Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Aqizzar]

Maybe its not TONS AND TONS of money that makes a difference

Maybe it is not having a TON of money that makes the difference.

Just curious, is this a "a difference versus the difference" comparison?

Anyway, there's a lot of pithy words I could throw out for your definition of believing in something you know is wrong, but innocence would be the most flattering.  Which is kind of my whole point.

[Realmfighter]

I don't think that innocence would be the right term to use, as he understands that what he believes goes against all logic, he just doesn't believe it.

Innocence implies that he doesn't know that people are shits and therefore believes in people being nice, he does but he believes in niceness anyway.

[mainiac]

Hear a message repeated in an advertisement enough times and you'll start believing it even if you know it's wrong.

[Jude]

The ruling is disturbing in itself, but not all THAT disturbing; it's not like the rich don't buy elections already.

What's more disturbing, as noted in the OP, is the fact that the right-wing justices have shown they don't actually give a shit about precedent and are just going to vote as activist judges whenever they feel like it. THAT is fucking terrifying.

[Neonivek]

The ruling is disturbing in itself, but not all THAT disturbing; it's not like the rich don't buy elections already.

What's more disturbing, as noted in the OP, is the fact that the right-wing justices have shown they don't actually give a shit about precedent and are just going to vote as activist judges whenever they feel like it. THAT is fucking terrifying.

Well there is SOME reason to want to ignore Precedent often... namely the United States has been around for a long time and it has many laws that either no longer apply or that are horrible horrible laws.

[mainiac]

What's more disturbing, as noted in the OP, is the fact that the right-wing justices have shown they don't actually give a shit about precedent and are just going to vote as activist judges whenever they feel like it. THAT is fucking terrifying.

It's only activism when liberals do it.  Duh.

[Jude]

The ruling is disturbing in itself, but not all THAT disturbing; it's not like the rich don't buy elections already.

What's more disturbing, as noted in the OP, is the fact that the right-wing justices have shown they don't actually give a shit about precedent and are just going to vote as activist judges whenever they feel like it. THAT is fucking terrifying.

Well there is SOME reason to want to ignore Precedent often... namely the United States has been around for a long time and it has many laws that either no longer apply or that are horrible horrible laws.

Oh yeah, obviously you can't always just go on precedent. Still, I'm not familiar with the details of how it works, but it's called precedent for a reason. Unless a law is clearly violating someone's rights, I don't think it's appropriate to overturn mounds of former decisions. And I sure as hell don't think there's any constitutional right to give money to candidates. It's not at all comparable to, say, overturning court decisions that favored slavery or segregation.

It's only activism when liberals do it.  Duh.

Oh right I forgot

[Neonivek]

Well Precident is a tool and a judge doesn't have to abide by it. Though they are expected to at least give it serious thought

Heck it is in the name "Precident" Pre-Insident (I think)

Though judges completely ignoring all precident would be bad...

[Cthulhu]

Precedent, as in "Thing that precedes" as in "Before we treated such and such in such and such manner.  It makes sense that we should treat a similar such and such in a similar manner"

[sneakey pete]

Why don't you just give each candidate set monitored allownces direct from the government, and ban everything else? equal amount of adds that have to pass through a governing body, etc. people might actually say smarter stuff when campaining instead of doing the year long carp people call election campains.

[Willfor]

Why don't you just give each candidate set monitored allownces direct from the government, and ban everything else? equal amount of adds that have to pass through a governing body, etc. people might actually say smarter stuff when campaining instead of doing the year long carp people call election campains.

That sounds like SOCIALISM to me!

[JoshuaFH]

A purely innocent question from someone entirely unfamiliar with how government works: Why are precedents so important anyhow? Does something compel judges to remain consistent, even in changing times?

[Neonivek]

Frankly I think people's aversion to "Socialism" is boarderline paranoid.

Though maybe I am not being fair. It is that people are against many of what socialism stands for because the Capitalism is very strong in the USA. Which it sounds evil when I say the word capitalism but what I mean is that many people in America believe that people earn what they make and don't deserve handouts (to certain degrees).

As for why we don't just put it all on the Government?.. Elections are EXPENCIVE!

Why does the legal system use a "Deal" system in law even though it favors criminals over the innocent and often impeeds the legal system? because it is otherwise EXPENCIVE! (And there are a few other reasons for it)

Why are there many poorly made temporary houses that are actually expected to fall appart in another 20 years (I think a bit more)? Because otherwise it is expencive! (That and they didn't have a lot of time)

Why is the boarder between America and Mexico rather flimsy and unrealistic? Because realistic solutions are too expencive and the illusion of progress is more valuable then gold. (THEORY AND OPPINION!!! don't kill me for this... I just am running out of examples of cutting corners... plus I think those stone blockers do at least stop vehicles from crossing easily)

There is no way the government is going to cover even more costs.

[Aqizzar]

That post was a whole lot of fantastic ways of sounding like you're talking about an issue while saying exactly nothing.  As much as I hate to say it or type it, this one deserves a point by point-

what I mean is that many people in America believe that people earn what they make and don't deserve handouts (to certain degrees).

Every single person in America will have a different definition of "handout" and "certain degrees".  Throwing those in as qualifiers turns that sentence into the entire political spectrum at once.

Why does the legal system use a "Deal" system in law even though it favors criminals over the innocent and often impeeds the legal system? because it is otherwise EXPENCIVE! (And there are a few other reasons for it)

I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to mean.  And again, if you're going to throw a qualifier in parenthesis, for God's sake actually define it.  Don't just say "other reasons" and leave it at that.

Why are there many poorly made temporary houses that are actually expected to fall appart in another 20 years (I think a bit more)? Because otherwise it is expencive! (That and they didn't have a lot of time)

Is this supposed to be an indictment of federal housing projects?  What are you expecting exactly?

Why is the boarder between America and Mexico rather flimsy and unrealistic? Because realistic solutions are too expencive and the illusion of progress is more valuable then gold. (THEORY AND OPPINION!!! don't kill me for this... I just am running out of examples of cutting corners... plus I think those stone blockers do at least stop vehicles from crossing easily)

I'd love to hear your realistic solution, expensive or otherwise, for perfectly controlling a 2100 mile border composed alternately of barren mountains and commercial freeways.

There is no way the government is going to cover even more costs.

Do you have a reason why?  Because that sounds like exactly what you're asking for.


Anyway, regarding federal campaign funding as a leveling-cap on advertising, I can think of at least one practical reason - how do you decide who's a "real" enough candidate to give government money to?  Does it cover all federal elections?  What about primaries?  Because in the 2008 election, the official primary season included upwards of thirty people over all parties, and a half dozen on the actual election.  Do you go by who wins the party nominations?  Then you're legally enshrining parties as a function of the political infrastructure (far more so anyway).  Do you not require a party nomination?  Then come one, come all ye nutbags and whackjobs for your free campaignin' cash to tell the world of the evils of fluoride and zionists.

[Earthquake Damage]

how do you decide who's a "real" enough candidate to give government money to?

This.  So hard.  We don't need any more opportunities for corruption, especially when that corruption could effectively prevent political rivals from campaigning.