quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Of course its more stupidity, you couldnt follow anything that wasnt stupid. [8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Of course its more stupidity, you couldnt follow anything that wasnt stupid. [8|]

Your trying to win these debates with ad hominems alone speaks poorly of your honesty, and your reasoning ability

In other words you are still just a troll

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

There's no campaign finance reform initiative from the right, and it was the conservative bloc on the S CT that eviscerated existed legislation that set limits. Furthermore, it was a right wing organization that challenged the existing campaign finance laws. Lastly, the right wing bloc on the CT has made it very difficult to prove money corrupts politicians.

^^^ Clinton had nothing to do with this --- you remain remarkably detached from facts and reality. "Your side" has set the rules. Would be nice if you'd just own this, but quite frankly, it does make a sham of our democracy and it does undermine our system of governance. Unfortunately, you could not follow this bouncing ball if it hit you in the face.

quote:

Hillary Clinton just proved why campaign finance reform isn’t a real issue

In the early days of her 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton decried the influence of big money in politics -- calling the system "dysfunctional" and pledging to make fixing it a centerpiece of her second bid for the White House.

Then, on Wednesday night, the New York Times' Maggie Haberman and Nicholas Confessore reported this:

Hillary Rodham Clinton will begin personally courting donors for a “super PAC” supporting her candidacy, the first time a Democratic presidential candidate has fully embraced these independent groups that can accept unlimited checks from big donors and are already playing a major role in the 2016 race....

...Mrs. Clinton’s allies hope that with her support, the top Democratic super PAC, Priorities USA Action, will raise $200 million to $300 million. That is on par with what the largest Republican organizations, such as the Karl Rove-backed American Crossroads super PAC and its nonprofit affiliate, spent in 2012.

As the Times' story notes, Clinton is the first likely Democratic presidential nominee to fully embrace the world of super PACs; President Obama allowed the creation of Priorities USA Action during the 2012 election but never attended any of the events to raise money for the endeavor and, generally, kept it at arm's length...

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_908w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2015/04/17/Editorial-Opinion/Images/2015-04-15T142317Z_01_IST03_RTRIDSP_3_TURKEY-ECONOMY-LIRA-1400.jpg&w=1484

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


Like I said, you can't follow the bouncing ball. The odd thing is how much pride you take in it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

Pathetic, really.

"The Supreme Court’s divisive decision Wednesday striking down a Watergate-era limit on campaign contributions was the latest milestone for conservative justices who are disassembling a campaign finance regime they feel violates free-speech rights."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-strikes-down-limits-on-federal-campaign-donations/2014/04/02/54e16c30-ba74-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html

"Senate Republicans unanimously rejected a constitutional amendment sought by Democrats that would allow Congress to regulate campaign finance reform."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/senate-block-campaign-finance-amendment-110864.html#ixzz3cLQg3EFF

----

(1) no distinction can be drawn between the First Amendment rights of individuals and corporations in the electoral context, and that

(2) “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

-- Citizen's United

------------ So as anyone can plainly see, it is the Conservatives who boldly and proudly support (and want) big money in politics. The Conservatives running the show in Washington do not support or want campaign finance reform. No, they want big money in politics.

Now candidates from both parties need big money to get elected. Congratulations! Now, quit complaining about it, and if you want to complain about it, please address the actual source of the issue: Republican appointed Supreme Court Members and Republican members of Congress.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

What difference do tv commercials make when you have FOX News, NPR, and other media outlets that are already biased?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
What difference do tv commercials make when you have FOX News, NPR, and other media outlets that are already biased?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
But those ads become media stories. And it's more than just obvious paid political advertising.
Look at Schweitzer and Clinton Cash. Or Michael Moore with Farenheit 9/11. Neither were "paid political advertising", but both have become part of the conversation/debate during election cycles, and both have been nauseatingly covered by the media. They've influenced part of public opinion one way or another.
Musicians make political statements in their albums and on stage.
The money behind actual paid political advertising is a drop in the bucket compared to the 937 HD cable channels, all promoting some angle. Except CSPAN maybe.
There's no way to limit "official paid political advertising" without limiting the more subtle political stuff.
And destroying free speech as we know it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

But those ads become media stories. And it's more than just obvious paid political advertising.

Look at Schweitzer and Clinton Cash. Or Michael Moore with Farenheit 9/11. Neither were "paid political advertising", but both have become part of the conversation/debate during election cycles, and both have been nauseatingly covered by the media. They've influenced part of public opinion one way or another.

Musicians make political statements in their albums and on stage.

The money behind actual paid political advertising is a drop in the bucket compared to the 937 HD cable channels, all promoting some angle. Except CSPAN maybe.

There's no way to limit "official paid political advertising" without limiting the more subtle political stuff.

And destroying free speech as we know it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

What difference do tv commercials make when you have FOX News, NPR, and other media outlets that are already biased?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

But those ads become media stories. And it's more than just obvious paid political advertising.

Look at Schweitzer and Clinton Cash. Or Michael Moore with Farenheit 9/11. Neither were "paid political advertising", but both have become part of the conversation/debate during election cycles, and both have been nauseatingly covered by the media. They've influenced part of public opinion one way or another.

Musicians make political statements in their albums and on stage.

The money behind actual paid political advertising is a drop in the bucket compared to the 937 HD cable channels, all promoting some angle. Except CSPAN maybe.

There's no way to limit "official paid political advertising" without limiting the more subtle political stuff.

And destroying free speech as we know it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

What difference do tv commercials make when you have FOX News, NPR, and other media outlets that are already biased?

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

What difference do tv commercials make when you have FOX News, NPR, and other media outlets that are already biased?

You really gonna compare NPR and FOX? NPR has the highest educated audience and FOX has the lowest. One pitches to the lowest standard, the other to the highest.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

What difference do tv commercials make when you have FOX News, NPR, and other media outlets that are already biased?

You really gonna compare NPR and FOX? NPR has the highest educated audience and FOX has the lowest. One pitches to the lowest standard, the other to the highest.