• 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!

How the GOP used Twitter to stretch laws

US Conservative said:
Kobie, I think you despise the COTUS because its a list of rights you CANT violate.

That infuriates the left, the people who think COTUS means what it ought to mean. And to add insult to injury, its quite difficult to amend as well. You think it stands between you and utopia.

The problem, is you cant force people to do things, and when that issue comes up it leads to unspeakable evil from your ideology. And they think its justified.
Click to expand...

So much ignorance in one post. Why is it that people who know the least about the constitution talk the most about it and profess their love of it the loudest? Pretty much all the rights listed in the constitution have limits. Free speech does not mean freedom to liable others. Freedom of religion does not mean you can practice human sacrifice. And so on.

And why is it that those who know the least about how others think always try and tell those others what they think? They always get it wrong and look silly in the process.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
A law which violates the Constitution is invalid. Your side's abject hatred of the Constitution notwithstanding, the Constitution is the highest law of the land, and it trumps any lower law which contradicts it.
Click to expand...

Campaign financing isn't speech.
 
Deuce said:
Campaign financing isn't speech.
Click to expand...


Talking about it, communicated by electronics all make it a rights issue....

Oh wait, I somehow get the feeling the word "rights" has changed, as it does under any socialists, they support rights fully...for causes and issues THEY agree with.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Talking about it, communicated by electronics all make it a rights issue....

Oh wait, I somehow get the feeling the word "rights" has changed, as it does under any socialists, they support rights fully...for causes and issues THEY agree with.
Click to expand...

So, you think libel, slander, incitement to violence, conspiracy to commit murder, etc, are all protected under the first amendment, right?
 
Deuce said:
Campaign financing isn't speech.
Click to expand...

Perhaps not, but only as a matter of semantic twisting. Spending money for the purpose of getting a message out would probably fall more solidly under freedom of the press than freedom of speech. But really, the argument that you're trying to make is very weak, no matter what semantic games you try to play. Spending money and resources is part of putting out a message to the masses, and as such, it clearly falls under the intent and the letter of the First Amendment.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Perhaps not, but only as a matter of semantic twisting. Spending money for the purpose of getting a message out would probably fall more solidly under freedom of the press than freedom of speech. But really, the argument that you're trying to make is very weak, no matter what semantic games you try to play. Spending money and resources is part of putting out a message to the masses, and as such, it clearly falls under the intent and the letter of the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

But this wasn't a message to the masses. It was a hidden message to a political campaign that saves that campaign a lot of money.
 
Deuce said:
So, you think libel, slander, incitement to violence, conspiracy to commit murder, etc, are all protected under the first amendment, right?
Click to expand...

I do not think anyone has claimed that. The right to free speech does not include the right to unjustly harm others with it, any more than the right to keep and bear arms includes a right to unjustly commit robbery, assault, and/or murder. Your right to swing your fist ends where someone else's nose begins.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I do not think anyone has claimed that. The right to free speech does not include the right to unjustly harm others with it, any more than the right to keep and bear arms includes a right to unjustly commit robbery, assault, and/or murder. Your right to swing your fist ends where someone else's nose begins.
Click to expand...

Ok. And my right to illegally contribute to political campaigns?
 
voyager1 said:


Washington (CNN) - Republicans and outside groups used anonymous Twitter accounts to share internal polling data ahead of the midterm elections, CNN has learned, a practice that raises questions about whether they violated campaign finance laws that prohibit coordination.

The Twitter accounts were hidden in plain sight. The profiles were publicly available but meaningless without knowledge of how to find them and decode the information, according to a source with knowledge of the activities.

The practice is the latest effort in the quest by political operatives to exploit the murky world of campaign finance laws at a time when limits on spending in politics are eroding and regulators are being defanged.

The law says that outside groups, such as super PACs and non-profits, can spend freely on political causes as long as they don't coordinate their plans with campaigns. Sharing costly internal polls in private, for instance, could signal to the campaign committees where to focus precious time and resources.

The groups behind the operation had a sense of humor about what they were doing. One Twitter account was named after Bruno Gianelli, a fictional character in The West Wing who pressed his colleagues to use ethically questionable "soft money" to fund campaigns.

A typical tweet read: "CA-40/43-44/49-44/44-50/36-44/49-10/16/14-52-->49/476-10s." The source said posts like that -- which would look like gibberish to most people -- represented polling data for various House races.

Posting the information on Twitter, which is technically public, could provide a convenient loophole to the law — or could run afoul of it.

"It's a line that has not been defined. This is really on the cutting edge," said Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan organization focused on campaign finance issues. "It might not be legal. It's a cutting edge practice that, to my knowledge, the Federal Election Commission has never before addressed to explicitly determine its legality or permissibility."

At least two outside groups and a Republican campaign committee had access to the information posted to the accounts, according to the source. They include American Crossroads, the super PAC founded by Karl Rove; American Action Network, a nonprofit advocacy group, and the National Republican Congressional Committee, which is the campaign arm for the House GOP.

Accounts deleted

The accounts that CNN reviewed were active in the months ahead of this month's election, which gave Republicans their largest majority in the House since World War II and control of the Senate. They were live until Nov. 3 but deleted minutes after CNN contacted the NRCC with questions.
How the GOP used Twitter to stretch election laws - CNN.com


I guess voter fraud is a real issue. If this actually goes anywhere this could be good ammo for us Dems to use in 2016. If it goes nowhere expect the Dems to use this same strategy. To me deleting the accounts is admission of guilt. If the GOP didn't do anything wrong then those accounts would still be active.
Click to expand...

I saw that 60 percent of the 226,838 positive comments on Obamacare's facebook page were from 100 users.
Free speech in another murky world you referred to.
 
Deuce said:
Ok. And my right to illegally contribute to political campaigns?
Click to expand...

Your right to contribute your own resources, to help get out a message with which you agree. Affirmed and protected by the First Amendment, and only “illegal” because of a corrupt government that refuses to obey the Constitution.
 
bubbabgone said:
I saw that 60 percent of the 226,838 positive comments on Obamacare's facebook page were from 100 users.
Free speech in another murky world you referred to.
Click to expand...

You saw this? Wow. Must have taken a lot of time reading all 226,838 positive comments, notated who made them and the do then math to come up with this.
 
Redress said:
So much ignorance in one post. Why is it that people who know the least about the constitution talk the most about it and profess their love of it the loudest? Pretty much all the rights listed in the constitution have limits. Free speech does not mean freedom to liable others. Freedom of religion does not mean you can practice human sacrifice. And so on.

And why is it that those who know the least about how others think always try and tell those others what they think? They always get it wrong and look silly in the process.
Click to expand...

You speak of ignorance and looking silly and then hang your hat on the argument that I believe all rights are unlimited. Its ironic, I'd try again kid.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Your right to contribute your own resources, to help get out a message with which you agree. Affirmed and protected by the First Amendment, and only “illegal” because of a corrupt government that refuses to obey the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Unlimited anonymous donations to political campaigns. Yeah. That seems wise.
 
Deuce said:
Unlimited anonymous donations to political campaigns. Yeah. That seems wise.
Click to expand...

The alternative is to allow government the power to determine who is allowed to contribute how much to get what message out. This means that those in power will unavoidably have and abuse the power to control which messages get out, to the detriment of those whose messages are unfavorable to those in power. The First Amendment clearly is intended to prevent this.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
The alternative is to allow government the power to determine who is allowed to contribute how much to get what message out. This means that those in power will unavoidably have and abuse the power to control which messages get out, to the detriment of those whose messages are unfavorable to those in power. The First Amendment clearly is intended to prevent this.
Click to expand...

Only if you live in some weird black and white universe.

Me, I don't think it's unreasonable to have some checks in place that make sure Al Qaeda isn't funding a presidential candidate.
 
Deuce said:
Did you really read this thread and think "this was some group of citizens getting the message out!"
Click to expand...

It's more about a different group that is pissed off because their own message is not getting out as well, and not being nearly as well-received, as the opposing message.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
It's more about a different group that is pissed off because their own message is not getting out as well, and not being nearly as well-received, as the opposing message.
Click to expand...

This was polling data. Polling data with significant monetary value.
 
poweRob said:
You saw this? Wow. Must have taken a lot of time reading all 226,838 positive comments, notated who made them and the do then math to come up with this.
Click to expand...
Dunno how long it took.
The Washington Times did the analysis.
I just saw that it had been done.
Will there be anything else?
 
US Conservative said:
Im going to need to read up on Canada's socialist history. Any recommendations?
Click to expand...

In would start where I always start..wiki:

Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then, for a look at the underpinning and philosophy this guy:

John Ralston Saul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These three works give insight to the Canadian culture and how it affects government

Le Citoyen dans un cul-de-sac?: Anatomie d'une société en crise (1996)
Reflections of a Siamese Twin: Canada at the End of the Twentieth Century (1997)
On Equilibrium: Six Qualities of the New Humanism (2001)

There are excerpts on the net.

And, if you can locate any work regarding the political landscape in the early Trudeau era where the foundations of our social policy were shaped, but, unfortunately on a socialist economic model i.e. throw money at it.

A starting point:

Pierre Trudeau - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The last Canadian leader to deploy troops against citizens but is heralded as a social innovator

Politics of Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And this is a global round-up of what social programs there are and how they work. If you want to torture yourself I can connect you with some of the politicking behind the issues and some of the on-going challenges we face.

But, in closing one needs to shift their definitions a bit, and instead of the inaccurate right and left, but rather socialism - "ism" and "free enterprise, as what is emerging is a hybrid of social programs within an unfettered economy where government may be large, but keeps its nose to itself.
 
bubbabgone said:
Dunno how long it took.
The Washington Times did the analysis.
I just saw that it had been done.
Will there be anything else?
Click to expand...

Nah... you taking credit for it was enough.
 
poweRob said:
Nah... you taking credit for it was enough.
Click to expand...
You really thought that's what I was saying?
It's easy to see why you're a proud Liberal ... you confuse yourself quite easily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom