By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - We The People Act or Why Ron Paul is a Crazy Person

rocketpig on 02 June 2012
nuckles87 said:
Historically, the Supreme Court's ability to overturn federal law has always been a double edged sword.

Has the Supreme Court upheld minority rights and beliefs in the past? Yes, yes they have. In Brown vs. Board of Education they demanded that states integrate their schools. In Gaines v Canada and other cases, they struck down segeragated universities, law and grad schools.

But lets think for a minute, how these institutions became segregated in the first place: in 1896, the Supreme Court completely gutted the Civil Rights act of 1866 as well as the 14th Ammendment with Plessy v. Ferguson, which created the concept of "seperate but equal", allowing public and private institutions the legal right to discriminate in the first place, under the notion that "seperate, equal" services would be provided. I can tell you they knew damn well that that was bullshit and they knew it, and it wouldn't begin to be successfully challenged in ANY way until Gaines v. Canada. It took them over 60 years to completely reverse the damage caused by that one Supreme Court decision, which was UNCONSTITUTIONAL in and of itself and effectively turned African Americans into legally second class citizens for decades.

And before Plessy v. Ferguson, we also had the Dredd Scott decision, which stated that slaves had no protection under the constitution. So no, the Supreme Court has not always protected minorities, and in many cases has ruled against their interest.

And of course, in this day and age we have the most politicized Supreme Court since the 1830s. We have justices making judgements BLATANTLY contradicting their own precedent, taking "donations" from companies being affected by their decisions, and then not recusing themselves from these decisions. Remember Citizens United, which has allowed our political system to be completely corrupted by private donations, because of this silly notion the Supreme has held for over a century that corporations are people (they aren't) and money is speech (it isn't. It's property. You don't own speech)? A 5-4 Supreme Court decision. I garuntee you that the upcoming Health Care law ruling will be 5-4, and that decision will probably involve one long time member of the Supreme Court going against their own precedent for political or monetary reasons.

The Supreme Court has nothing to check it, It's members do not need to follow any rules, the other branches cannot regulate or check it in any immediate way because this branch of the government was not supposed to be political, or HAVE this much power to begin with. The Supreme Court gave itself this power in 1805, and people have just accepted it. As a result, these people are practically monarchs, unchecked and untouchable, because centuries ago they deemed it so.

This is one of numerous instances where liberals and libertarians can agree: unchecked Supreme Court power needs to go. It does at least as much harm as it does good, and it has no place in a democracy.

I won't argue that the SCOTUS often gets it wrong. But, in the end, they have the tendency to get it right sooner or later. I'm not sure you can say the same about politicians.

The problem with removing unchecked court power is that who do you give the power to in their place? Congress? Oh, hell no. You can't trust those bastards any farther than you can throw their pork-bellied asses. The President? He already has enough power. Giving him more tips the scales unfavorably.

It's not a perfect system but I think it's the best we can offer. Removing the courts from the will and knee-jerk reactionary nature of the people is the only way to protect the long-term rights and privileges of a society. You can't let the up-and-down nature of the public will dictate who gets to do what and when they get to do it.

With that said, the current SCOTUS sickens me. I wanted to scream when they ruled on Citizens United. I really don't like most of the conservatives on the court right now. But they'll be gone someday and the pendulum of the Supreme Court will shift in the other direction for awhile and the ship will continue sailing onward. When looking at entities like the Supreme Court, you really can't judge them in blocks smaller than 30-40 years, kind of like how you can't really just a Presidency until it's been out of office for a decade or better.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Around the Network
badgenome on 02 June 2012
nuckles87 said:
This is one of numerous instances where liberals and libertarians can agree: unchecked Supreme Court power needs to go. It does at least as much harm as it does good, and it has no place in a democracy.

I don't actually think there are "numerous" instances of agreement between liberals and libertarians, assuming by "liberals" you mean leftists. And this certainly isn't one of them as libertarians generally haven't had a huge beef with the Supreme Court and definitely not with the Roberts Court. The SCOTUS does, in fact, have checks placed on it. It is limited to dealing with the cases at hand, and despite all the bitching about "legislating from the bench", Congress always has the option of overruling them by amending the Constitution if it's really so damned important.

So, if anything, this is an instance of the left and right agreeing, but each side only dislikes "judicial activism" when it goes against its preferences.



JazzB1987 on 02 June 2012
rocketpig said:
JazzB1987 said:
WRONG. You need to be a big country  (USA) to have influence in the world. You have to team up to do something like having a strong economy etc.. Try to grow vegetables in manhatten please. See?   Thats the point of the USA. Not  I SAY YOU DO!.  Thats also why the european union was established. Because 1000000 small countries cannot compete with the Russian Federation or the United States etc. 


The only laws that should be forced to be complied with  are laws that TOTALLY concern the whole united states  like  what kind of pesticides are allowd to grow food that is sold in the whole country ETC.  What pesticides are allowed to be used to sell food in the state of its origin is a matter of the STATE not FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  Do you finally see what i mean?


To bad the government is violating the rules of the constitution/bill of rights etc but  you seem to only see what you want to see so there is no point in talking about this topic anymore.

Yes, I'm the one who's only seeing what I want.

Do everyone here a favor and Google "Articles of Confederation". Read the wiki article and then you'll understand why your idea is a terrible one. Your idea of a toothless Federal government being a good thing is what almost buried this country in the 1780s.


Another example.  Idiots came up with the Idea of internet data preservation. This is actually violating laws and is on the same level as domestic disturbance.

The European government is FORCING its member states to accept this law. The EU is suing Germany for this  because Germany is hesitating to accept it and wants Germany to pay

$391,053 for each day the law is not active.

Why is the EU interfering with German laws? The only courts that have to deal with all the stuff are the German courts be it copyright infrigment or pedophiles or whatever. Why does the EU have to be so agressive? Germans dont want this stupid law so the German government has not yet signed it.

IF the mayority of a states people want or dont want something THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GET WHAT THEY WANT.
THIS IS  DEMOCRACY FOR GODS SAKE.  Be it death sentence, age of consent, making homo sexuality illegal or whatever.... it does not matter how stupid the law might be. IF THE PEOPLE WANT IT THEY SHOULD GET IT AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT AFFECT PEOPLE FROM OUTSIDE THE STATE.

If you can read you would notice that I suggested a better form of government.
Neither "F*CK the federal government we do what we want"  nor  "who cares about what people want we force them to accept"

but  instead let the federal government (that still has a lets say 40% vote power) suggest laws and convince the people who the law would affect and then if enough people see that the law is usefull   VOILA! Law accepted.

I mean what if the federal government would force every state to throw white people into jail? Or make it illegal for specific people to procreate? Or kick females out of any sort of school/university etc  like 400 years ago?

Don't you think NewYork or any other state should have the right to fight this stupud law?  You don't get my point i guess.

P.S.
Please remember im not trying to make this happen/trying to start a revolution or whatever  Im trying to show you that you rant about this IDEA for no reason because its not worse than what we have now. It could actually be better because the POWER TO DECIDE lies more in your hands than when the federal government can decide everything on its own.

I said you only see what you want to see   because you don't get the WHOLE point if this IDEA. You just think about anarchy or whatever and all people turning into barabrians etc?  But thats just one side of the medal.
I see both sides (yeah i really do) but I only talk about the side you don't see because you clearly know of the other side so there is not much of a point in talking about that one too.
My whole text is not intended to turn this conversation into a PRO CONTRA debate its just showing flaws in your view.  Well sorry that sounds harsh lets say its adding info for better understanding of the issue.

This is also going to be the last post on my side. I said what I wanted to say and I hope you at least understand what I want to say you don't have to accept it because....  well democracy stuff you know.   Have a nice weekend.





Mr Khan on 02 June 2012
JazzB1987 said:
rocketpig said:
JazzB1987 said:
WRONG. You need to be a big country  (USA) to have influence in the world. You have to team up to do something like having a strong economy etc.. Try to grow vegetables in manhatten please. See?   Thats the point of the USA. Not  I SAY YOU DO!.  Thats also why the european union was established. Because 1000000 small countries cannot compete with the Russian Federation or the United States etc. 


The only laws that should be forced to be complied with  are laws that TOTALLY concern the whole united states  like  what kind of pesticides are allowd to grow food that is sold in the whole country ETC.  What pesticides are allowed to be used to sell food in the state of its origin is a matter of the STATE not FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  Do you finally see what i mean?


To bad the government is violating the rules of the constitution/bill of rights etc but  you seem to only see what you want to see so there is no point in talking about this topic anymore.

Yes, I'm the one who's only seeing what I want.

Do everyone here a favor and Google "Articles of Confederation". Read the wiki article and then you'll understand why your idea is a terrible one. Your idea of a toothless Federal government being a good thing is what almost buried this country in the 1780s.


Another example.  Idiots came up with the Idea of internet data preservation. This is actually violating laws and is on the same level as domestic disturbance.

The European government is FORCING its member states to accept this law. The EU is suing Germany for this  because Germany is hesitating to accept it and wants Germany to pay

$391,053 for each day the law is not active.

Why the F is the EU interfering with German laws? The only courts that have to deal with all the stuff are the German courts be it copyright infrigment or pedophiles or whatever. Why does the EU have to be so agressive? Germans dont want this stupid law so the German government has not yet signed it.

IF the mayority of a states people want or dont want something THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GET WHAT THEY WANT.
THIS IS F*CKING DEMOCRACY FOR GODS SAKE.  Be it death sentence, age of consent, making homo sexuality illegal, apartheid or whatever.... it does not matter how stupid the law might be. IF THE PEOPLE WANT IT THEY SHOULD GET IT AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT AFFECT PEOPLE FROM OUTSIDE THE STATE.

If you can read you would notice that I suggested a better form of government.
Neither "F*CK the federal government we do what we want"  nor  "who cares about what people want we force them to accept"

but  instead let the federal government (that still has a lets say 40% vote power) suggest laws and convince the people who the law would affect and then if enough people see that the law is usefull   VOILA! Law accepted.

I mean what if the federal government would force every state to throw white people into jail? Or make it illegal for specific people to procreate? Or kick females out of any sort of school/university etc  like 400 years ago?

Don't you think NewYork or any other state should have the right to fight this stupud law?  You don't get my point i guess.

P.S.
Please remember im not trying to make this happen/trying to start a revolution or whatever  Im trying to show you that you rant about this IDEA for no reason because its not worse than what we have now. It could actually be better because the POWER TO DECIDE lies more in your hands than when the federal government can decide everything on its own.

I said you only see what you want to see   because you don't get the WHOLE point if this IDEA. You just think about anarchy or whatever and all people turning into barabrians etc?  But thats just one side of the medal.  I see both sides (yeah i really do) but I only talk about the side you don't see because you clearly know of the other side so there is not much of a point in talking about that one too.  My whole text is not intended to turn this conversation into a PRO CONTRA debate its just showing flaws in your view.  Well sorry that sounds harsh lets say its adding info for better understanding of the issue.

Ironically, the EU should be your model of what you want America to look like: loose federal power with the states retaining nominal sovereignty. And of course, the problems of asynchronous monetary and fiscal policy that we see with the Euro show what the problem is with granting too much sovereignty to the components (though in the case of the EU, they are still sovereign. The point of constitutions and liberal democracy is that the rule of law is supreme, and not the will of the people, which is often fickle, counterproductive, or downright evil. Hell, we get enough of that in our liberal democracy in the first place, now let's imagine what happens when we remove constitutional preventions on states doing stupid-ass things.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Kasz216 on 03 June 2012
rocketpig said:
Kasz216 said:
I mean really if we want an example of a toothless federal government in modern times... I'd use Europe as an example.

That's really what the Europeon Union is.

It's the articles of confederation more or less.

Big difference being that the articles of confederation let indivdual states keep there own money... (I think?)

Without looking it up, I'm about 95% sure that under the Articles, states still printed their own money. I think that was one of the main driving forces for the Constitution.

Very true that the EU is basically a re-worked Articles. The key difference being that most of the countries of Europe has a long-standing history of being successful, independent nations. Their economies are still hard-wired that way and could revert back to it should the EU fall on its face. It would be painful, but definitely possible. Obviously, the US states were in a very different situation. Many had no stable currency, no framework of economic success, and the turmoil of the post-Revolution era was still weighing heavily on each of them.

I'd say a more similar hypothetical situation was if the EU formed in 1946. There is nearly a zero chance it would have been successful at that point. Hell, if you ask Greece the question right now, I think they'd make a fine case arguing that it isn't successful today.

Well actually i meant that as a support to your point.  I don't think the EU really works, the economic problems are a big issue, and otuside that whenever a nation finds something too distastefull they'll just duck out of it.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 03 June 2012
rocketpig said:
nuckles87 said:
Historically, the Supreme Court's ability to overturn federal law has always been a double edged sword.

Has the Supreme Court upheld minority rights and beliefs in the past? Yes, yes they have. In Brown vs. Board of Education they demanded that states integrate their schools. In Gaines v Canada and other cases, they struck down segeragated universities, law and grad schools.

But lets think for a minute, how these institutions became segregated in the first place: in 1896, the Supreme Court completely gutted the Civil Rights act of 1866 as well as the 14th Ammendment with Plessy v. Ferguson, which created the concept of "seperate but equal", allowing public and private institutions the legal right to discriminate in the first place, under the notion that "seperate, equal" services would be provided. I can tell you they knew damn well that that was bullshit and they knew it, and it wouldn't begin to be successfully challenged in ANY way until Gaines v. Canada. It took them over 60 years to completely reverse the damage caused by that one Supreme Court decision, which was UNCONSTITUTIONAL in and of itself and effectively turned African Americans into legally second class citizens for decades.

And before Plessy v. Ferguson, we also had the Dredd Scott decision, which stated that slaves had no protection under the constitution. So no, the Supreme Court has not always protected minorities, and in many cases has ruled against their interest.

And of course, in this day and age we have the most politicized Supreme Court since the 1830s. We have justices making judgements BLATANTLY contradicting their own precedent, taking "donations" from companies being affected by their decisions, and then not recusing themselves from these decisions. Remember Citizens United, which has allowed our political system to be completely corrupted by private donations, because of this silly notion the Supreme has held for over a century that corporations are people (they aren't) and money is speech (it isn't. It's property. You don't own speech)? A 5-4 Supreme Court decision. I garuntee you that the upcoming Health Care law ruling will be 5-4, and that decision will probably involve one long time member of the Supreme Court going against their own precedent for political or monetary reasons.

The Supreme Court has nothing to check it, It's members do not need to follow any rules, the other branches cannot regulate or check it in any immediate way because this branch of the government was not supposed to be political, or HAVE this much power to begin with. The Supreme Court gave itself this power in 1805, and people have just accepted it. As a result, these people are practically monarchs, unchecked and untouchable, because centuries ago they deemed it so.

This is one of numerous instances where liberals and libertarians can agree: unchecked Supreme Court power needs to go. It does at least as much harm as it does good, and it has no place in a democracy.

I won't argue that the SCOTUS often gets it wrong. But, in the end, they have the tendency to get it right sooner or later. I'm not sure you can say the same about politicians.

The problem with removing unchecked court power is that who do you give the power to in their place? Congress? Oh, hell no. You can't trust those bastards any farther than you can throw their pork-bellied asses. The President? He already has enough power. Giving him more tips the scales unfavorably.

It's not a perfect system but I think it's the best we can offer. Removing the courts from the will and knee-jerk reactionary nature of the people is the only way to protect the long-term rights and privileges of a society. You can't let the up-and-down nature of the public will dictate who gets to do what and when they get to do it.

With that said, the current SCOTUS sickens me. I wanted to scream when they ruled on Citizens United. I really don't like most of the conservatives on the court right now. But they'll be gone someday and the pendulum of the Supreme Court will shift in the other direction for awhile and the ship will continue sailing onward. When looking at entities like the Supreme Court, you really can't judge them in blocks smaller than 30-40 years, kind of like how you can't really just a Presidency until it's been out of office for a decade or better.

I'm curious, have you looked at the abrieviated ruling?  While i'm not particularly sure of the outcome, there reasoning seemed 100% spot on.  In general the "Corproations are people" thing that's quoted from it is 100% NOT what they are saying.

What they do say is that

1) Political speech is the most important speech because all other speech is derived from it.  (This is certaintly true.)

2) There is no legal distinction between corporations and news media, and the way news networks work now it's essentially campaign contributions in fact, and really are so legally as well.  ( I mean, is there any doubt that 70% of anyting on Fox News or MSNBC is more or less a campaign add at this point?)

3) Corporations are groups of people, to restrict groups of people on speaking is against the first ammendment. (Which, it is, either free speech or assembly essentially.)

 

You can question the effects of the decision, but I don't beleive you can question the reasoning or logic behind it.  Which, the court is here to interpret and judge what's legal, not to judge based on what's "better".



rocketpig on 03 June 2012
Kasz216 said:
I'm curious, have you looked at the abrieviated ruling?  While i'm not particularly sure of the outcome, there reasoning seemed 100% spot on.  In general the "Corproations are people" thing that's quoted from it is 100% NOT what they are saying.

What they do say is that

1) Political speech is the most important speech because all other speech is derived from it.  (This is certaintly true.)

2) There is no legal distinction between corporations and news media, and the way news networks work now it's essentially campaign contributions in fact, and really are so legally as well.  ( I mean, is there any doubt that 70% of anyting on Fox News or MSNBC is more or less a campaign add at this point?)

3) Corporations are groups of people, to restrict groups of people on speaking is against the first ammendment. (Which, it is, either free speech or assembly essentially.)

 

You can question the effects of the decision, but I don't beleive you can question the reasoning or logic behind it.  Which, the court is here to interpret and judge what's legal, not to judge based on what's "better".


I see their reasoning behind the ruling and unfortunately, it makes sense.

The problem is that even though it makes sense, it's a disastrous ruling for the average American. I don't really blame the court for making the decision they did because their analysis was reasonable, I just really hated the outcome. Now it's on the shoulders of Congress, who are the receivers of all that corporate money. They're not going to do a damned thing about it. Unfortunately, this is a classic situation where the people are getting screwed from all sides while everybody else profits from it.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

rocketpig on 03 June 2012
JazzB1987 said:
rocketpig said:
JazzB1987 said:
WRONG. You need to be a big country  (USA) to have influence in the world. You have to team up to do something like having a strong economy etc.. Try to grow vegetables in manhatten please. See?   Thats the point of the USA. Not  I SAY YOU DO!.  Thats also why the european union was established. Because 1000000 small countries cannot compete with the Russian Federation or the United States etc. 


The only laws that should be forced to be complied with  are laws that TOTALLY concern the whole united states  like  what kind of pesticides are allowd to grow food that is sold in the whole country ETC.  What pesticides are allowed to be used to sell food in the state of its origin is a matter of the STATE not FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  Do you finally see what i mean?


To bad the government is violating the rules of the constitution/bill of rights etc but  you seem to only see what you want to see so there is no point in talking about this topic anymore.

Yes, I'm the one who's only seeing what I want.

Do everyone here a favor and Google "Articles of Confederation". Read the wiki article and then you'll understand why your idea is a terrible one. Your idea of a toothless Federal government being a good thing is what almost buried this country in the 1780s.


Another example.  Idiots came up with the Idea of internet data preservation. This is actually violating laws and is on the same level as domestic disturbance.

The European government is FORCING its member states to accept this law. The EU is suing Germany for this  because Germany is hesitating to accept it and wants Germany to pay

$391,053 for each day the law is not active.

Why is the EU interfering with German laws? The only courts that have to deal with all the stuff are the German courts be it copyright infrigment or pedophiles or whatever. Why does the EU have to be so agressive? Germans dont want this stupid law so the German government has not yet signed it.

IF the mayority of a states people want or dont want something THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GET WHAT THEY WANT.
THIS IS  DEMOCRACY FOR GODS SAKE.  Be it death sentence, age of consent, making homo sexuality illegal or whatever.... it does not matter how stupid the law might be. IF THE PEOPLE WANT IT THEY SHOULD GET IT AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT AFFECT PEOPLE FROM OUTSIDE THE STATE.

If you can read you would notice that I suggested a better form of government.
Neither "F*CK the federal government we do what we want"  nor  "who cares about what people want we force them to accept"

but  instead let the federal government (that still has a lets say 40% vote power) suggest laws and convince the people who the law would affect and then if enough people see that the law is usefull   VOILA! Law accepted.

I mean what if the federal government would force every state to throw white people into jail? Or make it illegal for specific people to procreate? Or kick females out of any sort of school/university etc  like 400 years ago?

Don't you think NewYork or any other state should have the right to fight this stupud law?  You don't get my point i guess.

P.S.
Please remember im not trying to make this happen/trying to start a revolution or whatever  Im trying to show you that you rant about this IDEA for no reason because its not worse than what we have now. It could actually be better because the POWER TO DECIDE lies more in your hands than when the federal government can decide everything on its own.

I said you only see what you want to see   because you don't get the WHOLE point if this IDEA. You just think about anarchy or whatever and all people turning into barabrians etc?  But thats just one side of the medal.
I see both sides (yeah i really do) but I only talk about the side you don't see because you clearly know of the other side so there is not much of a point in talking about that one too.
My whole text is not intended to turn this conversation into a PRO CONTRA debate its just showing flaws in your view.  Well sorry that sounds harsh lets say its adding info for better understanding of the issue.

This is also going to be the last post on my side. I said what I wanted to say and I hope you at least understand what I want to say you don't have to accept it because....  well democracy stuff you know.   Have a nice weekend.

Wait, so you're advocating an EU-style model for the US while using examples of how the EU is failing its member countries?

I get your point. I'm pretty sure I "get it" more than you do. I'm all about states' rights, ask anyone on the forum who has debated politics with me over the past five years.

But it's a fine-edged sword. While states should have increased rights, they cannot be allowed to do whatever they please. And that's not me just saying it won't work hypothetically because it was done in the late 1770s and early 1780s. States printed their own money. They gave/didn't give whatever money they felt like to the federal government. They had influence in how the federal government used the military. They had influence in how we set tariffs and trade regulations. It failed so miserably that the country almost collapsed in less than a decade.

Now, look at the EU. This time, they're using a slightly more unified model, with the EU itself printing money, forcing some regulations onto its member nations, but still keeping the sovereignty of its member states. The added benefit of the EU is that its member states have long-running histories of being successful, profitable nations with stable governments. That should help, right? Well, if you're a net exporter like Germany, sure. It works great! If you're a net importer like Greece, not so much. Their country is on the verge of economic collapse and austerity measures are being taken on a level I don't think I've seen from a western nation in my lifetime and the reason it's happening is basically because they joined the EU and adopted the Euro for their currency.

I get your point. I understand it fully, more fully than you do. It's a terrible idea that has been tried in the past and to my knowledge, has failed on pretty much every level. You don't have any evidence that it's a good idea, you just like the sound of it. Yet I provide examples where such a loose-knit republic has failed its constituency and you just ignore it.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Kasz216 on 03 June 2012
rocketpig said:
Kasz216 said:
I'm curious, have you looked at the abrieviated ruling?  While i'm not particularly sure of the outcome, there reasoning seemed 100% spot on.  In general the "Corproations are people" thing that's quoted from it is 100% NOT what they are saying.

What they do say is that

1) Political speech is the most important speech because all other speech is derived from it.  (This is certaintly true.)

2) There is no legal distinction between corporations and news media, and the way news networks work now it's essentially campaign contributions in fact, and really are so legally as well.  ( I mean, is there any doubt that 70% of anyting on Fox News or MSNBC is more or less a campaign add at this point?)

3) Corporations are groups of people, to restrict groups of people on speaking is against the first ammendment. (Which, it is, either free speech or assembly essentially.)

 

You can question the effects of the decision, but I don't beleive you can question the reasoning or logic behind it.  Which, the court is here to interpret and judge what's legal, not to judge based on what's "better".


I see their reasoning behind the ruling and unfortunately, it makes sense.

The problem is that even though it makes sense, it's a disastrous ruling for the average American. I don't really blame the court for making the decision they did because their analysis was reasonable, I just really hated the outcome. Now it's on the shoulders of Congress, who are the receivers of all that corporate money. They're not going to do a damned thing about it. Unfortunately, this is a classic situation where the people are getting screwed from all sides while everybody else profits from it.

Weird, my post got lost.

Either way, i'm not sure.  I mean, i'd think it'd be just as disasterous the other way.  I mean 24/7 news stations and news in general would be exempt.  So wouldn't it just be a matter of them leverging advertising buying on story reporting and story outlooks?

Maybe more networks like Obama's from the last elections pop up.  More news stories made about problems that hit one candidate harder then the other etc.

At least campaign adds are campaign adds.

 

Also, a lot of evidence tends to point to correlation going the other way.  That is, money follows popularity, not the other way around.  Seems more likely to me that more often then not money just flocks to the candidate that seems viable and best fits there views.

Reserch seems to suggest that there is just a money level you need to be at to qualify, and beyond that the money doesn't help.  (or if it does in other studies, only newcomers).

So really, I wonder if it's a lot of money spent over nothing.  I mean heck, even if it just helps challengers to incumbats... considering the 85% renewal rate or whatever... sounds good to me.



Mr Khan on 03 June 2012
Kasz216 said:
rocketpig said:
Kasz216 said:
I'm curious, have you looked at the abrieviated ruling?  While i'm not particularly sure of the outcome, there reasoning seemed 100% spot on.  In general the "Corproations are people" thing that's quoted from it is 100% NOT what they are saying.

What they do say is that

1) Political speech is the most important speech because all other speech is derived from it.  (This is certaintly true.)

2) There is no legal distinction between corporations and news media, and the way news networks work now it's essentially campaign contributions in fact, and really are so legally as well.  ( I mean, is there any doubt that 70% of anyting on Fox News or MSNBC is more or less a campaign add at this point?)

3) Corporations are groups of people, to restrict groups of people on speaking is against the first ammendment. (Which, it is, either free speech or assembly essentially.)

 

You can question the effects of the decision, but I don't beleive you can question the reasoning or logic behind it.  Which, the court is here to interpret and judge what's legal, not to judge based on what's "better".


I see their reasoning behind the ruling and unfortunately, it makes sense.

The problem is that even though it makes sense, it's a disastrous ruling for the average American. I don't really blame the court for making the decision they did because their analysis was reasonable, I just really hated the outcome. Now it's on the shoulders of Congress, who are the receivers of all that corporate money. They're not going to do a damned thing about it. Unfortunately, this is a classic situation where the people are getting screwed from all sides while everybody else profits from it.

Weird, my post got lost.

Either way, i'm not sure.  I mean, i'd think it'd be just as disasterous the other way.  I mean 24/7 news stations and news in general would be exempt.  So wouldn't it just be a matter of them leverging advertising buying on story reporting and story outlooks?

Maybe more networks like Obama's from the last elections pop up.  More news stories made about problems that hit one candidate harder then the other etc.

At least campaign adds are campaign adds.

 

Also, a lot of evidence tends to point to correlation going the other way.  That is, money follows popularity, not the other way around.  Seems more likely to me that more often then not money just flocks to the candidate that seems viable and best fits there views.

Reserch seems to suggest that there is just a money level you need to be at to qualify, and beyond that the money doesn't help.  (or if it does in other studies, only newcomers).

So really, I wonder if it's a lot of money spent over nothing.  I mean heck, even if it just helps challengers to incumbats... considering the 85% renewal rate or whatever... sounds good to me.

One wonders if it is not then economically wasteful and that this big huge businesses that seem to have no money to hire people could be spending that money on something productive, rather than empirically unproductive (except we factor in that campaign donations are legal and now completely deregulated forms of lobbying)



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.