Guy Humual wrote: Andrew R wrote: meatrace wrote: How about: all campaigns for federal positions (president, congress, senate) paid for publicly.
It can be paid for by a change to FCC regulations. Increase the amount of informational programming required, but allow them to substitute some hours for credits that are awarded to the candidates for TV advertising spots. Require that they be equal (i.e. reinstate equal time provisions). The time could also be spent televising debates in prime time.
I say give them ONE commercial to run on tv ONE for radio, ONE website. Maybe by limiting them they will say what THEY WILL DO instead of flooding the media with attack adds. That would be a good idea IMO. Maybe we could also make it against the law to tell falsehoods or use sound bites in political ads? Add a fine to any station that knowingly airs such ads. You have the right to free speech but you shouldn't have the right to lie to the public. And then it all becomes law suits about whether each statement is a lie or just a narrow interpretation of the truth, cleverly phrased to make you think it's something it isn't.
Even if it is plainly true, you'll get sued to delay and confuse the issue.
Kryzbyn wrote: I would think normal Libel or Slander laws would apply, right? Or is that suspended for political discourse? It's very hard for a public figure to win Libel or Slander cases.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
thejeff wrote: Guy Humual wrote: The one thing that bothers me about US politics right now is the apparent inability of either side to reach across the floor and work with the other side for the betterment of the Country. One of the things I like about the American system is that it was built with that ability in mind and the lack of cooperation in these economic times is disgraceful. Let's not point fingers, saying one side is more to blame then the other doesn't fix the problem, but if Obama gets a second term, maybe we can see a bit more cooperation in the house and senate. I'm not asking people to like each other but your job is looking after your constituent, maybe this time they could spend more time doing that then trying to score political points or please your party. Compromise is what you're supposed to be looking for and if you can't do that then you have no business putting your name into the ring. I don't actually like this attitude. It sounds all very nice in theory and it would be nice if it worked like that.
But what if it is really one group not cooperating? If your highest priority is "working together", should you compromise more and more to get a deal while the other side holds fast? Always blaming both sides for the lack of cooperation spreads the blame equally and thus rewards the side that does the least.
Maybe rather than "not pointing fingers", we should actually look at the data and find out if one side is more of a problem than the other and react to that? Another problem with that is, a representative's (or senator's) constituents send them to represent them based on what they claim to represent. If they waver too much, then end up without constiuents.
And I think it's a supreme dick move to say "I know you are my constituents, Nebraskans (or whatever state or district), and ya'll sent me here based on my word, but I'm going to throw your views and my own under the bus for the good of the country". It's not how that works. If you don't have enough people that agree on a thing to get it passed, it doesn't pass. Compromise isn't whats needed so much as agreement on policy. 'You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' is not compromise, thats buying votes for favors. That's become business as usual in DC. That's what people are tired of.
IMHO, of course.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I feel like one of the big problems with the US system is the lack of restrictions on campaign funding. The winners tend to be the ones who can raise the most cash, and as a consequence the politicians are all more or less in the pockets of their campaign donors. Despite what they like to say, it doesn't really seem like anyone in Washington is looking out for the general public. It seems as though the government is pretty much beholden primarily to big business.
It also baffles me that in the US Obama is viewed as being very leftwing. I guess he is relative to the current crop of republicans, but I see him as fairly right wing in many ways.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Right wing/Left wing no longer mean what they used to. You can blame our political process for that if you wish. The lines have become pretty blurred, and are subject specific now, not the broad brushes they used to be. Now they are only used for political sniping and snark to generalize and patronize a political opponent's view point.
Rarely is it accurate.
P.H. Dungeon wrote: I feel like one of the big problems with the US system is the lack of restrictions on campaign funding. The winners tend to be the ones who can raise the most cash, and as a consequence the politicians are all more or less in the pockets of their campaign donors. Despite what they like to say, it doesn't really seem like anyone in Washington is looking out for the general public. It seems as though the government is pretty much beholden primarily to big business.
It also baffles me that in the US Obama is viewed as being very leftwing. I guess he is relative to the current crop of republicans, but I see him as fairly right wing in many ways.
Sometimes I feel like half the country thinks he's a socialist, and the other half thinks he's too far right. And they all despise him for it.
thejeff wrote: I don't actually like this attitude. It sounds all very nice in theory and it would be nice if it worked like that.
But what if it is really one group not cooperating? If your highest priority is "working together", should you compromise more and more to get a deal while the other side holds fast? Always blaming both sides for the lack of cooperation spreads the blame equally and thus rewards the side that does the least.
Maybe rather than "not pointing fingers", we should actually look at the data and find out if one side is more of a problem than the other and react to that?
Maybe we give them a chance first? I do think one side was more to blame then the other but that doesn't help us going forward. Hopefully this election will give you guys a clean slate going forward and we can put the ugliness of the last four years behind.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote: P.H. Dungeon wrote: It also baffles me that in the US Obama is viewed as being very leftwing. I guess he is relative to the current crop of republicans, but I see him as fairly right wing in many ways.
Sometimes I feel like half the country thinks he's a socialist, and the other half thinks he's too far right. And they all despise him for it.
It's not easy being me.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote:
And then it all becomes law suits about whether each statement is a lie or just a narrow interpretation of the truth, cleverly phrased to make you think it's something it isn't.
Even if it is plainly true, you'll get sued to delay and confuse the issue.
The other thing is you let these folks say whatever they want and investigate after the election. The big thing is lying during an election should be seen as obstructing democracy. Someone should go to prison for that sort of thing. Point is, for some reason, people allow this sort of thing and it seems the worst ads usually win the election. Lying is rewarded. There has to be some way to end this.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Also what might be nice is if there were some 4th group that could check facts and report on them? We could call them reporters or something and they would be independent of the government. Crazy idea I know. Maybe we could get comedy central to do this?
Guy Humual wrote: thejeff wrote: I don't actually like this attitude. It sounds all very nice in theory and it would be nice if it worked like that.
But what if it is really one group not cooperating? If your highest priority is "working together", should you compromise more and more to get a deal while the other side holds fast? Always blaming both sides for the lack of cooperation spreads the blame equally and thus rewards the side that does the least.
Maybe rather than "not pointing fingers", we should actually look at the data and find out if one side is more of a problem than the other and react to that?
Maybe we give them a chance first? I do think one side was more to blame then the other but that doesn't help us going forward. Hopefully this election will give you guys a clean slate going forward and we can put the ugliness of the last four years behind. Why? Has there been any sign of change?
Do we reset the slate at every election, even if it's largely the same people? Party leadership in Congress doesn't change quickly.
How long do we then wait before we decide it isn't working? Again? How many chances do we give?
Do we wait until the next campaign starts? And do it all over again.
The ugliness will stay until it stops working. The way to stop it working is to point it out when it happens. Figure out who's to blame and call them out for it. That's a job for the press and that's a job for us. Don't wait for the other side to make accusations. Do the research yourself. Figure out what's going on. Tell people.
Congressional procedure is complex, but it's not that hard if you take a little time.
Simplest way to stop the gridlock in Congress. Kill (or at least cripple) the filibuster. It can be done with a simple majority vote at the start of the session. Hell, technically it can be ignored with a simple majority vote at any point, but that would open a huge can of worms.
Guy Humual wrote: thejeff wrote:
And then it all becomes law suits about whether each statement is a lie or just a narrow interpretation of the truth, cleverly phrased to make you think it's something it isn't.
Even if it is plainly true, you'll get sued to delay and confuse the issue.
The other thing is you let these folks say whatever they want and investigate after the election. The big thing is lying during an election should be seen as obstructing democracy. Someone should go to prison for that sort of thing. Point is, for some reason, people allow this sort of thing and it seems the worst ads usually win the election. Lying is rewarded. There has to be some way to end this. Lying in political ads is perfectly legal. Free speech. Some things might rise to the level of libel/slander, but not much.
Even other violations of campaign laws result at worst in fines well after the election, not in over turning the results. I suppose if the elected official was actually convicted of a felony, he would probably resign or could be impeached, but most often it can be traced to someone in the campaign but it's much harder to prove the candidate ordered it directly.
Free speech needs limits though, you can't yell fire in a movie theater, and you shouldn't be allowed to play someone's comments out of context. The latter happens all the time. We can't rely on the public to punish people who pull dirty tricks so maybe we should have some other group look into it. Maybe what I'm proposing isn't the best option but I really hate seeing things the way they are.
vote Cthulhu why choose the lesser two evil
thejeff wrote: Guy Humual wrote: thejeff wrote:
And then it all becomes law suits about whether each statement is a lie or just a narrow interpretation of the truth, cleverly phrased to make you think it's something it isn't.
Even if it is plainly true, you'll get sued to delay and confuse the issue.
The other thing is you let these folks say whatever they want and investigate after the election. The big thing is lying during an election should be seen as obstructing democracy. Someone should go to prison for that sort of thing. Point is, for some reason, people allow this sort of thing and it seems the worst ads usually win the election. Lying is rewarded. There has to be some way to end this. Lying in political ads is perfectly legal. Free speech. Some things might rise to the level of libel/slander, but not much.
Even other violations of campaign laws result at worst in fines well after the election, not in over turning the results. I suppose if the elected official was actually convicted of a felony, he would probably resign or could be impeached, but most often it can be traced to someone in the campaign but it's much harder to prove the candidate ordered it directly. Make them do their one and only ad under oath. see how much they want to play with truth when it could cost them jail time
I'd like to bring up the strategy that Lee Atwater launched against in a campaign. He set people to call potential voters, asking them about stuff relating to the election. One of these questions was "Would you vote for <candidate> if he was a pedophile?"
Yeah. Cute. Whatever else happens, the interviewee has had <candidate> associated with pedophile, for no reason whatsoever. It's the shock value that does it.
And even if you object to this, what are you going to sue them for? Asking a question? Libel and slander laws require CLAIMS, and questions slip under the radar there.
Human communication is adaptive. If something is forbidden, people find another way to say the same thing.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
And, did you get to go to the RNC, Comrade Knife? (You stooge of the plutocracy.) Hahah no. I had no desire to go. As I figured, my kind weren't exactly welcome there. That whole teleprompter thing at the RNC is B.S.
TheWhiteknife wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
And, did you get to go to the RNC, Comrade Knife? (You stooge of the plutocracy.) Hahah no. I had no desire to go. As I figured, my kind weren't exactly welcome there. That whole teleprompter thing at the RNC is B.S. I don't know why that's not front page news.
Sissyl wrote: I'd like to bring up the strategy that Lee Atwater launched against in a campaign. He set people to call potential voters, asking them about stuff relating to the election. One of these questions was "Would you vote for <candidate> if he was a pedophile?"
Yeah. Cute. Whatever else happens, the interviewee has had <candidate> associated with pedophile, for no reason whatsoever. It's the shock value that does it.
And even if you object to this, what are you going to sue them for? Asking a question? Libel and slander laws require CLAIMS, and questions slip under the radar there.
Human communication is adaptive. If something is forbidden, people find another way to say the same thing.
Apocryphal, but the earliest version I've heard of the same thing
Quote: The old story about LBJ spreading a rumor that his opponent was a pig-f#+$er. You can't say that, it's a lie, Johnson's campaign manager told him. "I know," he replied, "I just want to make him deny it."
Yeah, it's possible that didn't happen. I am no sage on american politics. It doesn't matter, though. Psychologically, it's right on the money, and I would be surprised if it hadn't worked very well in many campaigns.
That story's been around for a while and it may well be true, LBJ was a bit of a bare knuckled politician. It's still a dirty trick though.
On the other hand, he never commited treason to get elected like Nixon did.
Kryzbyn wrote: I would think normal Libel or Slander laws would apply, right? Or is that suspended for political discourse? It's important to remember that the President is entirely immune to prosecution other than impeachment, and that members of Congress are immune to prosecution for statements read into the record.
meatrace wrote: I don't know why that's not front page news. If you mean the whole "ditching the Ron Paul delegates" thing, it's because it's the Republicans adopting basically the same rules the Democrats have had for ages, and because it's pretty obvious that Ron Paul wasn't going to get the nomination.
Also, Ron Paul is a crazy theocrat, and anything that keeps him away from power is a good thing.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Krensky wrote: On the other hand, he never commited treason to get elected like Nixon did. Indeed. We need to spread the word on this. There are corners of the political sphere where people are beginning to defend Nixon as being the last moderate Republican president. No, he was a dirty crook that cared about nothing more than power and public perception.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The last moderate, principled Republican President was Eisenhower.
Who was a liberal Democrat by today's standards.
meatrace wrote: Krensky wrote: On the other hand, he never commited treason to get elected like Nixon did. Indeed. We need to spread the word on this. There are corners of the political sphere where people are beginning to defend Nixon as being the last moderate Republican president. No, he was a dirty crook that cared about nothing more than power and public perception. To quote the man when he spoke addressing the public: "Ladies and gentlemen, I am not a crook." That sounds like a moderate republican to me. :P
A Man In Black wrote: If you mean the whole "ditching the Ron Paul delegates" thing, it's because it's the Republicans adopting basically the same rules the Democrats have had for ages, and because it's pretty obvious that Ron Paul wasn't going to get the nomination.
Also, Ron Paul is a crazy theocrat, and anything that keeps him away from power is a good thing.
No, it's that they circumvented their own procedure time and time again to do so. Because the "vote" was scripted and the voices at the RNC weren't heard. Regardless of whether or not he would get into power, people are angry that they weren't heard.
Why we should get the word out? Because it may irreparably disillusion a major voter base (the Tea Party) from the Republicans and hand the election to Obama.
I've heard RP called a lot of things before, but never a Theocrat. Can you elaborate? In what way do you think his policies are more catastrophically bad than, say, the Ryan budget?
meatrace wrote: TheWhiteknife wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
And, did you get to go to the RNC, Comrade Knife? (You stooge of the plutocracy.) Hahah no. I had no desire to go. As I figured, my kind weren't exactly welcome there. That whole teleprompter thing at the RNC is B.S. I don't know why that's not front page news. Because it takes more than 20 seconds to explain it.
Irontruth wrote: meatrace wrote: TheWhiteknife wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
And, did you get to go to the RNC, Comrade Knife? (You stooge of the plutocracy.) Hahah no. I had no desire to go. As I figured, my kind weren't exactly welcome there. That whole teleprompter thing at the RNC is B.S. I don't know why that's not front page news. Because it takes more than 20 seconds to explain it. OOHH, sir that's a challenge.
"The tea party/liberty wing of the Republican party was stabbed in the back tonight when party leaders decided change the rules to make it more difficult for non-mainstream candidates to get on the ticket. The change in procedure, which required a majority vote, was itself circumvented as evidenced by a teleprompter with a scripted result" [roll clip] "Democracy has died a little tonight. Now back to Jan with the weather..."
Yeah, but your description isn't punchy. I'm sure someone could spice it up without adding length, but overall the story still doesn't have much for natural narrative. Excluding Boehner, it's all a bunch of people no one has ever heard of.
It is far more relevant than say... comparing the tweets per minute during a speech, but it doesn't feel naturally relevant or isn't easily related to the things the public experiences or understands. It's a procedural rule change that's very lawyery.
It's news, but it's not entertainment. So it's not on the front page or in the a-block.
Which is why I didn't describe it in a boring way, I described it as people getting stabbed in the back. That's pretty punchy.
Cool, I'm just telling you why I think it hasn't shown up in major news outlets. Maybe you should shop your version around.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
thejeff wrote: Lying in political ads is perfectly legal. Free speech. Some things might rise to the level of libel/slander, but not much. I think fraud is pretty illegal.
meatrace wrote: No, it's that they circumvented their own procedure time and time again to do so. Because the "vote" was scripted and the voices at the RNC weren't heard. Regardless of whether or not he would get into power, people are angry that they weren't heard. The procedure they implemented at the RNC is similar to the one the Democrats have been using for a while. The idea of "free" delegates is particular to the Republican procedure and it's what they killed at the RNC this year. Now, they did it over an obvious "nay" voice vote and that's pretty damn shady, but it was in response to a deliberate attempt to disrupt the convention by Ron Paul when he lost almost every primary and didn't even qualify to get on the ballot by the current rules so I can't actually give a s!~#.
Quote: I've heard RP called a lot of things before, but never a Theocrat. Can you elaborate? In what way do you think his policies are more catastrophically bad than, say, the Ryan budget? Ron Paul is for all of the intrusive social policies that the GOP is currently championing, like abortion bans and bans on gay marriage and such. He's just not for them at the federal level. He's all for states and local governments implementing those bans, and, traditionally, lower governments are more likely to get away with it. He really, honestly believes in states' rights meaning that it's okay to roll back federal civil rights laws. (A bit more on this)
As for his policies being more catastrophically bad than the Ryan budget, he would cause a depression with the gold standard alone, and he wants to roll back pretty much every civil rights or equal protection law up to and including the Civil Rights Act. (more on this). He wants to eliminate the EPA, he wants to make it possible to declare losses in the US then reimport the profits (he calls it "allow[ing] American companies to repatriate capital without additional taxation"), he wants to abolish the Fed, he wants to privatize the TSA of all g!*%*$ned things, he wants to eliminate the capital gains tax, and he wants to freeze spending on all social programs of any sort. (All of these are from his website.)
Basically he wants to do all of the evil things that Ryan's plan would do, while also doing some more evil things, and also f&*@ing up the world economy along the way. No, I would not trust Ron Paul to be a dogcatcher, and the only reason I don't care about him being in Congress is because he's so ineffective that he's passed two bills ever.
Fun fact! His one other legislative success (he didn't write this law, but wrote a predecessor to it) is used mainly as an income tax scam, where people are paid wages with legal tender gold coins with a face value far below their real value, and only taxed for the face value.
A Man In Black wrote: Now, they did it over an obvious "nay" voice vote and that's pretty damn shady, but it was in response to a deliberate attempt to disrupt the convention by Ron Paul when he lost almost every primary and didn't even qualify to get on the ballot by the current rules so I can't actually give a s#+*. Not caring that voices aren't heard because you see them as political enemies is an...icky position.
Also, I found RP's strategy, while doomed from the beginning, fascinating. It's simply playing to win. He just forgot he was playing against an establishment that can change the rules to suit their whim.
meatrace wrote: *sigh* I'm with you, it should be a big deal, it is a hijacking of the process to keep people they don't agree with out. But clearly for some reason the news organizations don't want to talk about it or don't think it's important enough to talk about. My guess is that they think the story is going to bore their readers/viewers and so they'll turn someplace with more entertaining news.
meatrace wrote: Not caring that voices aren't heard because you see them as political enemies is an...icky position. I don't care about an undemocratic method that is killing Ron Paul's undemocratic plan. Free delegates are an extremely shady part of modern politics, and I don't much mind seeing them go away. I also don't care much because I'm not a Republican, so I really don't have an interest in it.
The Democrats got rid of them mostly because of George Wallace, whose convention strategies were broadly similar to Paul's. Wallace in a quote: "You know, I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened. And then I began talking about n%$@@#s, and they stomped the floor."
It's largely moot. Paul wasn't going to get himself on the ballot through some sort of floor challenge anyway; he was just going to make a lot of noise and disruption. This accomplished his goals, in that it made the RNC look bad.
Do you think the disillusionment of the "liberty wing" will help Obama significantly in November? Or do you think Republicans' hollow rhetoric, continual misinformation, and lack of an actual clear plan will be enough?
Honestly, until the RNC, I thought that this election was going to be a squeaker either way. After the RNC I started do doubt it and after Clinton's speech the other night I'm foreseeing a solid Obama victory.
But, cynic though I am, I've been known to underestimate American stupidity.
Obama is going to have to combat a lot of Republican ads. People believe what the see on TV. I'd like to think that people could see past the attack ads, see the Republican party as being controlled by a bunch of self interested companies and venture capitalists and the Democratic party as being only slightly controlled by media conglomerates. I hope they see Obama as the lesser of two evils. Or they could vote Cthulthu.
meatrace wrote: Krensky wrote: On the other hand, he never commited treason to get elected like Nixon did. Indeed. We need to spread the word on this. There are corners of the political sphere where people are beginning to defend Nixon as being the last moderate Republican president. No, he was a dirty crook that cared about nothing more than power and public perception. Nixon was a creep. He was so desperate for power that he sought to undermine the very fabric of free and democratic elections. That's a mark that should ever remain on his legacy. However that's not to say that everything he did was terrible, I didn't like Bush but he did get more aid money to Africa then any other president before him. He also cleared more underbrush then any modern US president. Nixon laid the ground work for opening up China, he ended the Vietnam war, enforced desegregation of Southern schools, and started the EPA. Those seem like good things. The guy was a creep but even creeps can do good things.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Krensky wrote: That story's been around for a while and it may well be true, LBJ was a bit of a bare knuckled politician. It's still a dirty trick though.
On the other hand, he never commited treason to get elected like Nixon did.
No, he only lied to the population about the Gulf of Tonkin and got over a million heroic Vietnamese communists murdered.
Guy Humual wrote:
Nixon was a creep. He was so desperate for power that he sought to undermine the very fabric of free and democratic elections.
Of course, there was no fabric for free and democratic elections before the Civil Rights Movement smashed the disenfranchisement of blacks in the south. And, then, of course, there's that whole Kennedy getting elected by dead Chicagoans and mysterious Texans. So, there really wasn't that much for Nixon to undermine.
He was a scumbag, though.
TriOmegaZero wrote: thejeff wrote: Lying in political ads is perfectly legal. Free speech. Some things might rise to the level of libel/slander, but not much. I think fraud is pretty illegal. So are theft, embezzlement, tax evasion and bribery.. Oddly enough the trick isn't to get caught: that's for amateurs. Real pro's simply make what they're doing legal by bribing.. oh sorry, lobbying the government.
meatrace wrote: Do you think the disillusionment of the "liberty wing" will help Obama significantly in November? Or do you think Republicans' hollow rhetoric, continual misinformation, and lack of an actual clear plan will be enough?
Honestly, until the RNC, I thought that this election was going to be a squeaker either way. After the RNC I started do doubt it and after Clinton's speech the other night I'm foreseeing a solid Obama victory.
But, cynic though I am, I've been known to underestimate American stupidity.
It'll probably depress turnout among Liberty Movement Republicans. It won't have significant effect unless Paul goes for an independent run. I'm not sure how much time he still has to do that.
TriOmegaZero wrote: thejeff wrote: Lying in political ads is perfectly legal. Free speech. Some things might rise to the level of libel/slander, but not much. I think fraud is pretty illegal. And by what legal definition are the usual political ads fraud?
Any precedent?
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Of course, there was no fabric for free and democratic elections before the Civil Rights Movement smashed the disenfranchisement of blacks in the south.
And how long did that last?
Scene, Pt. 1
Scene, Pt. 2
Punchline at Scene 2, :51
Down with the War on Drugs!
meatrace wrote: A Man In Black wrote: Now, they did it over an obvious "nay" voice vote and that's pretty damn shady, but it was in response to a deliberate attempt to disrupt the convention by Ron Paul when he lost almost every primary and didn't even qualify to get on the ballot by the current rules so I can't actually give a s#+*. Not caring that voices aren't heard because you see them as political enemies is an...icky position.
Also, I found RP's strategy, while doomed from the beginning, fascinating. It's simply playing to win. He just forgot he was playing against an establishment that can change the rules to suit their whim.
Yeah, the scripted ignoring of the possible no vote was sleazy. OTOH, the rules change is obviously a good one. Talking about "Not caring that voices aren't heard", when the point of the rule is that the voices of the actual primary voters should be heard is disingenuous. The old rule was a vestige of the old smoke-filled back-room politics. Remember, most of these "Liberty Movement" "Ron Paul" delegates were representing people who hadn't voted for Ron Paul.
As an analogy, remember in the Electoral College, many electors are not legally bound to vote the way the vote went in their state. If some switched, and it could only take a handful, and threw the election to the other candidate would that be "simply playing to win"? Should the country abide by the result? Remember this would be more than a month after the election was "decided".
What's eff'd up is that we had the same scripting ignorance of a possible "no" vote from the democrats on God and Israel. (I confess, I would have seen the removal of those words, or the development of a spine in the dems, as progress)
Our system is unbelievably f**ked.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
thejeff wrote: And by what legal definition are the usual political ads fraud?
Any precedent?
"In criminal law, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual."
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
P.H. Dungeon wrote:
It also baffles me that in the US Obama is viewed as being very leftwing. I guess he is relative to the current crop of republicans, but I see him as fairly right wing in many ways.
By today's standards, Richard Nixon would be seen by the Regan Republicans as hopelessly left wing. But the Nixon was of the Goldwater school.
|
