28th June 2016, 7:39 AM
(This post was last modified: 28th June 2016, 9:17 AM by Dark Jaguar.)
Why do you think she needs a million dollar campaign anyway? She'll have free news coverage because she's a major candidate.
Here's a secret: I've never once seen a political ad, at least not as an actual ad (I've seen them mocked on The Daily Show, for example). They are absolutely ridiculous. The reason I don't see them is because Oklahoma isn't considered a swing state, so no one ever bothers putting political ads on TV around here. Even on cable, the advertising "slots" seem to be adjustable, because again, never seen one. I still am able to make informed decisions on which candidate I want to vote for though. Fancy that! What is the worst that you think might happen if a presidential candidate didn't bother with millions of dollars of ad spending, anyway? Also, you're ignoring that Sanders has managed to fire up a whole voting block without getting those millions.
Anyway, I think we've reached an understanding on most of this, but I wanted to focus on your "anything that reduces ownership sounds good to me" comment. Yes, it's a serious issue and real legislation needs to happen. Yes, the NRA has way too many politicians in their cold dead hands. Yes, that sit in was disappointing. BUT, don't ever go down the "no matter the cost" road. I've seen what happens when we go down that road. The Patriot Act and the Iraq war come to mind, and the NRA's ridiculously huge program to spy on American citizens that is only defended using said Patriot Act.
You said you are nervous about how we go about restricting political ad campaigns, and frankly the only citizens that affects are the people in charge to begin with. I'm not about to say gun regulations are "an attack on civil liberties" (heck, the second amendment specifically states that the militia should be "well regulated"). BUT, the no-fly list is a big problem. The moment we decide to start adding restrictions to that list is the moment all the people in charge can say "the American people have tacitly confirmed that we need extra-judiciary power, FOR SAFETY)". The no-fly list needs to be massively overhauled, with proper due process applied so that people can actually go to court over it and so the people in charge of that list answer to the citizens. Without that, I don't want a single power added to that list, even if it's as sensible as "terrorists shouldn't have guns". Again, there is a way out of this. Add that oversight to the no-fly list, and I'll certainly be willing to add things to it. Or, if that's a political impossibility right now, go with my other suggestion and add that restriction to the FBI's most-wanted list, which actually has some oversight (as far as I understand it at least). It's worth noting how racist the current no-fly list has ended up, with a disproportionate number of middle-eastern people stuck on it.
Oh, and I thought I should add this. The Republican committee that were so desperate to indite Clinton have concluded two things. One: Yes there was a lot of incompetence involved in the Benghazi attacks. Plenty of blame to go around. Two: Hillary isn't a part of that blame though, as the report clears her of responsibility. Coming from the Republican group formed specifically to attack her, that's saying something. Too bad Fox News is going to ignore it. Three: A group of soldiers working for the leadership America overthrew are the ones that saved the soldiers that survived the attack. I like stories like that.
Here's a secret: I've never once seen a political ad, at least not as an actual ad (I've seen them mocked on The Daily Show, for example). They are absolutely ridiculous. The reason I don't see them is because Oklahoma isn't considered a swing state, so no one ever bothers putting political ads on TV around here. Even on cable, the advertising "slots" seem to be adjustable, because again, never seen one. I still am able to make informed decisions on which candidate I want to vote for though. Fancy that! What is the worst that you think might happen if a presidential candidate didn't bother with millions of dollars of ad spending, anyway? Also, you're ignoring that Sanders has managed to fire up a whole voting block without getting those millions.
Anyway, I think we've reached an understanding on most of this, but I wanted to focus on your "anything that reduces ownership sounds good to me" comment. Yes, it's a serious issue and real legislation needs to happen. Yes, the NRA has way too many politicians in their cold dead hands. Yes, that sit in was disappointing. BUT, don't ever go down the "no matter the cost" road. I've seen what happens when we go down that road. The Patriot Act and the Iraq war come to mind, and the NRA's ridiculously huge program to spy on American citizens that is only defended using said Patriot Act.
You said you are nervous about how we go about restricting political ad campaigns, and frankly the only citizens that affects are the people in charge to begin with. I'm not about to say gun regulations are "an attack on civil liberties" (heck, the second amendment specifically states that the militia should be "well regulated"). BUT, the no-fly list is a big problem. The moment we decide to start adding restrictions to that list is the moment all the people in charge can say "the American people have tacitly confirmed that we need extra-judiciary power, FOR SAFETY)". The no-fly list needs to be massively overhauled, with proper due process applied so that people can actually go to court over it and so the people in charge of that list answer to the citizens. Without that, I don't want a single power added to that list, even if it's as sensible as "terrorists shouldn't have guns". Again, there is a way out of this. Add that oversight to the no-fly list, and I'll certainly be willing to add things to it. Or, if that's a political impossibility right now, go with my other suggestion and add that restriction to the FBI's most-wanted list, which actually has some oversight (as far as I understand it at least). It's worth noting how racist the current no-fly list has ended up, with a disproportionate number of middle-eastern people stuck on it.
Oh, and I thought I should add this. The Republican committee that were so desperate to indite Clinton have concluded two things. One: Yes there was a lot of incompetence involved in the Benghazi attacks. Plenty of blame to go around. Two: Hillary isn't a part of that blame though, as the report clears her of responsibility. Coming from the Republican group formed specifically to attack her, that's saying something. Too bad Fox News is going to ignore it. Three: A group of soldiers working for the leadership America overthrew are the ones that saved the soldiers that survived the attack. I like stories like that.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)