• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Colbert's Super PAC Add

T

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
The Super PAC formerly run by Stephen Colbert, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, has released its first ad to air in South Carolina this week.Colbert announced Thursday on his show on that he would run for "President of the United States of South Carolina" and handed off control of his Super PAC to fellow comedian Jon Stewart.
The ad riffs off Romney's "corporations are people" line from this summer, saying that if Romney's record at Bain Capital is considered, then he'd be a serial killer — creatively dubbed "Mitt the Ripper" by none other than John Lithgow, the narrator.
We've reached out to the Romney campaign for comment on the ad.
The Super PAC's release is below:
Dear Super Pac Super People,
Hi again, it’s me, Jon. When I took over this Super PAC, I had no idea there’d be so much email-writing. Also, there are a lot of plants around Super PAC office with extremely specific watering schedules. Seriously, does a Northwood Spotted Fern really need to be watered "thrice fortnightly at dusk"?
Anyway, The Definitely Not Coordinated With Stephen Colbert Super PAC made an ad, and I figured you’d want to know. I’ve attached the press release below, so hopefully your mouse’s scroll-wheel isn’t broken.
Sincerely,
Jon Stewart
President For Life For Now
The Definitely Not Coordinated With Stephen Colbert Super PAC
Click to expand...


Read more and video @: Colbert Super PAC Goes Negative On Romney In First South Carolina AdBrings up a valid point. So if corporations are people, wouldn't that make Mitt Romney a murderer?

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more and video @: [/I]Colbert Super PAC Goes Negative On Romney In First South Carolina AdBrings up a valid point. So if corporations are people, wouldn't that make Mitt Romney a murderer?

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?
Click to expand...

Does this mean Colbert runs for the Republican nomination or is he some kind of independent? The Mittster might be backing off his baptism and confirmation by Corporate America as the job-killing numbers roll out. Colbert will get to the bottom of things and find out if Mitt uses Preparation H.
 
Methinks Mitt Romney may want to be careful how he chooses his choice of words. He had better shore up his image if he goes on to secure the GOP presidential nomination because Colbert's inquest is a walk in the park compared to President Obama's mastermind David Axelrod.
 
Colbert is doing a great job highlighting the absurdity of Citizens United. A tip of the hat.
 
Ted Kopple did an interview with Stephen Colbert on Rock Center w/Brian Williams last night about superPACs, how they're formed, etc., etc. I thought the segment was spot-on!

In fact, if you watch the entire segment that addresses superPACs (you may have to click on the video linked within the article), you'll hear the millionaire donors say bluntly say "they expect to be rewarded for their contributions" should their GOP candidate win the presidency! Not one of the donors tried to hide this fact!!

Since I've come to better understand the ramifications of the Citizen's United Supreme Court case, I've stated repeatedly that superPACs would spell the end of "a government of the People, by the People, for the People". It's all "for big corporations" now. The voice of the People has been all but wiped out by big political donors who can give as much as they want without ever disclosing who they are. The argument, of course, continues to be "why should you care what someone else does with their money" which in politics is very wrong-headed! Of course we should care who makes such large multi-million dollar donations. The voting public needs to know who their elected officials truly work for - US or the campaign contributor(s) who donate the most to the politician's political campaign. We have a right to know if our politicians are sell-outs! We have a right to know if our vote really does count!!
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
Ted Kopple did an interview with Stephen Colbert on Rock Center w/Brian Williams last night about superPACs, how they're formed, etc., etc. I thought the segment was spot-on!

In fact, if you watch the entire segment that addresses superPACs (you may have to click on the video linked within the article), you'll hear the millionaire donor say bluntly "they expect to be rewarded for their contributions" should their GOP candidate win the presidency! Not only of the donors tried to hide this fact!!

I said it since the Supreme Court ruled against the Citizen's United case, superPACs would spell the end of "a government for the People, by the People". It's all "for big corporations" now. The voice of the People has been all but wiped out by big political donors who can give as much as they want without ever disclosing who they are. The argument, of course, continues to be "why should you care what someone else does with their money" which in politics is very wrong-headed! Of course we should care who makes such large multi-million dollar donations. The voting public needs to know who their elected officials truly work for - US or the campaign contributor(s) who donate the most to the politician's political campaign. We have a right to know if our politicians are sell-outs! We have a right to know if our vote really does count!!
Click to expand...

It's been that way for a long time. This just makes it that much worse.
 
AdamT said:
It's been that way for a long time. This just makes it that much worse.
Click to expand...

But atleast before the voters had a chance to know who was making such contributions and could stand firm against it mainly because we eventually came to know who the donors were. Not now!...atleast not for atleast 3-months after the contribution has been made and only then IF the superPAC decides to disclose who the donor is or if the FEC finds fault with how the contribution was made. Otherwise, the superPAC doesn't have to disclose a thing other than how much is in their cauffers.

True, it's still our vote, but how does the common man fight such a well-funded political machine laced with millions upon millions of dollars that's hell bent on a non-stop smear campaign against his/her opponent? The lines of truth eventually get more than abit smeared or even blurred. They get erradicated!!! And what about the candidate who can't managed to get such big dollar backers? IMHO, superPAC do more to hurt the election process than help it because the wealthier, more financed candidate gets to hide behind the skirt of his/her superPAC and espouse "deniability" while allowing the attacks to go on. Meanwhile, the candidate who might be the better man...his voice gets drowned out. That's really unfair to the voting public because they deserve to hear from all of the candidates, not only those who happen to have big lobbyist/corporate interest dollars behind them.
 
I really enjoyed the process when Colbert was forming his SuperPAC, with his surprisingly funny lawyer, Trevor Potter. When they first converted it from a PAC to a SuperPAC, Colbert at one point turned to Potter and asked "How is that different from money laundering?" And Potter said essentially nothing.

We allow criminal actions like bribery, extortion, blackmail, and now money laundering and collusion, in our political process, so long as they are done by wealthy donors. Colbert has done a good job highlighting the absurdity of this situation.
 
I wish I could vote for Herman Cain

colbertad-screen.jpg


My second choice would be Rick Parry

Rick-Parry-400x271.jpg


Hell of a ticket there, Cain / Parry
 
AdamT said:
Colbert is doing a great job highlighting the absurdity of Citizens United. A tip of the hat.
Click to expand...

No, he's highlighting the absurdity of what everyone falsely thinks of Citizens United.

CU never once said "corporations are people" and did not base the decision on that idea. Not once.

Mitt did say that though, and it's a great send up of him.
 
Objective Voice said:
Since I've come to better understand the ramifications of the Citizen's United Supreme Court case, I've stated repeatedly that superPACs would spell the end of "a government of the People, by the People, for the People". It's all "for big corporations" now. The voice of the People has been all but wiped out by big political donors who can give as much as they want without ever disclosing who they are. The argument, of course, continues to be "why should you care what someone else does with their money" which in politics is very wrong-headed! Of course we should care who makes such large multi-million dollar donations. The voting public needs to know who their elected officials truly work for - US or the campaign contributor(s) who donate the most to the politician's political campaign. We have a right to know if our politicians are sell-outs! We have a right to know if our vote really does count!!
Click to expand...

How does money make your vote not count?

If you cast your ballot, and you're not voting in Florida in 2000 of course, or maybe Chicago, your vote counts no matter what.
 
Objective Voice said:
But atleast before the voters had a chance to know who was making such contributions and could stand firm against it mainly because we eventually came to know who the donors were.
Click to expand...

Why does that make a difference?

True, it's still our vote, but how does the common man fight such a well-funded political machine laced with millions upon millions of dollars that's hell bent on a non-stop smear campaign against his/her opponent?
Click to expand...

Um, with votes. Like you said.

The lines of truth eventually get more than abit smeared or even blurred. They get erradicated!!! And what about the candidate who can't managed to get such big dollar backers? IMHO, superPAC do more to hurt the election process than help it because the wealthier, more financed candidate gets to hide behind the skirt of his/her superPAC and espouse "deniability" while allowing the attacks to go on. Meanwhile, the candidate who might be the better man...his voice gets drowned out.
Click to expand...

Why do you assume the bad guys have all the money behind them and the good guys are drowned out?

That's really unfair to the voting public because they deserve to hear from all of the candidates, not only those who happen to have big lobbyist/corporate interest dollars behind them.
Click to expand...

Nothing stopping them from hearing from anyone they want and learning whatever they want about any candidate.
 
Paschendale said:
I really enjoyed the process when Colbert was forming his SuperPAC, with his surprisingly funny lawyer, Trevor Potter. When they first converted it from a PAC to a SuperPAC, Colbert at one point turned to Potter and asked "How is that different from money laundering?" And Potter said essentially nothing.
Click to expand...

And yet it's completely different.
 
misterman said:
No, he's highlighting the absurdity of what everyone falsely thinks of Citizens United.
Click to expand...

No, he's quite clearly highlighting the absurdity of what everyone but you understands CU to mean.
 
AdamT said:
No, he's quite clearly highlighting the absurdity of what everyone but you understands CU to mean.
Click to expand...

Okay, so this is the part where you show me where in CU it says "corporations are people" or "corporations have rights because they are people" or whatever. Here's the text of the decision, please give me the page number and quote:

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

Free speech is not corruption. Rights are not just loopholes.
 
Last edited:
misterman said:
Okay, so this is the part where you show me where in CU it says "corporations are people" or "corporations have rights because they are people" or whatever. Here's the text of the decision, please give me the page number and quote:

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

Free speech is not corruption. Rights are not just loopholes.
Click to expand...

The decision doesn't say it directly. The REASONING in the decision leads to that conclusion, as lower courts have stated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...-to-candidates/2011/05/27/AGEPEpCH_story.html
 
Last edited:
I don't understand.... Misterman, are you claiming that there is no such legal conception of Corporate Personhood (i.e. a legal person under the law although not a natural person), or are you just pointing out that the words never appeared in this particular decision?
 
Last edited:
Here's the classic blunder in Citizens United:

"...this Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy. Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co. , 556 U. S. ___, distinguished. Pp. 40–45. (emphasis added; this is from the syllabus -- not the decision proper).

Anyone who doesn't think that these massive anonymous contributions to super PACs create the appearance of influence or access, raise your hand. :roll:
 
Last edited:
I posted this in another thread but this vid from last night is incredibly awesome showing how Stewart and Colbert are flaunting the law much in the same way other candidates either could or are doing:

Here's the vid. Unbelievably funny.

Vid as at bottom of the story at the link.
 
poweRob said:
I posted this in another thread but this vid from last night is incredibly awesome showing how Stewart and Colbert are flaunting the law much in the same way other candidates either could or are doing:

Here's the vid. Unbelievably funny.

Vid as at bottom of the story at the link.
Click to expand...

This is perhaps the best thing I've seen in politics ever.
 
Zyphlin said:
This is perhaps the best thing I've seen in politics ever.
Click to expand...

Ain't it though? I'm astounded how pertinent and to the point their satire is. I know that's the point of satire but good lord is it to the point in a very very blunt way which is kind of counter to satire which is used more in as kind of a tangent touched on to show silliness. This is in your face stuff. They aren't just poking fun at politics like satire usually does... they are actually both feet in the game exposing it.
 
I support Colbert's SuperPAC..

but then again, i'm not scared of the CU decision, and i'm not scared of our freedom of speech.... pretty goddamn sad that so many people are, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom