Maggie's Farm

re Hildabeest accomplishments



demoncraps have a low expectation of competency, so its understandable why they think racking up frequent flight miles is considered a notable accomplishment and a qualification to be president.

SCHIP was a bi-partisan bill that failed, the program was enacted through the balanced budget act of 97. the beest was first lady at the time, so that drunkard kennedy was throwing her a bone. president clinton helped negotiate the deal because he was the president. you'll believe any libtard talking points without doing your own fact checking, because you operate by assuming no one else will follow up on your bullshit.

Who is this "we"? Are you suffering from some kind of multiple personality disorder? If so, suggest you replace all of them.

I read your talking points. You cited them and assumed them to be correct without bothering to read the legislative history, which is available to anyone with five minutes on their hands.

The legislative history shows your source to be more partisan biased bullshit.

"we" should find new multiple identities.

it is a typical flaw of libtarded reasoning to think that two or three totally inadequate sources trumps one valid source.

have you read the legislative history of these bills?

no, you haven't, because it doesn't conform to your fantasy.

Re: At her first Iowa stop, Hillary calls for constitutional limits on free speech

there are constitutional limits on speech content already, so this is nothing new. Citizens United is a bad decision and should be abrogated, if for no other reason than it further erodes the necessary fiction that ordinary citizens have any say in government.

Citizens United is about money and campaigns.

Under the law, campaign donations = political speech.

In politics, campaign donations = access to the people who make the rules = what rules get made. In fact, it doesn't matter who is elected, so long as they'll take your phone call.

You and a superPAC rep are calling your senator's office. Who is going to talk to the senator and who is going to get an unpaid kollege intern?

the bottom line is that entities, whether for profits or non profits, unions, other organizations, now have a louder voice in decision making than individual citizens. some people are happy about that, others aren't.

you know that Rockwell painting of the dude standing up in a town hall meeting and saying his piece? its called Freedom of Speech. that's freedom of speech. a NYT editorial telling its drones to vote for Barry is freedom of speech.

a Super PAC or an independent expenditure PAC can raise unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations, unions, and as long as it does't "directly coordinate with the candidate" (those are air quotes) because the obvious quid pro quo can never be allowed to happen. Anyone who believes this is a stone cold moron. Super PACS can spend any amount of money because according to the USSC, this is also freedom of speech.

somewhere else on this forum there's an link, "I am a born-free, American woman – wife, mother and citizen". Compared to the super PAC called Women Vote! with its company and union and other entity donors, it expended a total of $8,172,295 as of March this year, her voice is worth nothing.

let's put it this way. United Food & Commercial Workers Union gave $750,000 to Women Vote! When a UF&CWU rep calls a congressman who was elected with union money, is he going to listen you you or the union?

congress can limit speech content, e.g., "fire in a theatre", "fighting words" child porn, and in elections, it can limit the amounts contributed directly to campaigns, and there are different kinds of limitations for various pacs.

every time a constitutional right is limited, its limited by weighing competing rights, where the fulcrum is, depends.

campaign finance laws aren't arcane, they're trying to deal with a situation that's out of control. this isn't about right to work laws and who can contribute to union pacs (depends on the type of pac). this is about your vote and right to be heard being buried by companies and unions who, while they can't vote, use money to buy access. what right, in your view, is more important?

limit campaign contributions to voter-eligible individuals, with no intermediate organization between the voter and the politician.