TakeYouToTasker

No one should be outraged by this, with the clear exception of Mossack Fonseca and their clients.

It's not a story. That's why.

There is no difference other than means. The only argument against Citizens United is that you disagree with some political speech, so you want to ban it.

So, you're asserting that Haliburton caused the Arab Spring?

Tin pot dictators of failed states requiring direct monetary incentive be paid to them in order that they allow their nations resources be extracted. Tell me why I should care?

It's not that you're far off, it's that you're a muppet who views everything along racial lines. (But yes, you're also far off) Stefan Molyneaux? LOL Ah, that's rich. Tell me more hilarious things.

By "cucked" he means: doesn't hate blacks and Jews enough. In case anyone was wondering, "cucked" apparently stems from a term used to describe white men who have a sexual desire to watch their wives be !@#$ed by black men. He is litterally stating that those who disagree with his politics enjoy being emasculated by black men.

I'm not giving you a pass on this. You don't get to co-opt an entire belief system out of political convenience, and quote frankly, !@#$ you for trying.

Help the women who keep the baby. Spay the ones who don't. women are not some sort of special flowers who need extra protections from their poor life choices. If abortion is wrong, it is wrong because you consider it to be murder. You don't grant women special protections when they seek out and follow through on murdering someone. My personal preference would be life in prison or the death penalty, but understanding that isn't reasonable given stiff opposition, I'd settle for removing their ability to have children to prevent them from murdering more in the future.

I'd give the doctors performing the murders the death penalty at the federal level. The death will be by vacuum and tongs. The women having the abortions will be spayed.

Leeches!

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/30/university-moves-fire-conservative-professor-political-views/

Yikes: "Now look at Stephanie Cegielski, formerly the communications director of the Make America Great Again Super PAC: He doesn’t want the White House. He just wants to be able to say that he could have run the White House. He’s achieved that already and then some. If there is any question, take it from someone who was recruited to help the candidate succeed, and initially very much wanted him to do so. The hard truth is: Trump only cares about Trump. And if you are one of the disaffected voters — one of the silent majority like me — who wanted a candidate who could be your voice, I want to speak directly to you as one of his biggest advocates and supporters. He is not that voice. He is not your voice. He is only Trump’s voice. Trump is about Trump. Not one of his many wives. Not one of his many “pieces of ass.” He is, at heart, a self-preservationist."

He's far too stupid and afraid to be embarrassed.

Elections have always been decided by who makes the better Brawndo commercial, in the best mediums during the point in history in which they were held. Not nearly as problematic as empowering the government to sensor political speech. The only solution to the problem which can preserve freedom is the formation of a meritocracy in which the franchise is restricted, and severely limiting what government is empowered to do

I don't find their lying to be all that problematic. What I find to be problematic are the uneducated electorate, most of whom have no stake in the size and scope of government.

Why shouldn't a candidate, or another party, be able to purchase a medium for speech and use that medium to outline why I should cast a vote for them, or against an opponent? That's the very nature of political speech.

Outlaw all political speech in the public arena? How does is benefit the electorate to keep them uninformed? I don't think I've ever heard of a worse idea.

It rose to the level of criminal behavior, and the police agree. That's why the system is in place. End of story. Go be an idiot elsewhere.

Grownups don't put their hands on other people to solve their problems. When they do, we have a system in place to punish them accordingly. The solution to not having that system used at taxpayer expense is to not put your hands on other people to solve your problems. The fault for this lies with the person who got physical with another person, not with the person who got manhandled. Further, the police agree with me. If they felt it was frivolous then no arrests would have been made.

Count yourself as fortunate. My state caps itemization at 5k.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/4465/cultural-appropriation-black-female-accosts-white-robert-kraychik

Money has always been in the political system It's a feature, not a flaw. The Founders had zero intentions of turning control over the county to the regular citizens. They took painstaking steps to make sure that didn't happen. The electoral college, the senate being elected indirectly by the political class, etc. Jefferson spoke at great length in favor of the natural merit based aristocracy. The entire reason that the Constitution replaced the Articles was because the Founders, who included the wealthiest land owners in the colonies, didn't want to personally be on the hook for America's war debt, which they were once the every day citizens wouldn't allow their states to pay the assumed debts under the Articles. The Constitution itself was written, and the original US government abandoned, without the permissions of the electorate. The American system was designed to protect the monied interests from democratic zeal as in France, just as much as it was designed to protect it from Monarchy.

Money absolutely is speech as long as different mediums for speech have different costs associated with them. One person's inability to afford a particular medium of speech does not somehow magically invalidate another individual's explicit right to use that medium himself. This is absolutely problematic, but it is far more problematic to have a system in which the government is empowered to restrict political speech, which is the most important type of free speech there is. The only way to prevent this sort of spending in politics is to limit the scope of government, such that there is no influence to purchase.