3155

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.

3156

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.

3157

The only way this could possibly be the case is to socialize the entirety of expression, which eliminates the most basic notion of freedom of speech.

3158

So some people don’t get to speak and that’s fine? Do you disagree that everyone should have the means to exercise free speech or do you just think it’s not possible to make that happen? Because if it’s the second, then let’s just try to get closer.

3159

Yes, everyone has the right to go out and say whatever they want within the realm of protected speech.

They don’t have the right to get equal exposure of their speech to all audiences, as everyone else.

Again, because the only alternative would be the total elimination of free speech for everyone.

3160

So there are two possible systems: only the loudest person speaks, or no one does?

3161

No, there are two possible worlds. A world with screamers, fast-talkers, droners, whisperers and singers. With truth tellers, exaggerators, and liars.

Or a world where everyone is silent.

I like the first one better. It’s basically the real world.

3162

How does regulating the amount of money one person can spend on speech prevent everyone in the world from speaking?

3163

Our changing views on licensing and use of broadcast airwaves as a public good and the Fairness Doctrine makes a big difference. Everyone is a publisher and broadcaster, and media consolidation magnifies corporate speech, and now Citizens United… all of these act to increase the power and scope of ‘speech’. It’s a worthy discussion, but in another thread.

3164

Ok, ok, I’ll shut up. Hey, who wants to talk about Trump saying he won’t accept the results of the election and then interjecting about how nasty of a woman Clinton is?

3165

There is the one we have now, which is that everyone can speak.

Your assertion that someone having broader exposure to their message negates yours, is simply false. Any argument based upon that foundation will be inherently flawed.

3166

Haha hey did you guys hear tonight when that fuckstain (which my phone keyboard STILL doesn’t recognize as a word!) said swatches instead of…

Oh god what happened in here?!

3167

Or the STARTUP treaty.

3168

We already regulate how much one person can contribute to a political campaign. That limit is $2700.

3170

A popular talking point from some Republicans and even pundits after the final (thank god) debate is that he was “killing it” had it not been for Trump refusing to accept the results of the election (and thus launching years of what WaPo reporter Robert Costa described as ‘years of grievance politics’); here is just one answer from Trump on foreign policy. “Killing it” all right:

(But remember, mismanaging an email server is a mortal sin)

Well, Aleppo is a disaster. It’s a humanitarian nightmare. But it has fallen from any standpoint. I mean, what do you need, a signed document? Take a look at Aleppo. It is so sad when you see what’s happened. And a lot of this is because of Hillary Clinton. Because what has happened is by fighting Assad, who turned out to be a lot tougher than she thought, and now she is going to say, “Oh, he loves Assad.” He’s just much tougher and much smarter than her and Obama. And everyone thought he was gone two years ago, three years ago. He aligned with Russia. He now also aligned with Iran, who we made very powerful. We gave them $150 billion back. We give them $1.7 billion in cash. I mean cash, bundles of cash as big as this stage. We gave them $1.7 billion.

Now they have aligned, he has aligned with Russia and with Iran. They don’t want ISIS. But they have other things because we’re backing, we’re backing rebels. We don’t know who the rebels are. We’re giving them lots of money, lots of everything. We don’t know who the rebels are. And when and if, and it’s not going to happen because you have Russia and you have Iran now. But if they ever did overthrow Assad, you might end up as bad as Assad is, and he is a bad guy.

But you may very well end up with worse than Assad. If she did nothing, we’d be in much better shape. And this is what has caused the great migration where she has taken in tens of thousands of Syrian refugees who probably in many cases, not probably, who are definitely in many cases ISIS-aligned. And we now have them in our country and wait until you see this is going to be the great Trojan horse.

And wait until you see what happens in the coming years. Lots of luck, Hillary. Thanks a lot for doing a great job.

3171

Yes, it’s a shame to be wasting such valuable intellectual discussion on a very important topic inside of a “stupid things Donald Trump says” because that is nothing but a black hole. Why doesn’t someone with mod capabilities cull those posts and create a new thread where it can get its due attention?

3172

I can move the Citizens United posts to the relevant topic if people want that.

On the Trump front…

An algorithm that auto-generates Trump-style word salad and tweets.

3173

Yeah, let’s get back to juvenile mockery, that’s what this thread is for.

Hmmm…I wonder how the international press is viewing the candidates these days…

Oh my.

3174

And who says German isn’t a beautiful language?

3175

Just a clarifying point about Iraq. The resolution to invade Iraq passed by 70%, but was heavily biased by the GOP. The Republicans invaded Iraq, not the Democrats:

Stats from Wiki:

215 (96.4%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted for the resolution.
82 (39.2%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.

Clearly the Dems helped, but not even half of them voted for it. Almost all the GOP did.