The American Dark Age (2016-2020) An archived history of the worst President ever

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/trump-pledges-to-drain-the-swamp

It’s his plan to clean up DC corruption that I linked someplace.

That’s what he’s calling it.

To be fair, it’s like… his only good idea, so he’s running with it. Of course he’s running with it possibly the worst way (ie just using it to attack Clinton non-stop).

I mean it is the kind of thing I could support, in large measure. There are certain concerns about it, but the Pol to lobbyist pipeline is a legitimate issue. And a bipartisan one.

I support cleaning up the DC corruption 100%. Trump isn’t the person to do that though… That’s like asking Pigpen to vacuum your carpets.

Or the company you work for.

You’re demonstrating an incorrect view of what a right actually is.

Jeez you guys have gone and broke the “stupid things” thread with intelligent, introspective discussion. This is why we cant have anything nice!

I disagree, and there are plenty of examples where it is treated the way I am describing, from laws against electioneering near polling places to laws against discriminatory business practices.

Sorry for the derail, everyone - just imagine that during this whole discussion, Trump has been saying “wrong” and “that makes me smart” at random points.

No man, your view is not supported by how the legal system views rights.

The government is prohibited from infringing on your right. It is not responsible for guaranteeing that you can express that right as much as anyone else.

If you want to do such a thing, you could make other laws to try and support your ability to do so… but, because of the first amendment, you aren’t able to do that by limiting the rights of others.

This is pedantic, but as a former DC resident, I hate that phrase. Much of the DC population is extremely poor and unhealthy. With no representation in Congress, their programs and funding are left to the House and they’re consistently forgotten or ignored. The Federal Government may be corrupt and need cleaning up, but DC is helpless in that fight. It’s a damn shame they have no substantive representation. Elenor Holmes Norton is great, but nobody pays attention to her.

Well references to “DC” tend to always mean “Congress, The President and other government offices.” It’s almost never in reference to the city itself. I mean, I get where you’re coming from, but it’s an accepted vernacular and has been forever.

Edit: Like if someone here campaigned to “Clean up Des Moines” I’d know it was a reference to state government, not the actual city. I’m fairly sure the city is just fine.

Yeah, I realize that. But as a city with no representation in the Federal Gov., it just reinforces a problem that most municipalities don’t face. Most Americans likely are unaware of the state of many parts of the city of DC. Frankly, it should be absorbed into Maryland.

Again, I know it’s pedantic. It just irritates me.

Not true. You can fired for your political beliefs.

(Unless you work for the government, of course. That’s more complicated.)

You keep asserting this without addressing the examples already given of how one person (or many person’s) right to be able to do a thing fairly (like vote without undue influence) is protected by laws that limit the rights of another (like the right to express your political views).

That’s because in the examples you gave, you missed key elements and tried to paint them as simple restrictions on speech, when they were in fact not

For instance, the reason you can’t stand in a polling booth and shout when people are voting, is to prevent voter intimidation. The same goes with your other examples… the reality is, it’s not a legitimate argument for your position.

Just because you don’t have the money to run an ad, doesn’t mean that no one else can. Their doing so is not an infringement on your right to free speech.

I mean, you can say it is, but you are then holding a view which is not supported by legal precedent. It’s just an opinion which is at odds with the legal system.

Actually, there are some amusing stories about people who did exactly that.

It isn’t the individual running the ad who infringes my speech, I agree - it is the system that allows only certain people to run ads that does it. A system that made it so that everyone was capable of speaking at the same volume, if they chose to do so, would protect the speech of everyone. A system that doesn’t do that fails to protect that speech.

Why is preventing voter intimidation a legitimate reason to limit someone’s speech but preventing other speech from being drowned out is not? The Court had also repeatedly come down against undue burdens on the ability to exercise religious freedom or franchise. Why shouldn’t it also come down against the undue burden of the high cost of speech?

Anyway, perhaps Hillary has the right approach to it in reality - to overturn Citizen’s United but also to create a system to amplify the speech of people who can’t afford to do it themselves.

I dunno what to tell you man. There is just a fundamental disconnect here that isn’t going to be bridged. What you consider to be infringement of freedom of speech, is not the traditional definition.

That isn’t the same thing. You can say whatever you want. Getting people to listen to what you say is not a right, only being able to say it. That someone else can get people to listen isn’t a violation of your right to say something. It’s a shitty deal for you, but not at all an infringement of your rights. If everyone had that right then that would mean literally 300 million people+ would have it. So the only real solution would be… no one has the right. Effectively everyone loses free speech because we can’t make sure everyone is equally heard, the only answer is prevent everyone from being heard. That’s madness.

Um… that’s possibly the most terrifying sentence ever. The “undue burden” of freedom? Who decides that? You? The next guy to get elected? Donald Trump? Think about that for a second and realize why that’s a horrific idea. There are rules, but very limited ones and for a damned good reason. Sean Hannity spewing bullshit is annoying, but making it illegal for him to do so is much, much worse. Remember this golden rule: would you want to give this power to someone you hate? If the answer is no, then it’s probably a bad idea.

I absolutely agree about that, and I wasn’t arguing that it should be illegal. I’m not actually sure how you got that from anything I’ve said. I want speech to be affordable for everyone, not just the super donors. Citizen’s United makes that impossible, so I want it overturned. Similar rulings on other issues have protected constitutional rights in a similar way, and I think it wouldn’t be a stretch at all for the Court to apply the same reasoning to laws that limit soft money and regulate the form and volume of political speech, but not the content.