Dumb things conservatives say:

[Warriorbird]

What if they outlaw corporations from making campaign contributions and then say that since Mitt Romney said corporations are people too, that means people can't make campaign contributions either?

WHICH LEAVES ONLY UNIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111

Or what if they overturn Citizens United legislatively, thus stopping the distortion of campaign finance from corporations AND unions.

But NOOOO! CENSORSHIP! ZOMG!

[Tgo01]

You are. You're going with Ted Cruz's censorship line when it isn't there. Pretty simple.

At this point it's quite obvious you are refusing to listen to reason simply because of where that reason came from.

"Congress can decide corporations can't use their money to influence elections?! This is an outrage! Oh, wait, what? Cruz brought this to our attention? Well Cruz is just full of shit! Obviously Congress can be trusted to only use this to go after Super PACs! Damn that Cruz for trying to trick us!!"

WHICH LEAVES ONLY UNIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111

Don't even joke about such a thing :O

[Tgo01]

Or what if they overturn Citizens United legislatively, thus stopping the distortion of campaign finance from corporations AND unions.

But NOOOO! CENSORSHIP! ZOMG!

You really want to keep digging this hole you're in deeper and deeper don't you?

To advance democratic self-government and political
equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral
process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits
on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to
influence elections.

Holy hell in a hand basket.

The wording is so vague and so loose that it just says "and others." AND OTHERS!

What is "and others"? Corporations? Unions? Candidates? Anyone over the age of 65? White people? Black people?

But wait, the media is saying this is just to strike down Citizens United and Super PACs so we have nothing to fear.

Don't you teach history or something WB? Aren't there countless examples throughout history of laws passed under the guise of one thing but then later on end up being used for something else entirely different and usually sinister?

But we're living in the US and our government would never do that so let's just ignore this.

[Warriorbird]

You really want to keep digging this hole you're in deeper and deeper don't you?



Holy hell in a hand basket.

The wording is so vague and so loose that it just says "and others." AND OTHERS!

What is "and others"? Corporations? Unions? Candidates? Anyone over the age of 65? White people? Black people?

But wait, the media is saying this is just to strike down Citizens United and Super PACs so we have nothing to fear.

Don't you teach history or something WB? Aren't there countless examples throughout history of laws passed under the guise of one thing but then later on end up being used for something else entirely different and usually sinister?

But we're living in the US and our government would never do that so let's just ignore this.

We absolutely can't have reasonable campaign finance reform. We have to demagogue up censorship! ZOMG!

It's obvious what this is in service of. You're just purposefully blind. It's okay. I'm sure it makes you happy.

[Tgo01]

We absolutely can't have reasonable campaign finance reform. We have to demagogue up censorship! ZOMG!

None so blind as those that will not see, I guess.

It's obvious what this is in service of.

Really? It's "obvious"? Just like when our founding fathers created the second amendment it was "obvious" they meant everyone has the right to hang a pair of bear arms on their wall, right?



I honestly hope you're just trolling at this point WB because I would hate to believe that anyone would actually support such vague legislation that could literally be left up to interpretation of whoever may be in Congress at the time just because they so desperately want to believe that Congress can be trusted to only do what it's "obvious" they set out to do.

[Warriorbird]

None so blind as those that will not see, I guess.



Really? It's "obvious"? Just like when our founding fathers created the second amendment it was "obvious" they meant everyone has the right to hang a pair of bear arms on their wall, right?



I honestly hope you're just trolling at this point WB because I would hate to believe that anyone would actually support such vague legislation that could literally be left up to interpretation of whoever may be in Congress at the time just because they so desperately want to believe that Congress can be trusted to only do what it's "obvious" they set out to do.

There's a big difference between a misspelling of the word bare and Ted Cruz trying to drum up some nonsense to protect his shady campaign cash. I hope you can see that.

[Tgo01]

There's a big difference between a misspelling of the word bare and Ted Cruz trying to drum up some nonsense to protect his shady campaign cash. I hope you can see that.

Perhaps this needs to be quoted again...

To advance democratic self-government and political
equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral
process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits
on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to
influence elections.

Actually, instead of me trying to tell you what the text says, how about you tell me what the text says?

From what I just quoted, tell me, who is the legislation specifically referring to? I'll get you started on the easy one, candidates.

Okay, who else?

[Warriorbird]

Perhaps this needs to be quoted again...



Actually, instead of me trying to tell you what the text says, how about you tell me what the text says?

From what I just quoted, tell me, who is the legislation specifically referring to? I'll get you started on the easy one, candidates.

Okay, who else?

It's specifically referring to the current workarounds for corporations to give unlimited campaign donations in general.

You've decided that it means CENSORSHIP! because Ted Cruz made a catchy argument to defend his dirty funds.

You want to be "noble" so you've fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.

[Tgo01]

It's specifically referring to the current workarounds for corporations to give unlimited campaign donations in general.

Okay, now quote the part of the text where it clearly outlines this? Because I can't help but feel you are inferring this from what you read and it's not something you specifically read in the text.

[Warriorbird]

Okay, now quote the part of the text where it clearly outlines this? Because I can't help but feel you are inferring this from what you read and it's not something you specifically read in the text.

Pretty obvious. You've decided this means CENSORSHIP! which is totally there too.

Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits
on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to
influence elections.

If you're asking for legislative or legal clarity as some founding principle you live in the wrong country.