 |
| Silverfiddle Rant! |
We've all been commiserating the past few days over the federal government blob. We all agree it is a clear and present danger to us, to the nation, and to the world, but what can We The People do?
We know storming the capitol with flagpoles and bear spray doesn't work...
Bruce Abramson writes...
Only a fool would trust the emanations of America’s leading experts.
This week’s trophy, however, goes to America’s leading experts in foreign and defense policy, who assured us mere weeks ago that Afghanistan was secure. Are America’s top generals really that ignorant of military realities? Or were they playing to a domestic political agenda and hoping they could keep the fiction going long enough to gain plausible deniability and confuse the public?Answer: You don’t get to be a general while being that ignorant of military facts on the ground. On the other hand, you don’t get to be a top general unless you know how to curry favor with politicians, diplomats, pundits, and the press. Which skill do you think dominates among those who’ve made it to the very top?The same is true throughout America’s elite expert class. Those at the top are those who excel at getting promoted. With some exceptions, their mastery of subject matter and methodology is third rate; their mastery of professional politics is world class.
I am not joking and I am certainly not advocating it, but study some history, and this is usually where a dictator comes to power with the popular support of the people.
Vets in Congress Demand Answers
34 members of congress--nine Democrats and 25 Republicans--are veterans of Iraq and/or Afghanistan, and they are pissed off at the Afghanistan debacle and are demanding answers. That is a very good start.
So, what can We The People do?
CI blames our duopoly, and I agree. Would partyless primaries with ranked choice voting help?
Baseline budgeting, or some kind of modified balanced budget law that limits government spending and forces politicians to make hard decisions?
Who do I blame? A press that refuses to call ball and strikes and piss off the power elites. Congress for ceding too much power to the presidency. Uninformed voters...
A root cause I can identify is that in the short term, no one has skin in the game.
What are my solutions? (Insert blank stare here)
What say you?
The only alternatives AFAICT are
ReplyDelete- dictatorship
- the two-party system
- coalition governments, many parties
The former is rejected immediately. The latter two each have obvious flaws, but both are in widespread use and seem to be just about viable. Maybe the coalition option would work better at state rather than federal level.
I'd love to give PR and coalitions a try in the UK.
Jez, with reference to the 'skin in the game' aspect....it seems to me that I see more, shall we say "regular folk" being elected as MP's in the UK.
DeleteAm I right? And if so, have you seen a difference in how the parties and coalition government(s) respond to the needs of the Constituents in those cases?
Change the Constitution back to having state legislatures and Governors appoint Senators rather than having them popularly elected.
DeleteChange the Constitution back to whoever comes in second place in a Presidential election becomes Vice President.
This ends national political parties and allegiances and absolutely nothing happens at the federal level without consent from most of the state legislatures.
Fix the problem by undoing what created it in the first place.
I haven't done a deep dive into those options, but they're certainly worth exploring.
DeleteI heartily endorse thought criminals proposals
DeleteCoalitions only work for as long as coalition parties can agree. After that, chaos.
Deleteyep, but those parties would be different (eg. smaller) from the current duopoly. The broad church parties we're stuck with currently are effectively coalitions anyway, this would be a way of allowing certain factions of the Democrats to cooperate with particular wings of the Republicans, instead of them all having to stay in their established corners.
DeleteI would agree with all of TI's proposals, but add one more. End the whole process of states giving money to the federal government for the federal government to give back to the states. Make the federal government operate only on what money it can collect directly from the people, neither taking from the states nor borrowing.
DeleteBut, you say, that would emasculate the federal government and make it powerless. Exactly. Why do you think I suggested it?
You post your agreement with CI as if his opinion validates yours.
ReplyDeleteThis makes me question your position immediately.
CI's TDS kept him from supporting the popular reaction against the Uniparty and globalism.
Duopoly is mentioned as a problem, when most often the Uniparty is posited as the problem.
DJT was the push against the Uniparty. He represented how the two party system could work. Primaries. And not the "Jungle" primaries ("partyless primaries with ranked choice voting") that have done so much damage in California.
What is the "answer"? Protect election against the massive fraud and distortion it has suffered.
Heh....I'll agree with you that "TDS" exists. Yet you seem not to realize that it's bi-directional.
DeleteI don't support charlatans and grifters, but I respect your right to.
I just mentioned that as a jumping off point. I don't need "validation" from anyone, and as I say at the end of what I think is a humble post, I don't have the answers.
DeleteAlso, I am being loose with the terms. There is a lot of venn overlap between the concepts of duopoly and uniparty.
Ed, I voted for Donald Trump twice. One of my many gripes about the blob is how they slow rolled him on everything for 4 years until finally they drove him out of office after spying lying, that is a big part of what pisses me off about where we are right now. How about you?
DeleteAs an aside Ed, I also find it fascinating that you've taken what I wrote the other day [if you even actually read it] as an indictment of Trump.
Delete"One of my many gripes about the blob is how they slow rolled him on everything ..."
DeleteOne of those things being withdrawal from Afghanistan?
Jez,. Yes.
DeleteJess, I give you my answer on slow rolling not as a partisan. Rather I put it out there as an example of how the blob can overrule elective officials. Barack Obama ran on closing gitmo. The blob would not let him do it
DeleteNot sold on the Blob theory. What would be the reason to keep Gitmo open during the Obama years? After two years (2018 - 2020) of the treasonous Trump actively sabotaging the war in Afghanistan with furtive negotiations with the Taliban that excluded the elected Kabul government, what is the purpose of keeping Gitmo open?
DeleteAsk the blob who blocked Obama closing it.
DeleteIf Gitmo had a purpose that wasn't related to protecting the US from terrorist attacks, what would that purpose be?
Delete"...the blob can overrule elective officials..."
DeleteGentle early 80s British political comedy "Yes, minister" is full of this: each week smooth-talking senior civil servant Sir Humphrey Appleby thwarted politician Jim Hacker's ambitions. Thing is, it's often a very good thing that he did: many of Hacker's ambitions were self-serving or otherwise hairbrained.
I don't think the blob should not obstruct elected officials from exercising their mandate, but it is reasonable for it to be cautious about a lot of the sorts of things politicians tend to be very glib about promising.
So the "blob" is like unicorns, 4 sided triangles, and intelligible reasons to have voted for Trump. Got it.
DeleteTC, why do you think Obama could not close gitmo as he promised?
DeleteChina didn't want their Uyghurs back? Nobody wanted the detainees housed and tried on American soil in domestic criminal courts? Each detainee had a 25 cent solution then, but the costs of ammunition have gone up....
DeleteSF - I commiserate with your blank stare. Most of us can come up with the reasonable theories for how to fix the travesty that is our political system. But, I think we all know that it isn't likely to be reformed sans a major calamity.
ReplyDeletePeople are comfortable with the simple. Team A vs. Team B. No critical thought required.....it's "us" versus "them". Neither major party cares a whit about adherence to the enumerated powers of the Constitution, or their constituents. The former is borne out by witnessing the proposal or opposition of nearly any impactful legislation. For example, both parties quarrel over the dollar amount to assign to the 'federal minimum wage'. I have yet to hear/read an elected representative ask, where does the power to assign value to the labor of a Citizen reside within the Constitution?
The media loves this business model for the same reasons. Two allegedly distinct entities rhetorically duke it out for the delight of the crowd. Programming is simple.
More Veterans in Congress and the Executive Branch is a good start, at least on the foreign policy front, but most are still from the legal realm. The best answer [besides elevating 'third' parties would be to elect regular Citizens [as I believed it was rather intended by our Founders].
The 'skin in the game' aspect would be the most practical and realistic quasi-fix....but we all know the obstacle erected by the parties to prevent that from occurring [excepting in rare occurrences].
We are not going to repair our broken government in the voting booth. In part because the election process is corrupted, but even if it were not the political process itself is corrupt beyond correction. You know what it will take, but advocating it it a federal crime. That alone should tell you a lot.
DeleteI think the FBI should investigate people who voted for Trump, waterboarding with kerosene whoever they have to, to root out the answer why hinting at violent revolution rolls so easily off the keyboards of the allegedly conservative right-wing.
DeleteI remember when Beamish was smart and funny...
DeleteYou are failing to acknowledge that we have the best government money can buy and it is all about money. Spend a billion dollars to get a job that pays 400k why, because you have control over trillions and can line the pockets of all your supporters.
ReplyDeleteThe two party system was good until we got away from only voting from verified voters. In order to remain in congress is grease enough palms and you have a job for life. The country was started on the premise of citizen legislators not professional politicians and maybe we should get back to that. Meet for one week every six, paid a per diem for those days and hold a real job to feed your family. Term limits and a truly non-partisan supreme court.
The lifetime pension for federal legislators is anathema. Passage of that bill should have resulted in impeachment of everyone who voted for it.
DeleteReal clear politics has a podcast called the takeaway. Today's podcast is on the Afghanistan papers. I highly recommend it. Our government was intentionally deceptive.
ReplyDeleteSilver... does that deception surprise you?
DeleteLeaving operational security aside as a reason for deception, hasn't our government, across every single admin been deceiving us about our military performance, success and failure since WWII?
Dave, I have become unpleasantly surprised over these past years. I spent most of my life as a naive flag waving true believer in our government. I considered it my patriotic duty. Much of my bitterness comes from my realization my ashamed realization of how naive I have been.
DeleteLife was so much happier back before I started paying attention
DeletePart I
ReplyDeleteSilverfiddle’s questions are good ones, but it didn’t take long for the conversation to turn back to the recent election — that’s fine. Politically, we must speak of Mr. Trump in the past tense. He had his shot. He did some good things, policy-wise, and he might have had a real opportunity for a second term were it not for his infantile behavior on social media. I might agree with the claim that the election was stolen, but only when I have undeniable evidence of it. Meanwhile, Silverfiddle’s questions remain unaddressed.
We could begin to solve for X once we stop lying about who we are. We are not now and never have been the “United” States. Face it, 328-million different opinions on almost everything will never produce national or social unity. The best we can hope for is a willingness to compromise, and for some of us, particularly those who view themselves as principled, think that compromise is unprincipled. Without it, though, there can be no forward progress.
We must also stop lying to ourselves about the purpose of our government. The Constitution in its original form was designed to establish a generally accepted relationship between the federal government and the states. We (the people) had no nationally recognized rights until the Constitution was amended to reflect them, and even then, our “inalienable” rights only applied to us (as citizens) when the states incorporated those rights into their own constitutions. The Civil War provided an answer to the question of states’ rights. States do govern as sovereign entities, but their right to do so has its limitations. Besides, the Constitution is only effective when the people who swear to uphold it actually do. I have not seen much effort on the part of politicians and bureaucrats to abide by their oath to do so.
A two party system guarantees disunity; more than two parties guarantees a ruling party — a form of tyranny. Ask any citizen of a country with three or more political parties how well that’s working for them. Under our system, the best that any party can hope for is an eventual turn at bat, and this produces a pendulum effect that serves neither domestic nor foreign policy agendas. There is no reason for any American ally to have confidence in the US government.
The 2020 elections may not have been stolen, but allowing the question to remain, the refusal to allow investigation, is enough to render the election invalid. An election that cannot be trusted is not an election.
DeleteThe refusal to allow some investigations anyway. Plenty of audits have been already been conducted by the aggrieved party.
DeleteAs long as the taxpayers don't mind, there should be as many investigations as needed.
Part II
ReplyDeleteIn the long term, that situation is probably easier to live with than our domestic challenges because we’ve arrived at a point where hardly any citizen has confidence, or any faith, in our so-called foundational institutions. Our government is untrustworthy. Despite the billions we spend on education, our children are morons. No one believes the police “protect and serve.” No one thinks they’ll find justice in the courts. No one expects politicians to keep their promises. No one believes that the federal treasury is looking out after our interests as taxpayers. No one thinks that the “people’s House” belongs to the people.
How could this problem manifest itself in a land where “we the people” govern ourselves? Two answers come to mind. First, America has become an angry bi-polar society. As a society, we exhibit all the characterizations of severe mental illness. As with the mental disorder, our condition has destroyed relationships and we, generally, are a very unhappy people. One could argue that, as mentally unstable people, we are not fit to govern ourselves. Luckily (tongue in cheek), we have elected officials who are willing to step up and seize power and govern on our behalf.
The other day, CI observed that what we need to do is burn it all down and start over — with the understanding that given who we are, we would probably never be able to produce a different result. Ducky has said this many times: we are a sorry people. Indeed, we are.
Silverfiddle’s question still hasn’t been answered. IMO, we need to get back to the understanding that “we the people” are first and foremost citizens of our states. No government entity should have more power over us (power that we bequeath) than our state governments.
Part III
ReplyDeleteA step in that direction must entail rescinding the Seventeenth Amendment so that our states are more directly represented in the US Senate — so that our state governors and legislatures have a greater say in federal policies, programs, and spending. Doing this will return us to a time when the states and the federal government operated as partners rather than as divorcees.
It is only in this way can our states become our true advocates for ensuring that federal institutions abide by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Quick fix? Hardly. But it would be a step in the right direction. I like the idea that corrupt officials at the federal level could be prosecuted by their home states, particularly since the federal government has shown itself to be unworthy of that responsibility. It would mean, for example, that if a Secretary of State was shown to be treasonous, his or her home state could file charges and make them accountable to the people of his or her home state. This is no more “double jeopardy” in this than our civil rights laws that allow federal prosecution even when state juries have determined that a defendant is “not guilty.” The law should at least offer us a two-way street.
In what other ways would this “return to federalism” benefit us? Should border states control their own borders? If they did, it would certainly help resolve the problem with illegal immigration. After all, border states have the most at stake from illegal encroachment.
I go on too long — but I would rather that we did not offer flag-rank appointments to anyone who hasn’t distinguished themselves in combat. No more “administrative” or “political” admirals or generals. Before we get to that point, though, we have to recognize that national defense is about combat readiness. It is not about social engineering, righting wrongs, leveling playing fields, or guaranteeing results.
No officer without combat experience should command a combat unit above the regimental level, and no one who cannot deploy at the snap of a finger should serve in the ranks. The standards of conduct and proficiency that we apply to enlisted men and women should apply equally to those who wear officer’s insignia. Mark Milley should already be a footnote in history. We should have a system where our military leaders embrace a warrior ethos, even to the extent of have the integrity to turn to a president and saying to him, “No sir, we’re not doing that — and here’s my resignation.”
If we continue to refuse holding senior-most officers accountable, it will produce a failure in national security at the worst possible moment.
Okay, I’m done.
.....but I would rather that we did not offer flag-rank appointments to anyone who hasn’t distinguished themselves in combat.
DeleteI completely agree with this, and your comments further down. A period or relative calm would inhibit the promotion to GO/FO....but that also, can be a good thing.
Personally, I see merit in requiring a Head of State to have been in a uniformed service of the nation as a prerequisite for office [knowing of course that this would exclude many fine and competent Citizens who are physically unable to comply]. Not realistic of course, but we're wandering around the expected hypothetical in response to SF's post.
No government entity should have more power over us (power that we bequeath) than our state governments.
Money shot. Although I foresee no action to place our sorry horse back in the burning barn....it would be at least intellectually instructive to determine how and when this State power was ceded to the central government. That is perhaps unanswerable....given my belief that it was likely trickled towards Washington over the course of many decades.
Great insights in your posts anyway.
Unfortunately, David Petraeus was a combat officer.
Delete@ Jayhawk ... he does have one (1) combat award; the same one awarded to the young female specialist who got lost during a convoy and was captured and later rescued by troops who put their asses on the line and received no recognition for it. So we have to assume that the bronze star has become a low-level recognition and of questionable value in determining "combat experience." In Vietnam, we used to say that the bronze star was an officer's good conduct medal. It's a shame, really. If we have combat awards, they ought to mean something.
DeleteI'm not sure how it works in the Corps, but awards started losing their meaning in earnest, when combat awards received a companion....for 'Service'.
DeleteI never understood how we had an Army Commendation Medal for Valor.....and a Bronze Star for Service.
It wasn't that way when I left active service, but now Marines receive BS for service in the way you've described. I don't understand it either. The Bronze Star used to mean something - valor.
DeleteI too witnessed the following stature of the bronze star when I was serving. It's a damn shame, and they need to stop it. Medal inflation is out of hand
DeleteAnd I say that as someone who has been in combat zones but is not a combat veteran. That distinction has been lost, and calling everyone who went over there a hero is part and parcel. I don't advertise my service because of that, and if somebody does recognize that I am a veteran I cool them out very quickly.. I was just a support trip, happy to do my duty and proud of my service, but I did not do anything heroic.
DeleteThis is a bit more down the rabbit hole, but ironically, one of the largest [in my opinion] instances of award inflation....was actually corrected by the Army. For a time anyway.
DeleteSadly, it seems that it's circling back around.
After the Grenada invasion in 1983, the Combat Infantryman's Badge was awarded, as the tale goes anyway, to paratroopers who didn't even lift off from Pope Airfield. Further awards of this badge en mass occurred after Panama...and most definitely after Desert Storm.
Fast forward to OIF in Iraq, very stringent requirements were in place regarding the type of threat and distance from it....to prevent that inflation from occurring again.
However, as I left Iraq & Syria earlier this year, I was told that one of the units I had supported, was going to award their troopies the Combat Action Badge, for an indirect fire attack that hit around 3km away.
I'm not well read on the unofficial history of the Army award system, so I assume this sort of thing just goes in cycles?
Of course, I bow in respect to our resident Marine who will rightly argue that the Corps has never needed no stinkin' badges [they get by with the Combat Action Ribbon].
I think it's the same thing with our "inflated" performance evaluation system. The Marines moved to correct this 20 or so years ago, moving from a one page fitness report to a multipage evaluation that literally takes hours to complete. I'm not saying that our officers and NCOs don't deserve a bit more time of reflection and honest evaluation, but I am saying that when a reporting senior has 6-10 performance evals to complete each cycle, and each one requires several hours to complete, then it becomes a dreaded task for people who are already busier than a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest. Then, the problem remains. Any RS that believes that his NCOs are among the best will write a report that reflects that view and, knowing that if it isn't a walk-on-water report, his good men will struggle for promotion. Out of loyalty to good service and a desire to see his good men rewarded, the RS will tend to inflate the evaluation. Loyalty up and down. The touted philosophy that an average Marine or soldier should be what everyone is shooting for, performance wise, doesn't take into account the reality of competitive promotion. "Average" Marines (I can't speak about soldiers) stand no chance of promotion and may not even qualify for reenlistment. It's a mess. And, of course, if everyone is a water-walker, then no one is.
DeleteThe CAR, when I retired 30 years ago, was "authorized" by infantry battalion commanders. It was merely an entry to that effect placed in the service record book. My uncle, who served in the Army in World War II, wore a combat infantryman's badge. I'm surprised to learn that the CIB was a post-World War II device. Perhaps it was retroactively authorized? This too seems overly complicated. Anyone awarded a Purple Heart would seem to have been engaged with the enemy ... Maybe the services have all become bureaucracies. Grrrrr.
Give the U.S. Armed Forces back to the States.
ReplyDeleteIn Federalist 29, published 228 years ago, in 1788, Alexander Hamilton concurs as to why militias are necessary:
DeleteIf circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist. [Federalist 29]
I would then fill the ranks of the militia through Universal military service/conscription for all citizens from age 18-21 during times of peace.
DeleteCompletion of Military Service would be a requirement for all subsequent suffrage/voting rights.
DeleteThe US constitution actually prohibits a standing army, but they were too subtle about it, settling for specifying that any authorization of spending for military (other than Navy) be limited to two years duration.
DeleteMustang makes a number of good points including his views on multiparty elections. Given my time working south of the border, let me echo his thoughts that more than 2 parties makes life untenable as seldom can any election winner claim majority support.
ReplyDeleteBut then I think about places where leaders are forced to build coalitions, think Australia & Israel, and wonder. Could it work here.
I've been wondering a lot lately if more of the blame for our situation should be on us as citizens. We've devolved into a group of people who see no value in the opinions of others and openly demonize folks from the other side of the aisle.
I get that we all believe that the country will fall apart if we don't get everything we want out of Washington or the representatives we want, but I am not convinced it is true.
Maybe we need to leave our silos, offer some grace to those who have become our opponents and look for ways we can work together for the common good.
The debate, as only an example, over CRT is a good example. Those that extol it as a panacea for racism in the US are deluded. As are those who claim everything it includes is a bunch of [insert adjective here] crap.
Somewhere in the middle of the poles we divided ourselves into is a reasonable middle. Can we get there? I think only if we want to. That's the reality Sadat and Begin faced in the 70's.
They said yes.
.....more than 2 parties makes life untenable as seldom can any election winner claim majority support.
DeleteSure, but that can be a positive, to those of us who believe that a central government that governs less....governs best.
Dave, excellent comment. Our conversation dialogue and debate is broken on every level. It's all point scoring now. How I wish we could get back to fact-based discussions. The press is one of the main malefactors in this negative trend.
DeleteCI... I'm certainly open to that, but with my Latin America experience, it has not been good.
ReplyDeleteDave, I agree with your point. Daniel Ortega won the presidency of Nicaragua with something like 38% of the vote.
DeleteI would like to see the US end up with many, many parties. The president would still have to be elected with a majority of the electoral college votes, meaning that the parties would have to form and reform coalitions every four years, depending on what was going on. I think that could be a very healthy thing
Dave, I agree. The electoral process [such as it even still is] in Central America, has been rife with problems, for a number of reasons.
DeleteBut I think you could agree, that while we have entrenched political issues here that would make a transition to a coalition or parliamentary process difficult....we don't exactly contend with the same issues inherent in Central America.
CI... agreed, we certainly don't contend with most of the issues we see south of the border.
DeleteSilver, would any presidential election still require 270 to win? I am thinking back to the 1968 election and I know that Wallace actually won some states and electoral votes.
It would be interesting to reimagine the last couple of elections with a viable third candidate and game out the potential numbers.
I've said for years that if Perot had not imploded with paranoia, he just might have won back in 1992. I'm not typically a conspiracy guy, but it seemed like the Bushes knew the buttons to push to send that guy to the edge.
But I'm betting he would have won Texas, probably Nevada and maybe even Florida. At least.
To a few other points in general, like Mustang's proposed repeal of the 17th amendment... leaving aside whether I like the idea or not, I see no way forward ever again for any amendments or changes to the Constitution short of a whole scale meltdown.
How do we get the majorities needed? I just can't see it. Regardless of how good the change might be.
The voice of "We The People" set sail in 2010 with the Citizens United v Federal Election Committee ruling.
ReplyDeleteIt ain't coming back either.
I am not totally unsympathetic to your statement, but I have yet to hear someone make a reasoned response to this question:
DeleteIf an industry full of corporations, or individual corporations like Exxon or Facebook come under partisan attack elected officials, how are they to respond?
If a politician vows to destroy the oil industry, or the electric car industry, how are those corporations supposed to fight back?
If Citizens United had been decided the other way, Michael Moore and anybody else would be silenced by the US Government for a 60 day period before the election. With today's technology, that would include government shutting down communications on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.
DeleteForgive me if I lack empathy for the mega donors who feel frustrated and powerless not having at least a dozen or so lawmakers at their disposal.
DeleteCU v Fed removed caps on corporate and union contributions as well as inviting foreign and dark money. Immediately, R states started legislating Right to Work in order to squeeze union cash out or put another way, to stifle the voice of workers and/or their political influence.
Unintended consequence? Of course not. I'd call it a double bonus for the GOP compliments of the plutocratic SCOTUS.
Try again Ronald, you did not answer my questions. Last I checked, Michael Moore is not a big donor
DeleteSilver asked... "If an industry full of corporations, or individual corporations like Exxon or Facebook come under partisan attack elected officials, how are they to respond?"
DeleteMaybe I am being myopic, but... let's say Exxon comes under attack by someone like AOC. As an individual, she has a protected right to her speech. The question is then how can the corporation respond.
Couldn't that corporation, in this case Exxon, publicly make their case in a truthful manner? Recently Mayor Rudy, using the free speech protections, claimed a "right" to lie and stretch the truth.
Why should a corporation have that right? Why can't they just make their case truthfully, and let the public decide?
I'm struggling to understand why a corporation needs first amendment protections to shield them from libel and slander laws.
Just tell the truth.
SF, the answer to your question is there, should you care to accept it.
DeletePiss on Michael Moore, just as much of the labor force has been pissed on when it come to having a voice.
Ronald, your answer disrespects free speech, and you didn't address my question.
DeleteDave
DeletePlease go read up on Citizens United. Had the case gone the other way, Industries, unions and corporations would not be able to respond to demagogic attacks 60 days out from an election day.
Your response is quite reasonable. Yes, a politician has the right to demagogue (within libel and slander laws), and a corporation, union or any other individual has the right to respond, but the law that Citizens United overturned could be used to label such responses electioneering, which would be illegal.
Also I don't want my government silencing, Michael Moore, Citizens United (the anti-Hillary organization), or some wildly popular political snark on YouTube.
We need more speech, not less.
Louise, the democrats will get over it in a short time because it was a democrat fundraiser. Now after donating billions of dollars in arms and equipment to a terror group they can go back to trying to ban firearms. They are not afraid of the terrorist having advanced firearms but are of a citizen owning a defensive weapon.
ReplyDeleteSkud, please do not respond to the spam bots
Delete