AWWWWWWWWWWW Is poor little Schumer's feelings hurt that someone can speak against him........
Schumer Calls for Amending First Amendment to Limit Political Speech
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D.-N.Y., has determined there is too much political speech in the United States coming from sources he cannot tolerate. So, he stood in front of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, along with Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D.-Ill., to announce he is backing Democratic New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall's proposal to amend the First Amendment.
https://townhall.com/columnists/terryjef...E8_SlKnKuY
Schumer is going to get primaried by a 29 year old bartender with the IQ of a buttered biscuit. He should resign and save what dignity he has left. He is a disgrace to America and his constituents.
I at least give them a little credit for knowing that the constitution has to be amended for them to get what they want.
What they are trying to do simply cannot be enforced without a tyranny, where the government gets to pick and choose who is allowed to speak and who is not.
All over Europe they have recently been trying to have one or two days of campaign blackout before a vote. But even there, the news reporters are still allowed to discuss current events, they're just not allowed to talk about the candidates, and the candidates are not allowed to talk. most people agree that this would not hold together if there ever happened to be some sort of big news event right as the election was starting, something that the public would want the candidates to react to.
Guys like Schumer are smart enough to know this. They are either pandering, or they really do want their heirs to be able make political enemies shut up.
Lol, get [BLEEP] Schumer.
(08-01-2019, 09:06 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I at least give them a little credit for knowing that the constitution has to be amended for them to get what they want.
What they are trying to do simply cannot be enforced without a tyranny, where the government gets to pick and choose who is allowed to speak and who is not.
All over Europe they have recently been trying to have one or two days of campaign blackout before a vote. But even there, the news reporters are still allowed to discuss current events, they're just not allowed to talk about the candidates, and the candidates are not allowed to talk. most people agree that this would not hold together if there ever happened to be some sort of big news event right as the election was starting, something that the public would want the candidates to react to.
Guys like Schumer are smart enough to know this. They are either pandering, or they really do want their heirs to be able make political enemies shut up.
To even say it is frightening.
And the sad thing is the 18 year olds of today would be for it.
(08-02-2019, 10:20 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ] (08-01-2019, 09:06 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I at least give them a little credit for knowing that the constitution has to be amended for them to get what they want.
What they are trying to do simply cannot be enforced without a tyranny, where the government gets to pick and choose who is allowed to speak and who is not.
All over Europe they have recently been trying to have one or two days of campaign blackout before a vote. But even there, the news reporters are still allowed to discuss current events, they're just not allowed to talk about the candidates, and the candidates are not allowed to talk. most people agree that this would not hold together if there ever happened to be some sort of big news event right as the election was starting, something that the public would want the candidates to react to.
Guys like Schumer are smart enough to know this. They are either pandering, or they really do want their heirs to be able make political enemies shut up.
To even say it is frightening.
And the sad thing is the 18 year olds of today would be for it.
We are afraid of too many things in this country.
We do need to change, and we need to change in ways that we have not changed before.
Too many people are afraid of the necessary changes.
But this is not a good or even a workable change.
(08-01-2019, 08:01 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Schumer is going to get primaried by a 29 year old bartender with the IQ of a buttered biscuit. He should resign and save what dignity he has left. He is a disgrace to America and his constituents.
Heheheheh ... a Trumpette calling another politician a "disgrace to America and his constituents". Good one.
(08-02-2019, 10:20 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ] (08-01-2019, 09:06 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I at least give them a little credit for knowing that the constitution has to be amended for them to get what they want.
What they are trying to do simply cannot be enforced without a tyranny, where the government gets to pick and choose who is allowed to speak and who is not.
All over Europe they have recently been trying to have one or two days of campaign blackout before a vote. But even there, the news reporters are still allowed to discuss current events, they're just not allowed to talk about the candidates, and the candidates are not allowed to talk. most people agree that this would not hold together if there ever happened to be some sort of big news event right as the election was starting, something that the public would want the candidates to react to.
Guys like Schumer are smart enough to know this. They are either pandering, or they really do want their heirs to be able make political enemies shut up.
To even say it is frightening.
And the sad thing is the 18 year olds of today would be for it.
Like you have a clue what 18 year-olds are for or against.
With Donald always ranting about "the enemies of the people" it seems that plenty of middle-aged white guys would favor restrictions on the First Amendment.
(08-02-2019, 12:50 PM)Adam2012 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-01-2019, 08:01 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Schumer is going to get primaried by a 29 year old bartender with the IQ of a buttered biscuit. He should resign and save what dignity he has left. He is a disgrace to America and his constituents.
Heheheheh ... a Trumpette calling another politician a "disgrace to America and his constituents". Good one.
(08-02-2019, 10:20 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]To even say it is frightening.
And the sad thing is the 18 year olds of today would be for it.
Like you have a clue what 18 year-olds are for or against.
With Donald always ranting about "the enemies of the people" it seems that plenty of middle-aged white guys would favor restrictions on the First Amendment.
Like you have a clue about... well.. anything.
You should really just stop attempting to sound intelligent. It's glaringly obvious you get your talking points spoon fed directly from alt-left websites.
(08-02-2019, 12:50 PM)Adam2012 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-02-2019, 10:20 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]To even say it is frightening.
And the sad thing is the 18 year olds of today would be for it.
Like you have a clue what 18 year-olds are for or against.
With Donald always ranting about "the enemies of the people" it seems that plenty of middle-aged white guys would favor restrictions on the First Amendment.
The majority of 18 year olds are usually for anything that's presented with optimistic language, and Democrats are usually good at presenting their ideas with optimistic language. You don't have to be young or hip to know that.
But you're right that Trump would also like to restrict speech. If you want to see what the future looks like under this Schumer amendment, imagine a Trump rally, where the President (whoever it is in the future) rails against the press, the only difference is, the next day announces indictments and asset-freezing orders for the people he talked about the night before.
I got a message for Little Chuckie Schumer......
Fornicate Thyself And The Steed Upon Which Thou Didst Arrive
Voters for both parties believe false things about the past.
Democrats believe that in the past, rich people in this country didn't have political power in proportion to their wealth. They absolutely did. They always did. It was less obvious in the past because both parties used to want to hide this fact. The media would help them hide it. But now we demand transparency. We got transparency, but we are dealing with the naked reality we see like kids who thought grandma was going to live forever. There must be something else the doctors can do!
You might as well outlaw gravity - it would be just as effective as trying to prevent rich people from spending their money to influence the government.
The good news is that the side with more money doesn't always win. Money can influence votes, but most of us vote our conscience, not for who spent the most money on ads.
Schumer should lead his fellow politicians by example and simply shut up. Problem solved. Washington is talking way too much and doing way too little. We didn't elect these jackholes to bicker and fight over every. single. thing.
(08-02-2019, 02:43 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Voters for both parties believe false things about the past.
Democrats believe that in the past, rich people in this country didn't have political power in proportion to their wealth. They absolutely did. They always did. It was less obvious in the past because both parties used to want to hide this fact. The media would help them hide it. But now we demand transparency. We got transparency, but we are dealing with the naked reality we see like kids who thought grandma was going to live forever. There must be something else the doctors can do!
You might as well outlaw gravity - it would be just as effective as trying to prevent rich people from spending their money to influence the government.
The good news is that the side with more money doesn't always win. Money can influence votes, but most of us vote our conscience, not for who spent the most money on ads.
That's all true. Rich people have more power than poor people. It's part of our incentive-based capitalistic system that has produced the greatest prosperity the world has ever seen.
I agree with the Supreme Court on the Citizens United ruling. We should not restrict political speech. Besides, any restriction on corporations' political speech is pointless because it wouldn't work anyway. There would be way too many loopholes and ways to get around the restrictions.