sheet to influence elections, every US resident working for GE still has their free speech rights intact. Their CEO can still go on any show, etc. and speak about anything he wants.

And, again, when you mention national security/sovereignty you're again admitting that OF COURSE we can and do limit political speech, and the question is when (not if) it's appropriate.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

LIberal, conservative, all of em bought. So your choice of liberal, when it would be literally concervative (by def) politics that would remove the buy out system shows which side you sit. Don't mistake me, I don't think there's any true conservatives in this area left. Ha..i see what I did there. Anyways, the fact is they all souled out, so to assume that just because someone is a liberal they'd fix it is like holding your breath til they close Gitmo. Just the left strokin ya for that stranger feeling.

I believe in something I call the "Goldilocks Way", meaning neither too much nor too little of anything. This applies to cynicism, too...because being too cynical is every bit as bad, every bit as dangerous as not being cynical enough. People - including politicians - are better than you seem to think. Yeah, they have to do what they have to do to get money to get reelected...but that's the way the game's been rigged (at least for now). But most of them actually do want what's best for the people - it's just that they have different ideas about what's involved in the world 'best'.

 

[JasperL]

no, thier idenoity is not relvent to the public..... if a crime is suspceted, the perinent authorities can obtain their identity as part of a proper investigation, but that's it..... the publics curiosity is without value,

It's relevant to me and many others who want to know who was bought by whom and for how much. If you don't care, fine, but don't be telling me it's not relevant to me or without value - it is relevant to me and I use this information to inform my votes, nearly every election, and so is very valuable information for me! I am sure of it! And I'm not alone!!

ahh, so the right to privacy is now " right wing BS"... interesting.... not surprising, but interesting.

LOL, where in your sacred constitution is the 'right' to secretly donate to political orgs? You can't demand we point to the Constitution only when it suits your argument.

You know it's not there, so on what principle do contributors demand a right to secret donations? At best it's your preference, which is fine. I'm arguing those like me with strong preferences for disclosure have the 'right' to demand disclosure, and that seems clearly allowed by the Constitution. The political process works out these competing preferences, as intended.

if you deny everyones rights, you'll have the perfect society Haymarket....

Whose rights are being "denied" here? If we deny "GE's" rights, the people of GE retain theirs. BTW, I'm not Haymarket...

 

[BelieveNU]

I believe in something I call the "Goldilocks Way", meaning neither too much nor too little of anything. This applies to cynicism, too...because being too cynical is every bit as bad, every bit as dangerous as not being cynical enough. People - including politicians - are better than you seem to think. Yeah, they have to do what they have to do to get money to get reelected...but that's the way the game's been rigged (at least for now). But most of them actually do want what's best for the people - it's just that they have different ideas about what's involved in the world 'best'.

I love that light side look, so you get the thumbs up. But i've lived enough to know, humans ain't like that. They take titles and f who they can if they can. Not all. Actual people are great. And in local offices they find a place. But on the big stage, it's hard for the little guy to bring the voice of the people to the forefront when drowned out by all the scum.

There are good politicians, but neiter prez canadate makes that hurdle once, much less in 100 yards.

 

[JasperL]

I believe in something I call the "Goldilocks Way", meaning neither too much nor too little of anything. This applies to cynicism, too...because being too cynical is every bit as bad, every bit as dangerous as not being cynical enough. People - including politicians - are better than you seem to think. Yeah, they have to do what they have to do to get money to get reelected...but that's the way the game's been rigged (at least for now). But most of them actually do want what's best for the people - it's just that they have different ideas about what's involved in the world 'best'.

I agree for the most part. I can't imagine anyone runs for Congress looking forward to the soul crushing daily grind of spending half of every f'ing day, day after day, raising money for their next election, and I have enough faith in humanity left that if we removed that burden, the majority in Congress as we speak would welcome the change and better people would be willing to run for those offices.

 

[haymarket]

are you tryign to argue that independent expenditures on protected speech is bribery?

I am arguing that money is NOT speech.

 

[haymarket]

who talking about contributions and contributors?.... Glen brought up Citizens United, and I answered his "argument"...CU deals with independent expenditures

but to your point, as i'm a big big fan of the right to privacy, I belive contributors should be free to be anonymous....I feel that forcing their identity to be published is wholly intended to chill their speech, and well.. their identity is irrelevant if no laws are being broken.

Your formula is a recipe for complete and total disaster and a obscene corruption of our political process.

Of course you want privacy to rule in political contributions as it then permits rich right wing corporatists to stand int he dark shadows and manipulate our politicians to dance their own tune. And since they share your political ideology and agenda, that is fine with you.

Its disgusting and will help destroy our system.

 

[RetiredUSN]

A brave Anonymous congressman writes a tell all book to line his own pockets.

Nothing new.