3 ms·

You’re being down voted but you’re spot on. It’s tough to have civil discussions when the subject matter is extremely sensitive. How do we verify the classifica

You’re being down voted but you’re spot on. It’s tough to have civil discussions when the subject matter is extremely sensitive. How do we verify the classification of certain programs is truly sensitive not simply politically motivated? To your first point, I believe we are screwed as long as Citizens United stands (0). We the people will always be out-coordinated by the oligarchs and their bureaucrats. Which leads to your second point. As long campaign spending of the super rich is protected as “free speech” (the result of Citizen’s United) we are stuck with politicians who can be bought and sold. Men and women with strong moral codes cannot be bought, and therefore will not win elections. Exceptions are few and far between. 0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
Citizens United was a massive win for the people against the media companies. Without it the media companies get to decide everything people hear because nobody else is allowed to put forth anything like that level of resources toward political speech. That's why you always hear the media whinging about it -- it's the only way anybody else has any hope of challenging their narratives in front of more of an audience than an individual YouTube channel. Obviously the poor have no money to buy ads with, but we're not talking about the poor here. Nobody seriously running for office is poor. This is a battle between people who are rich enough to buy ads on a TV network and people who are rich enough to buy the TV network, and Citizens United is a win for the "little guy" in that situation. The big problem we have in elections isn't that someone can be heard too well, it's that some people can't be heard well enough. But the answer to that is public financing of elections, which doesn't require restricting private speech in any way.
- zigzaggy 7y ago
  I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion. I strongly believe in public financing of elections. Also, I appreciate your alternate view on this case. I will definitely be revisiting the facts in the light of your comment to reconsider my position.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

Citizens United was a massive win for the people against the media companies. Without it the media companies get to decide everything people hear because nobody else is allowed to put forth anything like that level of resources toward political speech. That's why you always hear the media whinging about it -- it's the only way anybody else has any hope of challenging their narratives in front of more of an audience than an individual YouTube channel. Obviously the poor have no money to buy ads with, but we're not talking about the poor here. Nobody seriously running for office is poor. This is a battle between people who are rich enough to buy ads on a TV network and people who are rich enough to buy the TV network, and Citizens United is a win for the "little guy" in that situation. The big problem we have in elections isn't that someone can be heard too well, it's that some people can't be heard well enough. But the answer to that is public financing of elections, which doesn't require restricting private speech in any way.

zigzaggy 7y ago
I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion. I strongly believe in public financing of elections. Also, I appreciate your alternate view on this case. I will definitely be revisiting the facts in the light of your comment to reconsider my position.