• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Trump/Clinton on same page...

Patrickt

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 28, 2006
Messages
3,579
Reaction score
1,082
Location
Oaxaca, Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Sen. Clinton and Mr. Trump, as narcissistic liberals, make their position as either Queen or King quite clear:

"CNN reports:
Hillary Clinton will pledge on Saturday to introduce an amendment to the Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court's Citizen United decision within the first 30 days of her administration, an aide said Saturday.
No matter how much CNN and other water carriers for the Democratic Party try to frame the Citizens United decision as having "opened the floodgates for outside money in politics," that decision determined that it was not in fact illegal for an incorporated organization of citizens to make, advertise, and distribute a documentary film critical of – Hillary Clinton!
That documentary was not peripheral to that case. It was what the case was about. From the first page of the Court's decision:
In January 2008, appellant Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, released a documentary (hereinafter Hillary) critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, a candidate for her party's Presidential nomination. Anticipating that it would make Hillaryavailable on cable television through video-on-demand within 30 days of primary elections, Citizens United produced television ads to run on broadcast[.]"
Blog: Hillary Clinton prioritizes outlawing criticism of Hillary Clinton

And, for Donald Trump:
"Donald Trump has said on several occasions that he wants to, as he puts it, "open up" libel laws, so that he can sue news organizations he believes have written what he calls "hit pieces."
Libel laws now make it extremely difficult for public figures to sue for damages. Still, a President Trump would very likely have a hard time changing them.
When he appeared before the editorial board of theWashington Post this week, Trump was asked to explain what he wanted to do with the nation's libel laws. Trump told the Post, which put a recording of the meeting online, that if a paper gets a story wrong, it should issue a retraction."
Trump's Promise To 'Open Up' Libel Laws Unlikely To Be Kept : NPR

Whether Sen. Clinton is Queen or Mr. Trump is King they want to alter a Supreme Court decision by royal decree to protect...themselves from criticism.

Why is it no surprise that two lifelong Democrats are in sync?




 

RabidAlpaca

Engineer
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
22,725
Reaction score
29,748
Location
American Refugee in Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Overturning citizens united has never been about attacking the rights of individuals, it's been about limiting the power of corporations to buy our politicians and elections like packs of cigarettes. Any citizen can voice their opinions, criticisms and beliefs, but corporations should not be able to pump millions or billions of dollars into our political system.

It's undeniable that money plays a huge role in our democracy and it shouldn't. I'll agree that the president can't unilaterally adopt something like this, it will take a concentrated effort from congress. Considering that very same congress amasses vast sums of personal wealth from that system I don't see it changing anytime soon.
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,662
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Sen. Clinton and Mr. Trump, as narcissistic liberals, make their position as either Queen or King quite clear:

"CNN reports:
Hillary Clinton will pledge on Saturday to introduce an amendment to the Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court's Citizen United decision within the first 30 days of her administration, an aide said Saturday.
No matter how much CNN and other water carriers for the Democratic Party try to frame the Citizens United decision as having "opened the floodgates for outside money in politics," that decision determined that it was not in fact illegal for an incorporated organization of citizens to make, advertise, and distribute a documentary film critical of – Hillary Clinton!
That documentary was not peripheral to that case. It was what the case was about. From the first page of the Court's decision:
In January 2008, appellant Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, released a documentary (hereinafter Hillary) critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, a candidate for her party's Presidential nomination. Anticipating that it would make Hillaryavailable on cable television through video-on-demand within 30 days of primary elections, Citizens United produced television ads to run on broadcast[.]"
Blog: Hillary Clinton prioritizes outlawing criticism of Hillary Clinton

And, for Donald Trump:
"Donald Trump has said on several occasions that he wants to, as he puts it, "open up" libel laws, so that he can sue news organizations he believes have written what he calls "hit pieces."
Libel laws now make it extremely difficult for public figures to sue for damages. Still, a President Trump would very likely have a hard time changing them.
When he appeared before the editorial board of theWashington Post this week, Trump was asked to explain what he wanted to do with the nation's libel laws. Trump told the Post, which put a recording of the meeting online, that if a paper gets a story wrong, it should issue a retraction."
Trump's Promise To 'Open Up' Libel Laws Unlikely To Be Kept : NPR

Whether Sen. Clinton is Queen or Mr. Trump is King they want to alter a Supreme Court decision by royal decree to protect...themselves from criticism.

Why is it no surprise that two lifelong Democrats are in sync?





Freedom of speech should not be construed so as, if one is a public figure, a person and that person's family must endure the slings and arrows of sometimes atrocious lies. I think more American people agree with that thought than disagree. There's a line of egregiousness that goes too far. Time to define the line.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
73,241
Reaction score
41,753
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Overturning citizens united has never been about attacking the rights of individuals, it's been about limiting the power of corporations to buy our politicians and elections like packs of cigarettes. Any citizen can voice their opinions, criticisms and beliefs, but corporations should not be able to pump millions or billions of dollars into our political system.

It's undeniable that money plays a huge role in our democracy and it shouldn't. I'll agree that the president can't unilaterally adopt something like this, it will take a concentrated effort from congress. Considering that very same congress amasses vast sums of personal wealth from that system I don't see it changing anytime soon.

The idea that individuals can do/say X, yet groups of individuals can't do/say X makes little sense. Getting "big money" out of politics is as impractical as getting "big money" out of advertising, sports or entertainment.

You, as well as many others, seem to equate political advertising (positive or negative in nature) with bribery or corruption based upon how much the political ad cost to produce and distribute.

How, exactly, would one word a constitutional amendment (or law) to make it illegal (for a group?) to spend over $X if a movie, book, TV program, song or other means of media advertising is deemed "too political"?
 

ocean515

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
36,760
Reaction score
15,464
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Overturning citizens united has never been about attacking the rights of individuals, it's been about limiting the power of corporations to buy our politicians and elections like packs of cigarettes. Any citizen can voice their opinions, criticisms and beliefs, but corporations should not be able to pump millions or billions of dollars into our political system.

It's undeniable that money plays a huge role in our democracy and it shouldn't. I'll agree that the president can't unilaterally adopt something like this, it will take a concentrated effort from congress. Considering that very same congress amasses vast sums of personal wealth from that system I don't see it changing anytime soon.

Nor should Unions, Trusts, and others.

If Unions can pump $100's of millions into ideologically supportive campaigns, so should IBM.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
73,241
Reaction score
41,753
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Freedom of speech should not be construed so as, if one is a public figure, a person and that person's family must endure the slings and arrows of sometimes atrocious lies. I think more American people agree with that thought than disagree. There's a line of egregiousness that goes too far. Time to define the line.

Then please do so. We have heard "Trump is racist" and "Hillary is corrupt" countless times, and in various forms, clearly making an immoral (criminal?) allegation often with little (if any) factual basis. BTW Maggie, is it true that you have finally stopped beating your puppy? ;)
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Sen. Clinton and Mr. Trump, as narcissistic liberals, make their position as either Queen or King quite clear:

"CNN reports:
Hillary Clinton will pledge on Saturday to introduce an amendment to the Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court's Citizen United decision within the first 30 days of her administration, an aide said Saturday.
No matter how much CNN and other water carriers for the Democratic Party try to frame the Citizens United decision as having "opened the floodgates for outside money in politics," that decision determined that it was not in fact illegal for an incorporated organization of citizens to make, advertise, and distribute a documentary film critical of – Hillary Clinton!
That documentary was not peripheral to that case. It was what the case was about. From the first page of the Court's decision:
In January 2008, appellant Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, released a documentary (hereinafter Hillary) critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, a candidate for her party's Presidential nomination. Anticipating that it would make Hillaryavailable on cable television through video-on-demand within 30 days of primary elections, Citizens United produced television ads to run on broadcast[.]"
Blog: Hillary Clinton prioritizes outlawing criticism of Hillary Clinton

And, for Donald Trump:
"Donald Trump has said on several occasions that he wants to, as he puts it, "open up" libel laws, so that he can sue news organizations he believes have written what he calls "hit pieces."
Libel laws now make it extremely difficult for public figures to sue for damages. Still, a President Trump would very likely have a hard time changing them.
When he appeared before the editorial board of theWashington Post this week, Trump was asked to explain what he wanted to do with the nation's libel laws. Trump told the Post, which put a recording of the meeting online, that if a paper gets a story wrong, it should issue a retraction."
Trump's Promise To 'Open Up' Libel Laws Unlikely To Be Kept : NPR

Whether Sen. Clinton is Queen or Mr. Trump is King they want to alter a Supreme Court decision by royal decree to protect...themselves from criticism.

Why is it no surprise that two lifelong Democrats are in sync?





They will be for ever united on the Presidential Election 2016 page in Wikipedia.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Then please do so. We have heard "Trump is racist" and "Hillary is corrupt" countless times, and in various forms, clearly making an immoral (criminal?) allegation often with little (if any) factual basis. BTW Maggie, is it true that you have finally stopped beating your puppy? ;)

The problem is that the two candidates are as bad as they say.
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,662
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Then please do so. We have heard "Trump is racist" and "Hillary is corrupt" countless times, and in various forms, clearly making an immoral (criminal?) allegation often with little (if any) factual basis. BTW Maggie, is it true that you have finally stopped beating your puppy? ;)

Beat him?? Why I had him for dinner with a fine Chianti.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
So basically she wants to pass an amendment that will restrict peoples right to free speech.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Also, Trump is a cry baby. Libel laws should be repealed not made stronger.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Overturning citizens united has never been about attacking the rights of individuals, it's been about limiting the power of corporations to buy our politicians and elections like packs of cigarettes. Any citizen can voice their opinions, criticisms and beliefs, but corporations should not be able to pump millions or billions of dollars into our political system.

It is a right to give people any amount of your property you please.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Overturning citizens united has never been about attacking the rights of individuals, it's been about limiting the power of corporations to buy our politicians and elections like packs of cigarettes. Any citizen can voice their opinions, criticisms and beliefs, but corporations should not be able to pump millions or billions of dollars into our political system.

It's undeniable that money plays a huge role in our democracy and it shouldn't. I'll agree that the president can't unilaterally adopt something like this, it will take a concentrated effort from congress. Considering that very same congress amasses vast sums of personal wealth from that system I don't see it changing anytime soon.

I don't really see the urgency in changing the limits to political engagement financial or other of groups of citizens. Obama won his first campaign against corporate interests and Trump is not their favorite either.

The free participation in politics in any way they think sensible is fundamental. And one of the reasons democracy works well is that it combines information and knowledge from all parts of the economy. It is like the price in markets and helps optimise society. In these things as usual it is best to fix, what is broken and not what isn't.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
73,241
Reaction score
41,753
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
So basically she wants to pass an amendment that will restrict peoples right to free speech.

Yep, but very carefully crafted so as to benefit incumbent demorats. ;)

That is why she will (must?) wait until she is elected to divulge "the details". It sounds much better as a vague concept (promise?) than it will (may?) appear as an actual amendment or law.
 

RabidAlpaca

Engineer
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
22,725
Reaction score
29,748
Location
American Refugee in Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Nor should Unions, Trusts, and others.


If Unions can pump $100's of millions into ideologically supportive campaigns, so should IBM.


I don't think unions should pump millions of dollars into our political system either, that's absurd. We should be publicly funding elections. Each major candidate over a certain polling % threshold should get a fixed amount of money. It would prevent our politicians becoming indentured to corporations and it would show us who can most efficiently manage a fixed budget. It would also allow candidates of the people to have a chance at getting elected without having to start sucking funds out of corporate cocks.

The idea that individuals can do/say X, yet groups of individuals can't do/say X makes little sense. Getting "big money" out of politics is as impractical as getting "big money" out of advertising, sports or entertainment.

You, as well as many others, seem to equate political advertising (positive or negative in nature) with bribery or corruption based upon how much the political ad cost to produce and distribute.

How, exactly, would one word a constitutional amendment (or law) to make it illegal (for a group?) to spend over $X if a movie, book, TV program, song or other means of media advertising is deemed "too political"?

We have limits to how much money someone can directly give a candidate, why would we allow such a blatant loophole by allowing them to spend an endless amount of money on advertising and Super PACs? There is no one size fits all solution, there needs to be a certain level of discretion on the parts of regulators. We could start by simply going back to the way it was before the Citizens United ruling. If a corporation is pumping milions or billions of dollars into our elections in order to sway the outcome we should know about it and it should be limited.

A democracy can't function if the richest have a dramatically larger effect on government policy than the people. We need to be publicly funding elections and forcing politicians to work on a no-strings-attached fixed budget. Do you see absolutely no problem with the way our political system has turned into a multi-billion dollar enterprise? We already let the rich get away with just about anything why do they have to own our elections too? Is nothing sacred, not even our democracy?

It is a right to give people any amount of your property you please.

When I need the opinion of an anarchist who would like to see the entire institution of government burned to ashes, I know where to find you.

I don't really see the urgency in changing the limits to political engagement financial or other of groups of citizens. Obama won his first campaign against corporate interests and Trump is not their favorite either.

The free participation in politics in any way they think sensible is fundamental. And one of the reasons democracy works well is that it combines information and knowledge from all parts of the economy. It is like the price in markets and helps optimise society. In these things as usual it is best to fix, what is broken and not what isn't.

Obama took nearly a billion dollars from corporate interests and Trump has already begun doing it for the general, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Why should the amount of money a candidate has or can suck out of the cocks of corporate donors be one of the deciding factors of who gets elected in a free democracy? You should be able to run a reasonable campaign without in-debting yourself to special interests.
 
Last edited:

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yep, but very carefully crafted so as to benefit incumbent demorats. ;)

That is why she will (must?) wait until she is elected to divulge "the details". It sounds much better as a vague concept (promise?) than it will (may?) appear as an actual amendment or law.

What many liberals fail to understand about the issue is that it's their own beliefs that are being abused by government and business. If liberals want to decrease business influence in government they need to seriously consider how the government deals with regulations, subsidies, and government research in the country, but of course they won't. If they ever came to the realization that it is their own belief systems that encourages corporatism they would no longer be liberals.

Anyway, it's just stupid to say that my right to speak with my money is somehow limited because of government actions. If elected officials act because of the money I give them is entirely their doing, and if the people don't like it they should vote them out.
 
Last edited:

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
When I need the opinion of an anarchist who would like to see the entire institution of government burned to ashes, I know where to find you.

It's not opinion. Do you think you have a right to give someone ten dollars? I imagine you do. What about ten billion dollars? Again, I imagine you think that is your right too. So tell me, why is it different when the person you are giving money to is in government?
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
73,241
Reaction score
41,753
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I don't think unions should pump millions of dollars into our political system either, that's absurd. We should be publicly funding elections. Each major candidate over a certain polling % threshold should get a fixed amount of money. It would prevent our politicians becoming indentured to corporations and it would show us who can most efficiently manage a fixed budget. It would also allow candidates of the people to have a chance at getting elected without having to start sucking funds out of corporate cocks.



We have limits to how much money someone can directly give a candidate, why would we allow such a blatant loophole by allowing them to spend an endless amount of money on advertising and Super PACs? There is no one size fits all solution, there needs to be a certain level of discretion on the parts of regulators. We could start by simply going back to the way it was before the Citizens United ruling. If a corporation is pumping milions or billions of dollars into our elections in order to sway the outcome we should know about it and it should be limited.

A democracy can't function if the richest have a dramatically larger effect on government policy than the people. We need to be publicly funding elections and forcing politicians to work on a no-strings-attached fixed budget. Do you see absolutely no problem with the way our political system has turned into a multi-billion dollar enterprise? We already let the rich get away with just about anything why do they have to own our elections too? Is nothing sacred, not even our democracy?



When I need the opinion of an anarchist who would like to see the entire institution of government burned to ashes, I know where to find you.



Obama took nearly a billion dollars from corporate interests and Trump has already begun doing it for the general, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Why should the amount of money a candidate has or can suck out of the cocks of corporate donors be one of the deciding factors of who gets elected in a free democracy? You should be able to run a reasonable campaign without in-debting yourself to special interests.

How, exactly, do you prevent incumbents (or those that they choose to back) from having even a larger advantage under your "public funding only" scheme? Incumbents can actually "make news" by simply giving a press conference or holding town hall meetings which is 100% "free" (funded by we the sheeple) any time that they wish to do so . How much value does HRC get from having Obama backing her? Is that huge HRC advantage OK simply because it is not corporate added value backing her?
 

RabidAlpaca

Engineer
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
22,725
Reaction score
29,748
Location
American Refugee in Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
How, exactly, do you prevent incumbents (or those that they choose to back) from having even a larger advantage under your "public funding only" scheme? Incumbents can actually "make news" by simply giving a press conference or holding town hall meetings which is 100% "free" (funded by we the sheeple) any time that they wish to do so . How much value does HRC get from having Obama backing her? Is that huge HRC advantage OK simply because it is not corporate added value backing her?

I'm not saying that advantage is OK either, but that doesn't discount how terrible of an idea it is to give corporations 100% free range to buy our politicians and elections. I don't think that politicians should be using their elected positions for campaign purposes, nor should they be making Taylor-Swift-Level money like Hillary and her husband have made from their careers selling their power. Obama can endorse anyone he chooses.

It's not opinion. Do you think you have a right to give someone ten dollars? I imagine you do. What about ten billion dollars? Again, I imagine you think that is your right too. So tell me, why is it different when the person you are giving money to is in government?

Considering you think taxes are theft and society shouldn't exist in the first place why would I care about your opinion on democracy?
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Considering you think taxes are theft and society shouldn't exist in the first place why would I care about your opinion on democracy?

FYI: My post didn't mention democracy.

Also, according to the definition of theft involuntary taxation would be theft.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
73,241
Reaction score
41,753
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I'm not saying that advantage is OK either, but that doesn't discount how terrible of an idea it is to give corporations 100% free range to buy our politicians and elections. I don't think that politicians should be using their elected positions for campaign purposes, nor should they be making Taylor-Swift-Level money like Hillary and her husband have made from their careers selling their power. Obama can endorse anyone he chooses.



Considering you think taxes are theft and society shouldn't exist in the first place why would I care about your opinion on democracy?

If Obama can do as he chooses than why not GE, Starbucks or Walmart? Clearly Obama has more power and media access than all corporations combined. The idea that the governed must shut up and let the government define what can be be said, how often, when and by who is not only insane but unconstitutional as well.
 

RabidAlpaca

Engineer
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
22,725
Reaction score
29,748
Location
American Refugee in Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If Obama can do as he chooses than why not GE, Starbucks or Walmart? Clearly Obama has more power and media access than all corporations combined. The idea that the governed must shut up and let the government define what can be be said, how often, when and by who is not only insane but unconstitutional as well.

Obama is a human being and a citizen of this country. So are all of the workers, CEOs and shareholders at GE, Starbucks and Walmart (With exceptions I'm sure). They can all express any opinion they want and take any political position they want. What is not ok is using that corporation to influence our electoral process in order to achieve a financially desirable outcome. That is not democracy.
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Obama is a human being and a citizen of this country. So are all of the workers, CEOs and shareholders at GE, Starbucks and Walmart (With exceptions I'm sure). They can all express any opinion they want and take any political position they want. What is not ok is using that corporation to influence our electoral process in order to achieve a financially desirable outcome. That is not democracy.

Talk out of both sides of your mouth much? For corporations or their representatives to speak out on public issues is to influence the electoral process, and that is what you oppose. You oppose democracy and the First Amendment. There are no exceptions in the First Amendment regarding who may speak, there are only those who wish to silence those who they see as political opponents. SCOTUS ended that crap, and good for them.
 
Top Bottom