Supreme Court Rejects Campaign Spending Limits

[Sihouette]

If these people are super-citizens, do they get extra votes ? ~dogtowner

Yes. By affectively squashing any opposition to their favored candidates, they can nullify the voting potency of millions of voters by shading out other people they would consider voting for if not for the advertising inequity. Nullifying other votes is the same as gaining voting power. So yes, in a very real sense they do get "more votes" for who they want.

Your trite retort about corporations not being US citizens doesn't just make that pesky little detail go away. The Constitution does not apply to foreigners. So if "body corporate" is made up in any way of foreign influence, then it cannot be considered a citizen. Period. And therefore the SCOTUS decision is defunct as applies to corporations because we cannot ferret out proxy-status in each and every stockholder. Any avenue that allows for foreigners to affect our elections, particularly in time of war, must be shut off. Don't think this fact has escaped Al Qaida's attention.

Here it is from #14

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States

[implied via the reverse: all persons NOT born or naturalized in the United States are NOT citizens of the United States. It says "and" subject to the jurisdicdtion thereof, not "or" subject to the jurisdiction thereof. What a difference a little word makes..]
If any part of a "body" of a citizen is not born or naturalized in the United States, guess what? They're not citizens. I suppose foreign stockholders or CEOs could apply for naturalization..

 

[dogtowner]

Yes. By affectively squashing any opposition to their favored candidates, they can nullify the voting potency of millions of voters by shading out other people they would consider voting for if not for the advertising inequity. Nullifying other votes is the same as gaining voting power. So yes, in a very real sense they do get "more votes" for who they want.

Your trite retort about corporations not being US citizens doesn't just make that pesky little detail go away. The Constitution does not apply to foreigners. So if "body corporate" is made up in any way of foreign influence, then it cannot be considered a citizen. Period. And therefore the SCOTUS decision is defunct as applies to corporations because we cannot ferret out proxy-status in each and every stockholder. Any avenue that allows for foreigners to affect our elections, particularly in time of war, must be shut off. Don't think this fact has escaped Al Qaida's attention.

Here it is from #14
[implied via the reverse: all persons NOT born or naturalized in the United States are NOT citizens of the United States. It says "and" subject to the jurisdicdtion thereof, not "or" subject to the jurisdiction thereof. What a difference a little word makes..]
If any part of a "body" of a citizen is not born or naturalized in the United States, guess what? They're not citizens. I suppose foreign stockholders or CEOs could apply for naturalization..

Poeple here on legal visas do have many of the same protections as citizens including free speech, not voting rights which are reserved to citizens.

So we also agree that these super citizens have no votes.

 

[Sihouette]

Lying and putting words in people's mouths is a form of ad hominem. I advise you to watch your step. Our mods aren't the dull folk your sort is used to.

People on legal VISAs do not include all the influences in the form of ownership of corporations by foreigners. You're doing your "I found a red apple so all apples are therefore red" thing again. Like I said, this type of spin may fly at the other sites you folks post at but not here.

 

[GenSeneca]

The Constitution does not apply to foreigners*.

* Unless they are illegal aliens or Jihadi terrorists at war with the United States.

 

[dogtowner]

Lying and putting words in people's mouths is a form of ad hominem. I advise you to watch your step. Our mods aren't the dull folk your sort is used to.

People on legal VISAs do not include all the influences in the form of ownership of corporations by foreigners. You're doing your "I found a red apple so all apples are therefore red" thing again. Like I said, this type of spin may fly at the other sites you folks post at but not here.

You did not agree that your super citizens do not have voting rights in America ?

You stated that the Constitution only applied to citizens. This is incorrect.

The only spin is you every time you are caught in an unsupportable position.

As I stated in the thread regarding mods, I trust the mods to do their thing. If that means banning me, or you, so be it. Your threats are meaningless unless you yourself are a mod or admin.

 

[Sihouette]

We don't allow either illegal aliens nor jihad terrorists to affect our electoral process: the heart of our democracy. Ergo, neither can foreign-owned corporations as per the 14th Amendment, enforceable by Congress.

 

[dogtowner]

* Unless they are illegal aliens or Jihadi terrorists at war with the United States.

Even illegals are entitled to some protections. Jihadis its unclear. Depends on whether you believe them to be criminals or enemy combatants.

 

[GenSeneca]

Yes. By affectively squashing any opposition to their favored candidates, they can nullify the voting potency of millions of voters by shading out other people they would consider voting for if not for the advertising inequity. Nullifying other votes is the same as gaining voting power. So yes, in a very real sense they do get "more votes" for who they want.

Are you saying that you will vote for whoever has more commercial airtime and not the candidate that you most agree with on the issues?

Example, you agree with the policies of candidate A but he can't afford as much air time as candidate B who's policies you disagree with but because of A's inability to spend as much as B on his campaign, you will vote for B.

That is the case you are trying to make by complaining about "advertising inequality" leading to one candidate winning over another.

 

[dogtowner]

Are you saying that you will vote for whoever has more commercial airtime and not the candidate that you most agree with on the issues?

Example, you agree with the policies of candidate A but he can't afford as much air time as candidate B who's policies you disagree with but because of A's inability to spend as much as B on his campaign, you will vote for B.

That is the case you are trying to make by complaining about "advertising inequality" leading to one candidate winning over another.

I stick with platfoms and history. Ads are of little to no value. Never learned a thing from them I did not already know.

 

[GenSeneca]

We don't allow either illegal aliens nor jihad terrorists to affect our electoral process:

Both effect elections.

the heart of our democracy.

We are a Republic.

Ergo, neither can foreign-owned corporations as per the 14th Amendment, enforceable by Congress.

So you would be in favor of banning all groups of people, including unions, all 527 advocacy groups and any other organization from voicing their opinion about elections?

 

[Sihouette]

Are you saying that you will vote for whoever has more commercial airtime and not the candidate that you most agree with on the issues?

No, I'm saying the more quality [expensive] airtime will sway those who are largely unaware. Including me. For years I thought the GOP for example was true to how they advertise themselves to be "mere conservatives out for the good of the lowly taxpayer. Now older and wiser I know that was and is false advertising. [see my thread on GOP strategy for details].

The psychology of advertising tells us the most expensive and frequent advertising presentation will affect us subconsciously in ways we wouldn't choose for ourselves.

If you want me to "go there" to prove that more money equals more votes via the psychology of being able to be dominant in advertising, I'll be more than happy to start another thread addressing just that topic. It is a fascinating topic and I may just do so for fun.

 

[GenSeneca]

No, I'm saying the more quality [expensive] airtime will sway those who are largely unaware. Including me. For years I thought the GOP for example was true to how they advertise themselves to be "mere conservatives out for the good of the lowly taxpayer. Now older and wiser I know that was and is false advertising. [see my thread on GOP strategy for details].

But their primary opponents, the Democrats, are true to their carefully crafted image? The Democrats don't also use false advertising to sway voters?

It's my experience that both parties make campaign promises, portray themselves as something they are not, and have absolutely no intention following through with any of it.

So, what does it matter? Both parties will have even more groups out there spending money to advertise for their guy. You act like 100% of all corporations will throw in with Republicans while ignoring the fact that 100% of Unions push for Democrats to get elected. If anything, this ruling is a benefit to the LEFT, as I have said before, so now you can have even more money spent to elect radical leftists and further transform our once proud Repubic to more closely resemble the Eurpoean Socialist Welfare States.

The psychology of advertising tells us the most expensive and frequent advertising presentation will affect us subconsciously in ways we wouldn't choose for ourselves.

If you want me to "go there" to prove that more money equals more votes via the psychology of being able to be dominant in advertising, I'll be more than happy to start another thread addressing just that topic. It is a fascinating topic and I may just do so for fun.

I'll be sure to bring my tin foil hat.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

The psychology of advertising tells us the most expensive and frequent advertising presentation will affect us subconsciously in ways we wouldn't choose for ourselves.

If you want me to "go there" to prove that more money equals more votes via the psychology of being able to be dominant in advertising, I'll be more than happy to start another thread addressing just that topic. It is a fascinating topic and I may just do so for fun.

Well, there have been the exceptions: remember the one about the little girl picking the daisy petals and in the back drop the atomic bomb being detonated...I believe that that commercial only aired once but the lasting impact was a 'live in infamy' moment!

 

[dogtowner]

Well, there have been the exceptions: remember the one about the little girl picking the daisy petals and in the back drop the atomic bomb being detonated...I believe that that commercial only aired once but the lasting impact was a 'live in infamy' moment!

you're going to kill Sil's buzz with that sort of post

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

you're going to kill Sil's buzz with that sort of post

But back then, all it took was just one horrific/totally erroneous/gut wrenching LIE to make the people vote against the politician that the commercial was aimed at...we all lived in fear of the 'NUCLEAR BOMB'; that's how we were programed from those days of the fall out tests at school {way before your time, I'm sure }...so just what could today's commercial be about that would scare the BEEE-GEEZERS out of us...hmmmm

I'll let your ponder on that thought for a little while...but I'm thinking that as with G.W.B. and his manipulating the 'COLOR CODE' for the PENDING TERRORIST ALERT...this along with repetitive images of the Twin Towers going down should about do it...but then I maybe way off base too