Slashdot Mirror
Colbert's Run For President May Be Criminal
eldavojohn writes "Some of you may know about Steven Colbert's fake presidential campaign... although are you sure it's fake? Well, it had better be because if it is taken too far — such as if he actually gets on the Republican and/or Democratic ballot in South Carolina — his use of corporations & advertising to back his campaign could get the attention of the Federal Election Commission. Doritos & Comedy Central could be facing some problems as well, funding a man running for president." A million Facebook users have signed up for the "1,000,000 Strong for Stephen T Colbert" group in the last week — though the group could be read as a satire of Barack Obama's similarly-named group, which has fewer than 400,000 members after 9 months.
He's being sponsored to cover the election. He's not a candidate promoting a product, just a man who really enjoys Doritos in his spare time.
He pretty much said so on the show. He joked that Doritos couldn't fund the campaign directly, so he would have to find some other excuse to accept their money. He has said in an interview (off his show) that he doesn't want to be President, he just wants to run for it. He is a smart guy, and he is backed by smart lawyers. I'm sure he'll stop before he crosses the line from legal to illegal.
Insert self-referential sig here.
We are lucky we live in the United States of America. We have a Constitution that guarantees that congress can make no law "abridging the freedom of speech". Errr....wait.....ummmmm. Well, I mean... except POLITICAL speech. I'm sure when they wrote the 1st amendment they didn't really mean political speech. I wonder why the supreme court just ignores this ?
I honestly hope Colbert wins in SC. The only better guy for president would be Jon Stewart!. Either of them would spank those Dem/Rep around in a debate until they cried.
Politics in the US is outright pathetic. That may sound crass - but really, where is the candidate that doesn't have a stick up his ass and his hand in the cookie jar.
Pete/Petri "damn, my chainsaw is clogged with 1's and 0's again." --clyde
right now it is all "speculation" about his rather obvious "sponsorship" by DORITOS.
But what if they are not actually doing anything except "playing along" and agreeing to let him "pretend" to have a corporate sponsor?
And if they are indeed paying "something", what if they are paying it to THE COLBERT REPORT?
Why can't the media be this interested in real shenanigans going on in politics?
is it because "real" politics does not have TASTY DORITOS? They are delicious.
I like microcars
The crazy thing is, I'd actually vote for Colbert, no qualms at all.. and I'm fairly serious about politics. (Watch his speech at the Bush dinner if you at all doubt his intelligence and capability). Even if some of the 'real' candidates look alright (Barack, say).. The last eight years have left me so disillusioned with politicians that I don't really trust any of them. Although I personally didn't support Bush in the least back in '00.. I could have in no way predicted that he'd be the power-hungry, numbskull, overarching leader he turned out to be. Sure his past was spotty (drugs, alcohol, some dumb decisions).. but not a whole lot worse than, say, your average college kid.
I'm reminded of a quote (can't find exact quote atm..) Anyone capable of being elected president doesn't deserve the title. Such is the state of money-dominated politics. I'd actually we randomly select a 'president' from a hat of all eligible citizens every six months or so — give 'em a short reign so they can't screw it up too badly.
Interestingly, I know some very bright guys doing research into randomized elections — basically you randomize the outcome somewhat to bypass the restrictions of Arrow's impossiblity theorem.
http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." - Douglas Adams.
No sig today...
"Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber." - Plato
Not that I'd endorse what the GP said, but how is this all that different from what we have now?
The Farewell Tour II
He said "comedian," not "joke."
Even if Enron didn't offer a pension, they did cheat their employees out of their retirement. I say this because the big wigs at Enron knew about their impending collapse, and did not warn the employees.
Wait, Enron screwed over its employees because it didn't assist them them in illegal insider trading by dumping their stock onto some sucker before the financial weakness was public information?
No, Enron's employees fared much better than if their employer had offered a conventional pension. For one thing, if they chose to divert their 401(k) funds to any investment other than Enron stock (i.e. followed rudimentary diversification advice), they would have kept everthing short the company match (i.e. most of it). In a convetional pension, they either would have gotten nothing, or what the PBGC chose to award them from *other* workers' premiums.
The point is not that Enron's management was blameless, but that raiding a pension fund (i.e. withdrawing dedicated investment funds) is one crime they did not commit. And while I do feel for the the employees, we need to quit pretending they were passive bystanders in all of this. They thought they could make fast money and so ignored the boring diversification advice. Claiming that executives should say their own stock is overvalued, even if true, is unrealistic.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Here's my rebuttal: George W. Bush. Having a rich and powerful family is the only reason he is where is.
Campaign finance reform is a barrier to entry to keep the parties in control of government.
I'm sure striking down laws allowing rich people to automatically win the election is for the good of the nation,
..." groups. If campaign reforms worked at all the way they were intended, why have the candidates become ever less trustworthy and inspiring?
Actually the laws have the inverse effect. Instead of a potentially good leader being backed by (and owe favors to...) one or two super rich people, we have been left with poor leaders who are excellent fund raisers and who owe favors to many many people.
One of the most appealing things about politicians like Bloomberg or Perot is their freedom to do the job without oweing any special favors. The same or better could be said about a candidate that was sponsored solely by a Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. Everyone would know that the was a connection between the two and special favors would be glaring obvious and embarrassing.
The way campaign funding works now, I have almost no idea who the candidates really owe. Sure I could track down the long lists of info if I so desired, but it's a very long list for each and every candidate. I also have very how to direct my daily purchasing in regards to political spending, ie. If I buy a pint of Ben and Jerry's is the profit fro that going to go into a Democratic election coffer? What about Snapple, I heard somewhere that they donate Republican. Regardless the politicians owe more favors because the must collect from more sources.
The rich people still give lots of money, and still have disproportionate political influence, but now it is filtered through a dozen different "Friends of..." and "Citizens for
We are all just people.
So? It still worked better than what they have now.
So? It still worked better than what they have now.
Who said that? Post a link.
If you cannot, then you're beating a strawman. Which means you've already lost the discussion.
So? Saddam couldn't even travel his own country without a body-double. He was constantly in danger of assassination.
So why are you defending the plight of the average Iraqi now
Saddam was executed. He's dead. Isn't it time you moved on instead of trying to blame him for the anarchy and warlordism that is Iraq today?
He's dead. He was executed. Yet the situation did not improve. Are you going to keep blaming Saddam for the current situation?
Then we should just wait until the "their younger populat" becomes the government in 20 or so years.
They can ship all they want. Without Iraqi support, it would go no where.
The problem you don't want to face is that the Iraqi people do not seem to want our troops there. They're happy to attack them.
Again with the strawman. Is that all you have?
No matter how bad Iraq was, our invasion fucked it up even worse.
No matter how much the Iraqis hated Saddam and/or Iran, they prefer them to us.
No matter how much we spend (lives and money) in Iraq, when we leave it will be a civil war.
No matter how we re-define "victory", Iraq will end up with a Sharia-based legal system and strong ties to Iran.
You can blame anyone you want to. But all you're doing is trying to hide from the fact that you supported a fucked up invasion and the result is a lot more death and misery than Saddam inflicted. Yes, it is possible to say Saddam was a vicious 3rd world tin-pot dictator
I'm kinda with the parent on this one. I have zero respect for GWB but being rich and/or powerful does not automatically make one evil. Is Warren Buffett evil?
I'll grant you that GWB wouldn't have made it past college without his family connections. To me that's somewhat anti-American. Americans aren't supposed to condone or support the concept of a permanent nobility. We fought a revolution to free ourselves from it. That's one of the reasons why I'm always amused when people whine about the estate tax.
People like Paris Hilton are rightfully despised because they've never accomplished anything on their own and the only reason they are famous is because of their parents. I doubt I'll ever be rich but should I happen to make the right choices in life and wind up rich and/or powerful I won't be leaving millions of dollars to my kids. They should find success on their own.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
This is a self-enforcing prophecy. You claim that we need to help with the instability by leaving troops there, which further increases the instability... We could be there 50 years, and that will not change.
Courage would involve doing something different, not following the same old methodology that has been proven a failure.