Re: Decision 2016
 

Yikes, I always get a little scared when I agree with DS. :)

wriggz, do you have Planned Parenthood in Canada? In the US it is a place where a lot of abortions take place and also where many protest.

I am just curious what type of protests take place in the Great White North.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Well, sure, except that there is a long trail of meritorious accusations against Trump - racism, foolishness, potentially compromising business debts and associations - and he really said many of the awful things that he said.

In the universe of your point, as I understand it, the actual truth doesn't matter and/or isn't knowable. I don't accept that, though I am keenly aware that if that is your point, there is nothing I can really do to change your mind. So I won't try.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Under the Previous Conservative Government it was mostly a non-issue. Harper activity avoided the issue since he was going for a more center approach, and he never wanted to be viewed as extreme. Under Trudeau, it will remain a non-issue. There is the odd protest, but for the most part it is viewed as an individual choice.

The Federal Government also has far more power in Canada than the provinces so Very liberal Provinces like BC, Quebec, the Atlantic and Urban Centers in Ontario (Toronto/Ottawa) and easily out weigh the Conservitave leaning West and Rural Ontario. So the Government cannot be so extreme and extremists don't get much of a voice.

Canada is funny in that our national news is primarily the CBC which is a Crown Corporation (owned by the government) and CTV. Both are fairly balanced in their reporting so extremists are not given much of a voice. We also get NBC, ABC, FOX and CNN, so we can watch what is going on in the US which helps us make choices. Our news also takes the "International, National, City" Approach with little emphasis on local. This helps keep us fairly unified. I remember a holiday in the US where I saw the results of High School Football on the NEWS and thought it was the weirdest thing. We don't even report on sports at the provincial level let alone regional.

Basically Canada, is like you took New York State, California, Washington DC, Texas, a couple of random States from the plains and a couple from the North East and made a country. Urban Centers have lots more power, there is less room for extremism, there is more cultural diversity, and people are generally more unified.

I would never identify as an Ontarian (and other than Quebec which has a French Nationalism) I doubt many other Canadians would Identify with their province. That is the type of unity you see out of European countries and something that seems to be decaying in the US.


As for Trump, the more his ranting are reported the more normalized they seem. I only highlight this since he didn't seem to have any knowledge of the issues in Russia and the Ukraine, he has talked about Nuclear Weapons (Even if he is joking, do you think Russia or Iran would really take the chance), Virtually all Economists consider his Budget plan flawed, He wants to dismantle the Department of Education, THE WALL, If his immigration stance is ever in acted the French have a valid case to want the Statue of Liberty returned, the list goes on.

Two/Three years ago any of those things would be a skit on Saturday Night Live. Now they are a reality. This is like after Swift suggested eating poor Irish babies, someone actually suggested eating poor Irish Babies and was in contention to be the Leader of one of* the Most powerful countries in the world.


* I remember when people use to call the US THE most powerful country in the world. Times have changed.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Interesting.
Thanks for the perspective.

Oh and yes we take our high school football fairly seriously, especially in the south, practically a religion in Texas.

Do you get the BBC? I always enjoyed their news reporting.

Re: Decision 2016
 

BBC is not part of a standard Cable Package (where as you can still get the CBC reliability by antenna). But you can get it easy enough (Except Newfoundland they are very British there).

Re: Decision 2016
 

Every time I come through and read this thread and think about replying to someone, I see Dad Scaper has already done so in a reply that is both twice as brilliant and thrice as short. Someday perhaps I will master the skill. In the meantime I'll just join the "I'm with Dad Scaper" train until sometime where I feel I have something to actually add to the discussion myself.

Re: Decision 2016
 

He's handy that way. ;)

Re: Decision 2016
 

I really appreciated the use of the word thrice. Single syllable old-time-y goodness there. :)

Re: Decision 2016
 

I strongly recommend paging through the recent release from the FBI on the topic of investigating Mrs. Clinton's handling of classified information.
https://archive.org/stream/HillaryCl...ge/n3/mode/2up
It is actually quite disgusting.
"Clinton could not recall a specific process for nominating a target for a drone strike"

"After reviewing an email dated December 11, 2012 with the subject line "FW: Significant FOIA Report," CLINTON stated she did not recall the specific request and was not aware of receiving and FOIA requests related to her email during her tenure as Secretary of State."

"After reviewing an email dated November 26, 2010 with te subject line "MbZ call 7:15 am," CLINTON stated she recalled the time period of the WikiLeaks disclosures because it was a difficult time for State. ... Regarding the specific email, CLINTON did not know why it was not in the approximately 30,000 emails produced to State and, based on its content, would expect it to be considered work-related."

"The FBI does not have in its possession any of Clinton's 13 mobile devices which potentially were used to send e-mails using Clinton's clintonemail.com e-mail addresses. As a result, the FBI could not make a determination as to whether any of the devices were subject to compromise. Similarly, the FBI does not have in its possession two of the five iPad devices which potentially were used by Clinton to send and receive e-mails during her tenure... "

"Investigation identified multiple occurences of phishing and/or spear-phishing e-mails sent to Clinton's account during her tenure as Secretary of State. [Paragraph Redacted]...
Clinton received another phishing e-mail, purportedly sent from the personal e-mail account of State official [Redacted]. The email contained a potentially malicious link. Clinton replied to the email [Redacted] stating, "Is this really from you? I was worried about opening it!" ... Open source information indicated, if opened the targeted user's device may have been infected, and information would have been sent to at least three computers overseas, including one in Russia."

She's either technologically incompetent, has severe memory issues, or this was actually done to hide something. I'd argue any of those are severe problems for a presidential candidate.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Or was done by an aide.
Though that last one is especially troubling and rings true.

That is why they need to inform these old timers the Inspector Gadget way.

Self destructing messages.

Huh, this thread exploded out of nowhere again?
 

Death really is a major incentive for people to stop being s***heads. Nobody wants to be remembered as a horrible person. :p

I do believe you are right, Trump is 70 and Clinton 69. Still, I'm going off them having a full 8 years to live to fullest extent of any possible corruption/boneheadedness. Trump might not make it the whole 8, but the odds of that happening are still fairly slim.

Its funny how often people forget they are subject to reality. Money won't stop dying (and may speed it up in some cases!).

Re: Decision 2016
 

Eh, I'm voting for Stein. She's closest to where I stand on economic issues, and no candidate really fits my moral views, so I'm voting for economics. (I should point out that I'm an American.)

Re: Decision 2016
 

Some of Trump's comments are so ill advised, foolish, racist, misogynistic, ... that it is incomprehensible that he is the Republican candidate for presidency of the US. He takes great insult at the slightest perceived offense. He speaks with a ridiculous, false, macho, bravado, that makes him temperamentally unfit to be president. Then shortly after explaining how he would destroy all of our enemies, he jokes about his "foot injury" that kept him out of Vietnam. Donald Trump is a joke.

Sorry, but Hillary doesn't get a free pass either. Her actions, at best, show an unwillingness to consider the appearance (if not the actual reality) of impropriety. All of her decisions seem to err on the side of secrecy and collecting money. As I said earlier, how is it that Obama has avoided all of these scandals? The Republicans don't like him anymore than Hillary. When you are constantly surrounded by scandal and controversy, at some point it's not everyone else.

The best thing that you can say about Hillary is that at least she's not Trump. I may need a drink before (and after) I vote this year.

Re: Decision 2016
 

She doesn't get a free pass from me. She deserves scrutiny, as any candidate does. In an ordinary election cycle, we might compare her seriously to the other party's candidate.

As it is, I don't think there's a serious comparison to be made. I am too lazy to find the links now, but prominent Texas newspapers, papers that do *not* normally endorse the Democratic candidate, are already doing so. Well in advance of the election.

You want to talk about foundations and election fraud? How about Trump using his foundation to pay off Pam Bondi, Florida's AG, to get Florida to stop looking into shenanigans at Trump University. Not the Clinton Foundation, which is (AFAICT) universally regarded as a highly efficient force for good in the world.

This whole thing is ridiculous. We look ridiculous, as a nation. Not because of Clinton, who is (whether you like her or not) actually qualified for the job, but because of Trump. Like I said about Clinton upthread, you don't have to like her, but she was a U.S. Senator and the Secretary of State. Just as W. had been Governor of Texas and Obama had been a Senator, she is qualified for the job.

Trump is not. He has no relevant experience and is simply unfit for what may be the single most important job in the world. He has enabled the worst of us, and the media have normalized what he brings to the table, by covering relatively minor bits about Clinton and declining to keep digging into the many, many skeletons in the Trump closet.

We are in dire straits, and our news outlets are so weak in the knees that they cling to an imaginary and shifting middle, unmoored from an honest and unmoving center.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I don't even demand relevant experience. I'd settle for a smart person with common sense. Someone who is smart enough to know that he/she doesn't know everything. Someone who doesn't think that he knows more about a military operation than our generals. Someone who doesn't think that he can exclude Muslims from this country. Trump is like a caricature from Saturday Night Live. The problem is that there's no punch line. With Trump, you don't need to rattle for skeletons in the closet. Just look at the latest stupid thing that he said.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Good morning!

If you are having difficulty selecting a candidate this year, take this 10 minute unbiased quiz based on political issues. It will give you percentage based results of how you align with each candidate:

http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2...sidential-quiz

My survey produced 97% alignment Gary Johnson!
(Clinton and Trump were both in the 70% neighborhood.)

Re: Decision 2016
 

Although I was sided primarily with Trump (93%) and not with Clinton (36%), I still can't vote Trump. Maybe voting for Gary Johnson (88%) wouldn't make me feel quite as nauseous.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Trump would be ecstatic if people decided to vote based on what a computer program told them about him, without regard (as you say) for his countless and obvious failings. As for Johnson, that's something else the computer program isn't capturing.

Re: Decision 2016
 

ISideWith tends to frequently tell people that they are really Liberterians and they just didn't know it yet. I'm not sure why, maybe because most people have the ideal that the government shouldn't be involved in their lives and their quiz is very idealistic, but I know that Gary Johnson himself mentions that quiz quite a lot in interviews. I don't know how much you can learn from a quiz that tells you to support the candidate that tells you about the quiz.

Johnson does lack foreign policy experience, but I don't think he is actually running with the intent to win, so it's slightly more forgivable than Trump's.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Most people just don't realize how much the government is involved in their lives until it is either obvious or difficult.

When we are students in elementary or high school it does not occur to us that is a government instution. We forget as students we spent the governments money. More over everytime we are assisted by someone with an education or receive care after retirement, that is money well spent (the reason why the childless still need to support schools). Police and legal services, Fire, public transit, garbage collection, ensuring fair trade with other countries, protection of human rights, protection from our enemy's and our boarders, workers rights, the list goes on and on.

People say that the free market can do things better. Looking at health care systems around the world seems to disprove that (Compare Canada, France, Cuba and the US). Free market education seems to be the same way (look at Scandinavia which has eliminated private schools). I shutter to think what a free market police or fire force would look like. I don't even know what free market defense of human rights would look like, and I don't want too.


Free market luxuries is Awesome. Free market necessities is terrifying.


Sure I think people should choose if they want to smoke a bit of weed, Marry whom ever they like, worship which ever god they want, and have the right to die. Pierre Trudeau (Justin's dad) was famous for saying the Government has no business in peoples bed rooms. However, you want to store anthrax on your property? You refuse to hire red heads? You want to be able to sell heroin? You want ALL the MONEY? Yeah, sorry no. Sometimes we need smarter people to make smarter decisions. If government wasn't involved we Sydney would not be livable the Ozone hole would be that big and Slavery might actually still be a thing. DARPA, NASA and Public Universities are responsible for some of the biggest innovation of all time, that would have been too costly for business to invest in.

All these "No government" nuts, will be happy the CDC and Armed forces exists when the Zombie Plague starts.

In a few years the debate about the "right to drive" will start creeping into our discourse. "I'm a safe driver, I should have the right to drive" will be the chorus. This will be a time where public safety should out way individual sentiment. It will be interesting to see how that goes.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Not quite technically free market firefighters, but basically is. This is what it looks like.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I hear on the radio or read news headlines about Syria most days of the week. Prior to today, I did not know the name of that city, and I cannot blame anyone for not knowing the name of said city. If the interviewer had simply asked "What do you think of the current situation in Syria', Johnson would have answered it without a problem, and in fact, he did answer that question adequately. I will gladly take a president who admits when he doesn't know something, then immediately gathers the knowledge necessary to make an informed decision on the topic.

Re: Decision 2016
 

So either the Home owners are stupid - in which case having wiser people step in to protect them is only logical


OR


The home owners could not afford the expense - in which case having wealthier people step in to protect them is only logical.


Assuming they also don't have insurance now there is a family that will be a cost to society at large. Society would be much worse if everyone on welfare were homeless and destitute. Free-market charity is not even remotely as effective as social programs.

Re: Decision 2016
 

You're not the one running for President, Nukatha.

In the real world, the President should actually know the basics of what's going on in the world, and how the American government functions, etc. The President shouldn't have to begin a meeting with a session of connect-the-dots, or whatever. There is no reason to think that Trump knows anything about foreign powers, foreign relations, the American government, state governments, or *anything*. At least Johnson was a former Governor, so he had that going for him. But not knowing what Aleppo is, when you're claiming to be prepared to serve as the President of the United States, is pretty bad.

edit:

I may have written this already upthread, but I think part of what's going on here is the idea that people have that this idea that some job *other* people have can be done by anybody. There is this idea that we, the non-specialists, are perfectly capable of second-guessing police, replacing journalists with our own hunches and cell phone pictures, or (heaven help us) being President. As if competence and expertise don't actually matter.

Well, I think those things do matter. I have a job, and some expertise in it. I am sure most of you do, as well. Could some person without any training or experience walk in off the sidewalk and do what you're doing? Assuming for a moment that you fell over dead and somebody untrained and inexperienced tried to do your job, what would happen to your responsibilities? What would become of the people or things that depend on you?

Of course we should not accept that experience and expertise are the only things that matter, or that they should not be scrutinized. But they matter a *lot*, to me.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I'm asking because I am genuinely curious here: Who in this thread, if I asked you in person yesterday about Aleppo, could actually have given me a correct answer? What if I asked about the Syrian refugee crisis? I guarantee you'd have more people answer the second question. Next, the interviewer was just talking about Ralph Nader, and completely switched topics on Johnson. In a spoken interview 'Allepo' is entirely out of the blue. He made Johnson completely switch directions on a dime, and deserves the opportunity to get his bearings and respond to the topic.
I'm sorry Dad_Scaper, but you are in the wrong here. Johnson gave a decent response to the Syrian issue, which you may feel free to agree or disagree with. You act as though knowing a keyword the instant it is mentioned is more important than knowing the actual topic.

Can you honestly say there is anything in his follow up that you disagree with?

Re: Decision 2016
 

Pin a medal on him, Nukatha. I don't care. I know libertarianism has superficial appeal, but I don't think it survives a serious scratch of the surface. His idea of campaign finance reform is unlimited campaign contributions, but it all has to be transparent? What about when the contributions come in from Good Guy, Inc., but the money went to GGI from Bad Guy, LLC? It all sounds so naïve to me. La, that's just my two cents. Do what you want.

My only hope is that he does more damage to Trump than he is doing to Clinton.

Re: Decision 2016
 

That's all I ask. Those criticisms you just mentioned are actual criticisms of his policies. But today's interview misstep is, and ought to be, a non-issue.

Re: Decision 2016
 

No. It is most certainly *not* a non-issue. I have bigger problems with him, but his unfamiliarity with current world events is a mark against him. How big a mark? Different people can evaluate differently.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Here is my campaign reform.
All donations over $100 is public knowledge and taxed 500%.

Anonymous donations can be made but are taxed at 10,000%.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Imagine, if you will, Good Guy, Inc.

GGI is a public policy group set up by a group of investors. The leadership of GGI, officially, is various perfectly respectable people. When GGI gives money to a cause, its name appears on that money, and perhaps the names of its leadership appears on that money, for that cause.

Is your transparency satisfied? I expect so.

Now imagine that the investors are Bad Guys. The money they use to set up GGI is drug money. Or imagine, instead, that the original investors were squeaky clean but Bad Guys come along and give GGI money afterward, earmarked for particular causes.

GGI then gives money to political campaigns. Congratulations, it was transparent. Except that really, it wasn't.

Re: Decision 2016
 

It does seem odd that Advertisements (that are not subject to Truth in Advertising Regulations) and direct campaign contributions are allowed at all.

If only there was some way to have a Platform that anyone can access inexpensively that could list the candidates and their actual position on the various Topics in both regular English and political/economic detail. You could even let the Candidates write their own words and explain their stance directly with the electorate and answer questions.

That would be a technological marvel.

Re: Decision 2016
 

In my system all donations must be made by individuals.
If you want to hide then you can as long as you are willing to pay 100 times in taxes.

This would allow for all(well a good chunk) of those wasted dollars to do some actual good, well unless we give it to Iran. :)

Did anyone know about all the bombs in Laos? That is incredible.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Really?

Ok. Imagine, if you will, a *person* named Good Guy Ink. Good Guy Ink is perfectly respectable, as far as a person can tell. Now let us further imagine that another guy, Bad Guy Llc, loans or gives Good Guy Ink a sum of money, with the understanding that the money will be given to a political cause.

There. Good Guy Ink gave the money. An individual.

Re: Decision 2016
 

At 10,000% tax, I am fine with it.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I don't think you understand. It's not "anonymous." You aren't getting your 10,000%. The money is from Good Guy.

Unless, of course, you are peeking behind the curtain, to find out where Good Guy got the money. At which point you are engaging in regulation, which is precisely what you said you were not going to do.

edit: You see, Tornado, the world is a complicated place. Nothing is easy, not a goddamned thing. A person who tells you that complicated things are simple and, even worse, that the person is the master of those simple things, is selling you a crock of nonsense. That person is not to be trusted. I'll take someone who acknowledges that we face serious, complex problems, thank you very much, and not someone who communicates best in 140 character bursts.

edit 2:

Re: Decision 2016
 

Ahhhh. Now I get you.
Agreed.

That means 10,000% tax on all donations over $100, all anonymous.

So now you counter with finding enough stooges to each donate $100 each correct?

Re: Decision 2016
 

I could come back to that, but let's suppose, for now, that the cap gives you the effect you want.

Now let us say that GGI, instead of giving money to a political candidate, creates and purchases air time for an advertisement either (a) denouncing Politician A, (b) advocating for Politician B, or (c) denouncing or advocating some cause that relates to A or B. No money has been given to the politician him- or herself, and no money has been given to the campaign.

What say you?

edit: You're already meddling more than Mr. Johnson thinks is appropriate, by the way.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I would apply the same tax to all campaign ads.
In fact you just reminded me of another part of my plan.

Any ads that mention the any other candidate are taxed an additional 1000%.

This may take some wording tweaking.
Basically you must state the candidate you are endorsing before buying the ad. Mention any other candidate and you pay the additional tax.

That may be the best way to go about it. Just tax the ads.
I am not saying I have the solutions to all the world's problems but the insane amount of money spent on slander ads is disgusting. I believe there is a way to curtail it with the proper legislation.

I would be willing to soften my stance and lower the tax on ads that are about the candidate and not the opponent. Tell us what you are going to do and not why your opponent sucks.

I need to study the numbers again.

Thank you for the enlightening. I still tend to see the good in people despite my disdain for their wickedness.

Re: Decision 2016
 

What if you're not endorsing a candidate, but running an ad about an issue? Say, abortion, or gun rights?

Re: Decision 2016
 

Has anyone ever done that?
Really, I am racking my brain to think of a single commercial in that style that mentions no candidates.

As it stands if there is no mention of any candidate then I would allow the lower tax rate or perhaps none at all.

Great question. That is worthy of some thought.

Re: Decision 2016
 

They do it all the time. They're called issue ads. They are often used to skirt campaign finance regulations, though there are restrictions. In the campaign finance regulations, as weak as they are.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I must just block those out or perhaps they do not work in Michigan. :)

Anyway, I am inclined to let those slide if they are about issues and not candidates.
Perhaps a lower tax rate instead of none so at least there is a little kick back since that will be where all the money is going.

At least that forces the voters to figure out where each candidate stands.

I would rather see issue ads than slander ads.

This system would have to be fluid as people will always be looking for a way around it.

The biggest problem is there is no way in hell legislators would ever allow such a system.

I think there could be a time where enough good people hold office and such change can occur. We are lazy and compliant and ignore our power to vote and for that we will continue to be prayed(preyed, Freudian slip?) upon by the government and their lobbyists.

Hope springs eternal.

Some day.

Maybe.

I worry about this generation and there obsession with the world that exists in their hand.

Perhaps they will learn their folly and the next generation will use their power of communication for something beyond selfies and pics of tonight's dinner.

Rambling.
Too many local brews.
Swinging on a star. :)

Thank you for the discussion DS.
It is good that I have you and Aldin to keep my grounded.

ollie rules!

Re: Decision 2016
 

You are living in a fantasy world if you think issue ads are not about candidates. And you've seen them, but they were so obviously for a particular candidate that you didn't realize what was happening.

Simple solutions don't work. Not to almost anything. You can campaign with sound bites, but you can't govern that way. Governing requires thoughtfulness, follow-through, and attention to detail.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Absolutely this should be allowed. The World Wildlife Foundation has every right to put out ads about protecting the habitats of endangered creatures. Cancer research funding non-profits can absolutely advocate for legislation that increase said research funding or makes treatments more affordable for victims.
Habitat for Humanity can and ought to be able to promote legislation easing building restrictions so they can construct low-cost housing for low-income residents.
The ACLU absolutely has the right to advocate against all legislation that abridges any citizen's civil liberties.
And if Tim Cook decides that he wants to run ads for or against gun control, you're dang right he should be able to.

Also, true transparency would not only include who donates to whom, but also open records of the donator's complete source of income. Enforce that for all donations over $100 and the system instantly gains that accountability you're looking for.

Also, clearly you aren't for Trump, but with your strong feelings on campaign contributions, can you honestly say that you are for Hillary, based on the extreme amounts of money she and her husband have accepted for 'speeches' that definitely did not result in any political favors of any sort?

Re: Decision 2016
 

You missed my point, Nukatha. An ad that is about any one of those things could be crafted to be about one of the candidates instead. What if the WWF ad goes on about the dangers of the policies associated with one of the candidates? Why do you think that the "issue" ads wouldn't be about the candidates?

Re: Decision 2016
 

If there is only one candidate supporting a bit of legislation that the WWF likes, and the WWF makes an ad explicitly in favor of said legislation, with no mention of the candidate, then yes, that ought to be allowed, and I see nothing wrong with said ad being aired. It isn't the organization's fault that only one candidate sides with them, and WWF should not be penalized for that.
With all that talk though, can you actually think of a better system of advocacy for specific causes than that?

Re: Decision 2016
 

It's a really tough situation. The goal is obviously to have voters be as informed as possible, to the point where the obviously irrelevant and slanderous ads don't have an effect. But you can't pass laws that restrict who can vote, as that fails the democracy test. Pure libertarian views of how politics should work obviously have some perverse consequences, but I am not sure what the answer is. I think individuals making their best effort possible to be informed is the best we can do right now.

Re: Decision 2016
 

You are either deliberately or accidentally continuing to miss my point.

Let's take a specific example. Let's take John Kerry and George W. Bush. Let's say that there is a group of very wealthy people who will benefit from a Bush presidency. Now let's say that those people want to make sure that Bush carries Virginia, a state that has a strong military presence and could go Democrat or Republican.

Those people don't want to advertise their support for Bush. They don't want to tarnish his campaign with their reputation for buying, or attempting to buy, elections. So they find a few Navy veterans, and arrange for those veterans to run an organization into which they - the plutocrats - pour millions and millions of dollars. The selected veterans don't do anything but add their names to the organization as "President" & "Treasurer." Now let's say that organization, we'll call it "Lifeboat Captains for the American Way," finances a bunch of "issue" ads. The LCAW "issue" is "supporting veterans." But what's *really* happening is that the LCAW sponsors ads about how Kerry's support for veterans has been poor, over the years, and throws doubt on Kerry's own record of military service. You say, "attacking Kerry or his platform isn't consistent with 'supporting veterans'!" To which I respond, well, that's not what *they* think, and it's their money and their ad.

Now, that's not exactly what happened in the Bush/Kerry race. I've changed some facts around to make it more suitable to the discussion of "issue ads" and I've otherwise simplified it. But I hope you now see how, with "issue ads" being permissible and other ways to get "soft money" into the system, you're gaining *nothing* with this nonsense "transparency."

Any sponsor who wishes to evade such simplistic "transparency" rules can do so, easily. Big business, foreign powers, whatever.

edit: Poor vegie. He was in the middle of a post illuminating the dark corners of the world of political finance and the black helicopters took him away.