Darth Wong wrote:CaptainChewbacca wrote:I reeeeeeeally hope that whoever wins this election does it with a clear majority and a mandate. Maybe it'll help heal some of the fractures in our society.
Bill Clinton rolled into office with a clear mandate, didn't he? That didn't stop his detractors, whose hatred of him was unceasing.
At some point, we have to recognize the fact that not every story has two equal sides. Not every argument has two equal opponents. Not every dispute has two equal grievances. At some point we have to recognize that the American right-wing is simply better at holding onto their hatred than the left-wing. I'm sick of hearing people say that both sides do the same thing; almost every time I hear of some absolutely shocking abuse of power or exercise in inexcusable political dishonesty or slander, it's coming from the right-wing. The one thing that both sides do about equally is to take corporate money, but when it comes to dishonest electioneering and sowing disunity in the nation's populace, the right-wing has the left-wing completely beat.
I don't know if they take corporate money equally. Republicans have always been popular with rich people and big business.
To answer your reply to my earlier post: Yeah, we are pretty much used to this kind of crap. I don't
like this sort of manipulation, but I don't know exactly what should be a crime. Most of the statements listed - like "Hillary is unelectable", "Edwards's plan for troop withdrawal is dangerous" and "Kansas is playing in the Orange Bowl Thursday night" - are not technically false and therefore not slanderous. The other statement, "Obama's health care plan leaves millions uninsured," might not be true (I've never read the plan), but even if it's false, a slanderous statement is supposed to be about a
person, and that's not directly about Obama, so I don't know if it qualifies as slanderous.
To cover the sorts of abuses listed in the article, we need new laws and regulation, and I'm not sure where to start. If it's just "attempt to decrease voter turnout from a certain group of people" then we've got to prove intent on the part of the campaign workers, which is going to be really hard. To you and me, calling a young man to "remind him about the Orange Bowl" is a transparent attempt to decrease this young man's chances of voting, but proving that is another thing entirely.
One of the most egregious examples of this sort of voter manipulation that I've heard of (at least in the United States) is this: RI tells me that in predominantly black areas of New Jersey, signs were posted during the 2004 general election saying that you could be arrested if you failed to produce proper identification at the polls, which is obviously false, and therefore hopefully easier to prosecute someone for.
