Iron Man Message Board >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Thu Nov 30, 2017
Posts: 6
In Reply To
The Mandarin

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,560
Subj: Re: Mandarin stories should begin with the premise that he's already won
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 at 07:51:57 pm EST (Viewed 190 times)
Reply Subj: Mandarin stories should begin with the premise that he's already won
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 at 05:08:21 pm EST (Viewed 206 times)

Previous Post

The Mandarin shouldn't need to conquer the world. The Mandarin won a long time ago. Thanks to things like Citizens United legalizing bribery, and gerrymandering allowing the control of state politics simply by corrupting the leadership of the one dominate party in each state, the Mandarin should have won via bribery and corruption a long time ago. The Mandarin should be the reason why laws with even 90% approval don't get passed when they conflict with the desires of rich corporations.

As such, trying to conquer the world outright should be portrayed as just a minor hobby of his. He already rules the world in every way that matters. Attempting to get that last little dollop of power via conquest is just for funsies.

Furthermore, since he's been at that hobby a long time, maybe it's time he got bored with it, and switched to hurting Stark in small, personal, disturbing ways. Creepy things, like stealing the ghostbuster gizmo Stark invented for the Nightstalkers, and modifying it to torture ghosts. And then digging up Howard Stark's bones, summoning his spirit, and torturing Howard Stark via technology stolen from Tony Stark.

I don't mean this in a bad way, but Citizens United isn't about legalized bribery. It is unfortunate that the propaganda about the case far exceeds it's reality.

Here is what the case is about:

In 2002, Congress passed and President Bush signed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (aka McCain-Feingold). One of the provisions prevented campaign electioneering (paying for ads, pamphlets, et cetera) by third parties 30 days before a federal primary and 60 days before a federal election.

In 2008, a private citizen's group called Citizen's United wanted to show a film called Hillary: The Movie, which was critical of Hillary Clinton. The Clinton campaign threatened to file a complaint with the FEC because the showings were within 30 days of several primaries. In response, Citizen's United filed a complaint to clarify their right.

The Supreme Court ruled that the BCRA violated the First Amendment as to the 30 and 60 day limitation.

Bear in mind that the ruling is important as to the First Amendment. In oral arguments, the government admitted that they could stop a book publisher from publishing a book critical of a candidate. Flyers from non-profit organizations would equally be illegal.

There have been several incorrect statements made about the case.

For example, the ruling that corporations are people. Citizens United did not make that decision. Corporate personhood has been accepted since 1818 and in 1886, the Supreme Court stated that a corporation has the same protections as a person.

Or the ruling that money is speech. Again, not decided in Citizens United. That was decided in 1976.

Thus, it was really about whether a citizens group could have their speech restricted and the Court ruled no.

Posted with Google Chrome 63.0.3239.84 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2018 by Alvaro Ortiz and Dave Galanter. Software Copyright © 2003-2018 Powermad Software