3 ms·
How is that worse? You're claiming it's the same?
by pnutjam 6y ago
How is that worse? You're claiming it's the same?
- tengbretson 6y agoI'm saying this couldn't work without explicitly including restrictions on the freedom of the press, since "the press" is the very vehicle by which money gets turned into political influence. Unless this amendment includes something akin to the fairness doctrine I can't see how it could possibly have the effect you are looking for.
- pnutjam 6y agocorporations != people The press does it's fair share, but you're wrong. Don't be afraid of change. If something isn't working; we should fix it.
- tengbretson 6y agoPerhaps corporations are not people, however "the press" is made of corporations. If there is to be no restriction on the press then what is to stop any corporate entity from advancing the cause of their politics as a member of the so-called press? > Don't be afraid of change. If something isn't working; we should fix it. Furthermore, this is a binary line of thinking that isn't even fit for a children's book. The world is not split between those that want change, and those that are afraid of change. It is very much possible for intelligent adults to consider the details of what is being prescribed and conclude that "that sounds at least as bad or possibly worse than the status quo."
- pnutjam 6y agoBy all means, extrapolate your position. The press is corporate, but every story I've ever seen has a byline. That means the actual speech is from a person.
- pnutjam 6y agoYou're listing one possibly problem when this addresses dozens of issues. Removing corporate money from law making will make it was easier to address these issues in the future, with sensible legislation.