SCOTUS rules in favor of 1st Amendment regarding campaign contributions

[ATOMonkey]

Maybe the problem is not the advertising itself, but the advertisements content. Just like commercials can't make false/misleading claims, I believe there should be laws prohibiting false/misleading information/accusations (LIES) in political advertising. Everything stated in a political ad should be required to be true, no more false advertising and BS to bash the opponent unless they are proven facts.

Or, and I know this is crazy... People could actually do their own research and think for themselves.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Or, and I know this is crazy... People could actually do their own research and think for themselves.

But what do you do about the useful idiots? The ones that don't think for themselves? The ones that are already consumed by the liberal media, and tend to vote? GOP is awful at messaging.

 

[indyblue]

Or, and I know this is crazy... People could actually do their own research and think for themselves.

People have jobs, families to provide for, or businesses to run. Research takes alot of time, that many people don't have. We shouldn't HAVE to research, we should be able to trust what they say is at least based on truth. Advertisers must follow the ad laws, why shouldn't political ads be required to held to the same standard?

I know I don't have the time to verify every "fact" that candidates claim in their messages. I try to utilize as much 3rd party research as possible, but even then it is difficult to separate fact from fiction.

 

[Trooper]

People have jobs, families to provide for, or businesses to run. Research takes alot of time, that many people don't have. We shouldn't HAVE to research, we should be able to trust what they say is at least based on truth. Advertisers must follow the ad laws, why shouldn't political ads be required to held to the same standard?

I know I don't have the time to verify every "fact" that candidates claim in their messages. I try to utilize as much 3rd party research as possible, but even then it is difficult to separate fact from fiction.

The problem is that most voters are clueless (low information) as to what the issues are. the have no means of evaluating which candidate is better. or worse. Thus they treat politics more like sports and then side up with teams.

 

[jamil]

People have jobs, families to provide for, or businesses to run. Research takes alot of time, that many people don't have. We shouldn't HAVE to research, we should be able to trust what they say is at least based on truth. Advertisers must follow the ad laws, why shouldn't political ads be required to held to the same standard?

I know I don't have the time to verify every "fact" that candidates claim in their messages. I try to utilize as much 3rd party research as possible, but even then it is difficult to separate fact from fiction.

We get to choose, two-party shortfalls notwithstanding, who gets to run the country. If people aren't informing themselves for such an important task, that's a real shame.

Some people do try to inform themselves, but when the press plays favorites that's hard to do. Rather than pass laws that require honesty, as if that could be effective, I think individuals should be able to sue the press and politicians who deceive to them.

 

[ATOMonkey]

People have jobs, families to provide for, or businesses to run. Research takes alot of time, that many people don't have. We shouldn't HAVE to research, we should be able to trust what they say is at least based on truth. Advertisers must follow the ad laws, why shouldn't political ads be required to held to the same standard?

I know I don't have the time to verify every "fact" that candidates claim in their messages. I try to utilize as much 3rd party research as possible, but even then it is difficult to separate fact from fiction.

I guarantee you that if you didn't turn on your television or do any "social networking" you'd be amazed by all the free time you have.

You have at least 2 years between elections to find out what the incumbant has been up to.

I fail to see how any of this is impossible. Being informed just isn't important enough for the vast vast majority of people.

 

[Tsigos]

Just don't complain when the wealthy RINOs continue to choose their candidate every election. Those saying money makes no difference to the outcome of an election are living in a fantasy world.

 

[Trooper]

Just don't complain when the wealthy RINOs continue to choose their candidate every election. Those saying money makes no difference to the outcome of an election are living in a fantasy world.

You can beat money with volunteers. Candidates who rely on TV ads tend to not be good.

 

[jamil]

Just don't complain when the wealthy RINOs continue to choose their candidate every election. Those saying money makes no difference to the outcome of an election are living in a fantasy world.

Now let's be fair, make sure you include the wealthy DINOs.

 

[Trooper]

Now let's be fair, make sure you include the wealthy DINOs.

And there are far more extremely wealthy in the democrats than in the republicans these days.

 

[indyblue]

I guarantee you that if you didn't turn on your television or do any "social networking" you'd be amazed by all the free time you have.

You have at least 2 years between elections to find out what the incumbant has been up to.

I fail to see how any of this is impossible. Being informed just isn't important enough for the vast vast majority of people.

The incumbent's voting records are relatively easy to research, it's the new or first time candidates that are tricky. 2 years is a long time and how many politicians support or say they support something and then their position changes as the election gets closer or other candidates actions makes them change their stance.

In the last several elections, I have tried to find good non-incumbent candidates to vote for to get try to rid of much of the "crud" in the system but it is a tall order to figure out who's really on our side.

 

[Trooper]

The incumbent's voting records are relatively easy to research, it's the new or first time candidates that are tricky. 2 years is a long time and how many politicians support or say they support something and then their position changes as the election gets closer or other candidates actions makes them change their stance.

In the last several elections, I have tried to find good non-incumbent candidates to vote for to get try to rid of much of the "crud" in the system but it is a tall order to figure out who's really on our side.

the problem is that the system itself is corrupt. Too many areas of influence (ie gun control) and too many who are getting wealthy by peddling influence. Thus anyone you send gets corrupted within two years.
Rush Limbaugh pointed out that one election is not going to turn things around. It might take at least one decade if not two where we control both the House and the Senate. And then you have to purge the leftwingers out of academia, out of journalism, out of Hollywood, out the sports industry (including sports reporters). About 30 million leftwingers are in the system already. That is a lot of fascists.