Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article V of the Constitution & a Constitutional Convention

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by beefytee View Post
    As usual, PAC states it much better than I do.
    The Caucusus. LOL. I would love for Facebook and twitter to do the socially responsible thing and slap a big red RUSSKIES label around any messaging that originates from Russia, making sure it can't be taken off when Crazy Uncle Jed from Panguitch re-sends it out to everyone on his friends list. i think eventually market forces will push social media outlets into something like this. I'm all for letting even the Russkies have their free speech here, but the audience also I think has the right to know where the fake news is coming from.
    Last edited by BlueK; 02-12-2018, 12:29 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by PaloAltoCougar View Post
      This is an interesting issue but I'm not sure I like your argument here. I see a major distinction between expressing one's view, in the privacy of the voting booth, on the one hand, and trying to influence the vote of others with a megaphone, whether literal or figurative. When someone advocates for a particular position, I examine the merits of the argument but I'd still like to know what that person's motivations are. If the financial support for a local measure is coming from out-of-state or from the Caucasus, I want to know. I'm okay with keeping small donations private, but once a financial megaphone becomes too large to tune out, I want to know who's on the other side of it.
      Fair point, but how is the fear of retribution for supporting a measure financially much different than fear of supporting it in the booth? Take a southern state and an abortion issue, for example. Obviously, there will be a great deal of money from southern businesses large and small flowing into any measure that involves abortion in the south. Should pro choice voters be afraid for their jobs because they want to counter that funding by donating to help defeat a bill that curtails abortions? I think not, but that is exactly what is happening. I don't mind corporate or group donations being made public, but I feel strongly that tracking those donations to individual voters is unfair, and poses dangers to our republic.
      sigpic
      "Outlined against a blue, gray
      October sky the Four Horsemen rode again"
      Grantland Rice, 1924

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by falafel View Post


        You go wuap!
        El Quijote no era el loco.
        "Yeah, but never trust a Ph.D who has an MBA as well. The PhD symbolizes intelligence and discipline. The MBA symbolizes lust for power." -- Katy Lied

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by BlueK View Post
          The Caucusus. LOL. I would love for Facebook and twitter to do the socially responsible thing and slap a big red RUSSKIES label around any messaging that originates from Russia, making sure it can't be taken off when Crazy Uncle Jed from Panguitch re-sends it out to everyone on his friends list. i think eventually market forces will push social media outlets into something like this. I'm all for letting even the Russkies have their free speech here, but the audience also I think has the right to know where the fake news is coming from.
          Not paranoid at all. Nope.
          You're actually pretty funny when you aren't being a complete a-hole....so basically like 5% of the time. --Art Vandelay
          Almost everything you post is snarky, smug, condescending, or just downright mean-spirited. --Jeffrey Lebowski

          Anyone can make war, but only the most courageous can make peace. --President Donald J. Trump
          You furnish the pictures, and I’ll furnish the war. --William Randolph Hearst

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Walter Sobchak View Post
            Not paranoid at all. Nope.
            Are you saying there aren't any memes, groups, or messaging from Russia on fb?
            "I'm anti, can't no government handle a commando / Your man don't want it, Trump's a bitch! I'll make his whole brand go under,"

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by cowboy View Post
              Fair point, but how is the fear of retribution for supporting a measure financially much different than fear of supporting it in the booth? Take a southern state and an abortion issue, for example. Obviously, there will be a great deal of money from southern businesses large and small flowing into any measure that involves abortion in the south. Should pro choice voters be afraid for their jobs because they want to counter that funding by donating to help defeat a bill that curtails abortions? I think not, but that is exactly what is happening. I don't mind corporate or group donations being made public, but I feel strongly that tracking those donations to individual voters is unfair, and poses dangers to our republic.
              It's an interesting tradeoff, and I'm fine with keeping individual donations below, say, $500 off the books. But kicking in substantially larger sums seems like the equivalent of stepping out of the voting booth where one's vote is (and should remain) private and shouting to everyone how you voted--go ahead and express yourself but I want to know who's doing the shouting. I see the downside of such disclosure but accept it (easy for me to say, I suppose) in favor of better transparency...

              Originally posted by Walter Sobchak View Post
              Not paranoid at all. Nope.
              Sometimes paranoia is simply a state of heightened awareness...

              [And finally, responding to no one...] On this same general topic, I'm interested in the arguments over the Johnson Amendment (which makes it a condition of 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status that the charity not advocate for individual candidates) which evangelical denominations hate. My sense is that Trump was told they'd love it if he called for the repeal of the Johnson Amendment, so he did and hence the evangelicals are happy to give him mulligans for Stormy Daniels and dozens of other transgressions, any of which would get most us commoners ex'd. If the Amendment were repealed, it would mean a big cash inflow for evangelical churches since the donors could support their favorite candidates while their identity remains hidden (btw, cowboy, I wouldn't advocate for the publication of 501(c)(3) donors but would be tempted to reconsider if the Johnson Amendment were repealed).

              Anyway, a tip of the cap to Trump for making the politically shrewd move by calling for its repeal, at least as far as his base is concerned, although I suspect he thought the Johnson Amendment had something to do with penile enlargement.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by PaloAltoCougar View Post
                It's an interesting tradeoff, and I'm fine with keeping individual donations below, say, $500 off the books. But kicking in substantially larger sums seems like the equivalent of stepping out of the voting booth where one's vote is (and should remain) private and shouting to everyone how you voted--go ahead and express yourself but I want to know who's doing the shouting. I see the downside of such disclosure but accept it (easy for me to say, I suppose) in favor of better transparency...
                Honestly, I'm surprised you see things this way. Suppose the CEO of a Wyoming hospital is vehemently opposed to handguns because his daughter was murdered by her ex-husband. A gun control measure comes on the ballot in Wyoming and he knows the NRA is going to pump millions into advertising to defeat it, and he is willing to spend $20,000 of his own money in an attempt to offset their efforts, but doing so publicly will cost him his job. In fact most people who donate to defeat this measure will pay a price either socially or professionally. Now, you're telling me you 1) don't think public disclosure is de facto form of suppression, and 2) you think that people should be willing to pay with their careers if they want to fight big money, be it George Soros or the NRA, on the other side of an issue?
                sigpic
                "Outlined against a blue, gray
                October sky the Four Horsemen rode again"
                Grantland Rice, 1924

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by cowboy View Post
                  Honestly, I'm surprised you see things this way. Suppose the CEO of a Wyoming hospital is vehemently opposed to handguns because his daughter was murdered by her ex-husband. A gun control measure comes on the ballot in Wyoming and he knows the NRA is going to pump millions into advertising to defeat it, and he is willing to spend $20,000 of his own money in an attempt to offset their efforts, but doing so publicly will cost him his job. In fact most people who donate to defeat this measure will pay a price either socially or professionally. Now, you're telling me you 1) don't think public disclosure is de facto form of suppression, and 2) you think that people should be willing to pay with their careers if they want to fight big money, be it George Soros or the NRA, on the other side of an issue?
                  if you can’t live with or defend the positions motivating your vote you have no business voting
                  Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by cowboy View Post
                    Honestly, I'm surprised you see things this way. Suppose the CEO of a Wyoming hospital is vehemently opposed to handguns because his daughter was murdered by her ex-husband. A gun control measure comes on the ballot in Wyoming and he knows the NRA is going to pump millions into advertising to defeat it, and he is willing to spend $20,000 of his own money in an attempt to offset their efforts, but doing so publicly will cost him his job. In fact most people who donate to defeat this measure will pay a price either socially or professionally. Now, you're telling me you 1) don't think public disclosure is de facto form of suppression, and 2) you think that people should be willing to pay with their careers if they want to fight big money, be it George Soros or the NRA, on the other side of an issue?
                    Don't worry, I haven't become a lefty or, worse, a Vegan. But are we arguing over degree or absolutes here? Should Soros and the Koch brothers be permitted to hide their political spending along with the rest of us? Other than modest amounts, I still favor disclosure of significant contributions, with some room for movement on the meaning of significant.

                    Of course, the hypothetical you raise hit close to home here in California where one or more LDS businessmen got canned when their (significant) donations to Prop. 8 were revealed. I can see why you (and many others) were very troubled by that, but I thought it was within bounds of what I'm willing to accept as the price of open political discourse, tainted though it was by zealots in that instance.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Commando View Post
                      Are you saying there aren't any memes, groups, or messaging from Russia on fb?
                      Irony. A Pat "Help! We're being invaded by aliens!" Buchanon disciple calling someone paranoid.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
                        if you can’t live with or defend the positions motivating your vote you have no business voting
                        Assuming this is still about making larger donations and having your name be known...

                        Back in the days of the California Proposition 8 - California Marriage Protection Act - a widow in our ward wanted to do her part, so she donated $10,000 to the cause. Apparently she couldn't do that anonymously, so she ended up receiving all kinds of threatening phone calls and similar abuse. The people on the other side of that measure seemed to like to play dirty when they could (not everyone in favor was completely clean either).

                        Should everybody who feels strongly enough about an issue to put up some money to support it have to deal with months of abuse? That sounds like what you're favoring.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Commando View Post
                          Are you saying there aren't any memes, groups, or messaging from Russia on fb?
                          I'm also not saying there aren't beverages and other food out there that is made with fluoridated water. The socially responsible thing to do is slap a big red FLUORIDATED label on it so we can protect our precious bodily fluids.
                          You're actually pretty funny when you aren't being a complete a-hole....so basically like 5% of the time. --Art Vandelay
                          Almost everything you post is snarky, smug, condescending, or just downright mean-spirited. --Jeffrey Lebowski

                          Anyone can make war, but only the most courageous can make peace. --President Donald J. Trump
                          You furnish the pictures, and I’ll furnish the war. --William Randolph Hearst

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
                            if you can’t live with or defend the positions motivating your vote you have no business voting
                            I can't agree with this. There is a world of difference between somebody exercising their sovereignty and casting a vote versus trying to influence the way someone else exercises there's.
                            τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by All-American View Post
                              I can't agree with this. There is a world of difference between somebody exercising their sovereignty and casting a vote versus trying to influence the way someone else exercises there's.
                              agree that they are very different, and the proposition that campaign donations should be both functionally limitless and confidential is very scary. but if a voter can’t articulate a clear reason why they voted the way they did, they should be shamed.
                              Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
                                agree that they are very different, and the proposition that campaign donations should be both functionally limitless and confidential is very scary. but if a voter can’t articulate a clear reason why they voted the way they did, they should be shamed.
                                What does that even have to do with the discussion? Did anyone here extol the opposite?
                                PLesa excuse the tpyos.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X