US Politics: Shryke and Commodore agree (and other signs and portents)

[TrackerNeil]

Or Richard Nixon.

Or Mitt Romney, Father of the Massachusetts Mandate and the guy who wanted to protect Social Security from the evil Barack Obama.

[Galactus]

Or Mitt Romney, Father of the Massachusetts Mandate and the guy who wanted to protect Social Security from the evil Barack Obama.

Marxists! Marxists everywhere!

[awesome possum]

If only Bernie Sanders were about 10 years younger :(

Sanders, 73, a self-described democratic socialist who is considering a bid for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, brought the Johnson County Democrats to their feet several times in his half-hour speech that laid out a progressive agenda for increasing Social Security benefits and the minimum wage, offering a single-payer Medicare-for-all health care plan, creating 13 million jobs by investing $1 billion in a federal jobs program to rebuild transportation infrastructure and overturning the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.

[DanteGabriel]

If only Bernie Sanders were about 10 years younger :(

If only there were 10 more of him.

[The Marquis de Leech]

If only there were 10 more of him.

If only there were 60 more of him in the Senate and 218 of him in the House.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Hmm? I'm not aware of Marx ever addressing "free markets" as such.

I think Marx would regard a free market as a temporary aberration. Basically, at some point power and wealth becomes concentrated such that the market ceases to become competitive.

As a general rule, of course, Marx is a descriptive philosopher, not a prescriptive one. He goes into gory detail about capitalism, but is incredibly vague on what socialism would look like.

[Commodore]

that there is a legitimate movement to alter the 1st Amendment to give congress the power to regulate political speech is disturbing

[HairBearHero]

that there is a legitimate movement to alter the 1st Amendment to give congress the power to regulate political speech is disturbing

Which movement?

Are we equating money with speech again?

[Commodore]

Which movement?

Are we equating money with speech again?

yes, the post you just made required money to publish

[HairBearHero]

yes, the post you just made required money to publish

That's a strange non-sequitur.

How does the restriction of campaign donations equate to regulating political speech? Candidates can still say whatever they want, wherever they want.

Last I checked, the vast majority of the civilised world has restrictions on campaign donations and we've managed not to sink into a morass of restricted speech.

[Balefont]

If only there were 10 more of him.

Indeed. I think I'd have a non-stop orgasm if there were a Warren/Sanders ticket.

[Commodore]

How does the restriction of campaign donations equate to regulating political speech? Candidates can still say whatever they want, wherever they want.

The legal definition of speech is not limited to what comes out of one's mouth.

If I want to publish a book, or maintain a message board that publishes user content, that requires money.

The proposed amendment would give congress the power to prohibit spending money to produce political speech. So if the ACLU (a corporation) or the NAACP (a corporation) wanted to produce speech with a political message (a book/movie/website etc.), Congress could forbid them from spending money on such activities. They could prohibit NBC (a corporation) from spending money to produce political skits for SNL making fun of them.

[aceluby]

yes, the post you just made required money to publish

How much did you get charged?

[aceluby]

I think Marx would regard a free market as a temporary aberration. Basically, at some point power and wealth becomes concentrated such that the market ceases to become competitive.

As a general rule, of course, Marx is a descriptive philosopher, not a prescriptive one. He goes into gory detail about capitalism, but is incredibly vague on what socialism would look like.

Exactly. The only thing Marx did really well is explain the pitfalls of capitalism, pitfalls we all are a part of every day. He challenged the thought that capitalism could not be improved on. He did not really prescribe how to make those improvements, just that there are holes in capitalism and there is room for improvement.

[Shryke]

The legal definition of speech is not limited to what comes out of one's mouth.

If I want to publish a book, or maintain a message board that publishes user content, that requires money.

The proposed amendment would give congress the power to prohibit spending money to produce political speech. So if the ACLU (a corporation) or the NAACP (a corporation) wanted to produce speech with a political message (a book/movie/website etc.), Congress could forbid them from spending money on such activities. They could prohibit NBC (a corporation) from spending money to produce political skits for SNL making fun of them.

There's already exceptions for satire and such.

Of course, like last time you brought this up, I will point out again that once you decide money == speech, bribery is now a form of free expression.

Which usually brings us right back around to restrictions on "free speech". Or, I guess, going off the deep end into crazyland.

[TrueMetis]

yes, the post you just made required money to publish

No, the requirements to make the post cost money. The post itself is free.

[Ice Queen]

No, the requirements to make the post cost money. The post itself is free.

They're made from 100% recycled electrons. Who owns the patent on that? :drunk:

[HairBearHero]

No, the requirements to make the post cost money. The post itself is free.

I was going to make the comparison of server costs etc being equivalent to the taxes that allow the government to operate and guarantee that whole "freedom of speech" thing, but decided it was a bit tenuous.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

There's a principle competing against an outcome here. The principle is that Congress cannot restrict political speech. I.e. If Commodore manages to raise money to make a movie about how much Obama sucks and wants to release it during an election year, or if Dantegabriel made a Kickstarter for a theme park that raises awareness about Global Warming, there is nothing any legislature can do to stop it. The problematic outcome is that people with more money can throw more of it around and disproportionately influence the political process.

I choose the principle over the outcome, since I think that money spent on campaigns runs into rapidly diminishing returns and past a certain point is more useful as penis measuring contest among politicians than actually influencing elections. (See Adelson, Sheldon)

Maybe, a sufficiently clever lawyer can word the amendment in such a way that it reduces corporate influencing politics without restricting free speech, but I personally don't see how.

[Commodore]

No, the requirements to make the post cost money. The post itself is free.

It's free to you because someone else is bearing the cost of publishing.

Under the proposed amendment, spending for maintaining a message board that publishes political content could be prohibited.

``Section 2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement

and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may

distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other

artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such

entities from spending money to influence elections.

This message board contains a thread that publishes posts attempting to influence elections. Under the proposed amendment, Congress could restrict the operators of this website from spending money to maintain and publish that content.