2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[archibaldcrane]

It would require a constitutional amendment to basically say "money isn't speech for companies/PACs" to remove first amendment issues, and then laws regulating political advertising / spending on companies / PACs.

[Inshiya]

The problem with repealing citizen's united is that the corporate personhood laws are the basis for applying laws to corporations. After all, if corporations aren't people, they can't be sued or held accountable by government. That's the argument that led to the passage of those laws in the first place.

Corporate personhood itself is necessary. It is the campaign financing/lobbying aspect that causes the problems.

You don't seem to understand the law very well. Just because an entity isn't considered a "person" for free speech rights doesn't mean they're not a legal entity capable of civil suit or regulation in other matters.

And Xajii: Relax dude, I didn't fuck your mother. You made an inference, whether you meant to or not, and I answered your question.

[BaneTheBrawler]

Except that is literally the argument that said corporations used (successfully) until such laws were put in place.

I don't know law, but I do know a decent amount of history.

[Marootsoobutsu]

You don't seem to understand the law very well. Just because an entity isn't considered a "person" for free speech rights doesn't mean they're not a legal entity capable of civil suit or regulation in other matters.

And Xajii: Relax dude, I didn't fuck your mother. You made an inference, whether you meant to or not, and I answered your question.

He didn't infer anything, other than that Sander's solutions aren't readily available. He asked a question, because he wanted an answer. Holy crap.

[kuronosan]

This just in, the solution for obesity is easy: just don't eat as much.

[notorious bum]

Demanding that Sanders needs to have a step-by-step bulletpoint agenda for everything he wants to accomplish in order for you to take him seriously is disingenuous and laughable, especially if you're actually reading all the political theater dialog over Hilldog or Trump in this thread.

[Inshiya]

He didn't infer anything, other than that Sander's solutions aren't readily available. He asked a question, because he wanted an answer. Holy crap.

Ya, I re-read his post and I was probably over-reaching to call it an inference.

This just in, the solution for obesity is easy: just don't eat as much.

Straw man enough?

[Serra]

This just in, the solution for obesity is easy: just don't eat as much.

This just in, Bernie Sanders hates sandwiches, tells people to stop eating sandwiches.

Spoiler: show

And we're back!

Spoiler: show

Ilu, Bane~

[Churchill]

is that not the solution for being fat though

[kuronosan]

Ya, I re-read his post and I was probably over-reaching to call it an inference.



Straw man enough?

My bad. I thought you would appreciate the simplicity. Let me explain it in grown up terms.

Overeating causes obesity. So does genetics. Or hormones. Or psychology. Or social influence.

See where I'm going now? You can't simplify complex issues into simple solutions.

[zoobernut]

I do recall a thread on BG talking about dieting and losing weight and the overwhelming consensus was everyone saying that losing weight was as simple as calories in vs. calories out. Even BG simplifies the solutions for problems with the expectation that the implementation of that solution might come at a later time.

I can't remember ever hearing a presidential candidate not only giving a solution to a problem but also the granular details about how they will implement that solution. The details usually come after they have been elected.

[Inshiya]

My bad. I thought you would appreciate the simplicity. Let me explain it in grown up terms.

Overeating causes obesity. So does genetics. Or hormones. Or psychology. Or social influence.

See where I'm going now? You can't simplify complex issues into simple solutions.

Or, instead of making a straw man, you can directly address any of the given points I laid out and we can discuss the actual areas where the solution/problem are more complex.

[Niiro]

Except that is literally the argument that said corporations used (successfully) until such laws were put in place.

Corporate personhood and legal accountability have existed for centuries without that extending to speech, Citizen's United is the only thing that would need to be overturned.

[archibaldcrane]

"Overturned" makes it sound too simplistic though. You can't just pass a law to overrule the Supreme Court - you either need to have them revisit the issue with new justices or amend the Constitution, both of which are very difficult and/or require years or decades to accomplish.

[Inshiya]

Not that difficult. Likely two justices (at least) will be replaced in the next term, so having a president that supports a contrary decision will have a large impact.

[archibaldcrane]

Yeah its not that tough, you only have to get a Democrat elected president, hope some of the right people with ironclad lifetime job security die or retire, then pass another law that would be unconstitutional under precedent, and appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court.

[Marootsoobutsu]

Yeah its not that tough, you only have to get a Democrat elected president, hope some of the right people with ironclad lifetime job security die or retire, then pass another law that would be unconstitutional under precedent, and appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Stop being pragmatic and nuanced, Archi. That kind of thing has no place in politics.

[Inshiya]

Yeah its not that tough, you only have to get a Democrat elected president, hope some of the right people with ironclad lifetime job security die or retire, then pass another law that would be unconstitutional under precedent, and appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court.

1. High chance of Democrat president based on current poll numbers.
2. Ginsberg will not last 10 more years. Two other justices are pushing age problems as well. The next 2 term president will replace at least 2 justices.
3. There are action groups just waiting to file strategic suits for when the conditions are right.

Seriously, this isn't that complicated. These things are very realistic goals that are achievable with straightforward agendas.

[BaneTheBrawler]

Corporate personhood and legal accountability have existed for centuries without that extending to speech, Citizen's United is the only thing that would need to be overturned.

The Slippery Slope fallacy is not always a fallacy. Lawyers are not known for their ability to resist a nice slippery slope. Citizen's United is the result of the slippery slope in action: If corporations are people (which is the vital portion of the law), then they have the rights accorded to people. If corporations are NOT people, then they cannot be sued because you can only sue people. (which is how it was in the U.S. until the mid 1800s)

There are some restrictions: Corporations can't plead the 5th, because that is the right of an individual. They can't vote, because again, individuals only. But people have been speaking as groups for a very very long time; that's not a line that draws itself. And since campaign financing is relatively unregulated, that means money is speech. If money is speech, then it violates corporations First Amendment rights to restrict them from donating.

This is why, when someone asked what our #1 issue was, I said campaign financing. That disrupts the chain of rationalizations that leads to this shittery without going back to pulling your 16 tons.

Anyway, I'm getting too involved so I'mma stop there.

[archibaldcrane]

2. Ginsberg will not last 10 more years. Two other justices are pushing age problems as well. The next 2 term president will replace at least 2 justices.

You...realize Ginsburg retiring does absolutely nothing for overturning Citizens United, right?