Mitch McConnel Bravely Tells The Corporate Elite To Stay Out Of Politics

[bendog]

The implication is that government will punish them. And for what? Speaking their minds? Refusing to do business in a state they think is going off the rails? Pissing of Trumpster twats?

You do get the circularity of your argument, right?

Nope. It's not circular. It's not even an argument. I'm asking why McConnel is threatening these companies. It's straight up statist bullying. The bread and butter of authoritarian leftists.

Threatening is the OP and your wording. McConnell warned of consequences which could be something as simple as myself not buying MLB,tv this year and the millions like me. Many people believe that products and sports in particular are not appropriate venues for virtue signaling. You've got tunnel vision boy.

Alright. If you want to pretend he wasn't threatening retribution form government, fine. Hopefully he'll walk it back as well. But I think the message was clear.

Our Open Letter To Facebook - Joe Biden for President: Official Campaign Website

Dear Mark Zuckerberg, Over the past year, the Biden for President campaign has called on Facebook to meet the commitment the company made after 2016 — to use its platform to improve American democracy rather than as a tool to spread disinformation that undermines our elections. The campaign has...

joebiden.com

What should the republicans response be though?

The democrats have been threatening the tech companies for months now. So have the republicans so this is not new. Did you listen to the senate hearing with the tech giants? Considering the current push, stay out of this is likely the most hands off message they can send.

I have a problem with how this is flushing out. On the one hand you have the fact that companies and people are allowed to do with their property as they will. However, you now have a group of tech companies that holds MORE power over the dissemination of speech than the government does. Hell, Amazon is actively participating in book burning. The store front for Amazon, Facebook's website and the rest of these companies public faces are just a blip. Amazon damn near controls the internet. When they decided that Parlor needed to go that was that. The entire company would have simply vanished if not for the backlash. What do you do when corporate interests gain power that is equal to that of the government?

Well.


A number of commentators reacted to the Republican leader's remarks by reminding him of his support for the Citizens United ruling that permitted corporations, unions and other outside groups to spend unlimited sums on elections.

"Mitch McConnell knows corporations are not people—that's why he's so quick to silence them," the End Citizens United campaign tweeted Sunday. "He only considers them 'people' when cashing their checks and watching their dark money ads in support of his campaign of voter suppression and gridlock."

Mitch McConnell Reminded of Citizens United Backing After Warning to CEOs (newsweek.com)

There was a time, not so long ago, that some republicans supported limited the role of corporations in politics. And to be clearer, it's not so much corporations as concentrated wealth having a "bigger" voice that avg citizens. And before the Trumpistas lead us down the road of "fake news," there's really no change since Horace Greeley and Hearst. The media reports what people want to know because the media is in the biz of selling subscriptions and ads.

 

[asaratis]

Yet for some reason the Governors of the States have to sign a bill and can veto the Legislatures election Bills. Do you ever wonder why that is, or think perhaps the Legislature don't have the authority you think they have?

Read the Constitution.

We've already had lengthy discussions on this topic. Read them, too.

I don't have the time or the inclination to tutor you.

You obviously don't know what you think you know. The term "Legislature" in the election clause has been broadly interpreted as being the law making apparatus of the States.

Duh!

The legislature of a state does not include the Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Treasurer, or any other officer of the state. It includes only elected Representatives and Senators whose duties are to propose and either reject or pass bills to be sent to the Governor for signing into law.

That procedure is exactly what happened regarding the recent Georgia election reform law.

Can you provide a link to your apparent claim that the term legislature includes anything other than the two Houses of Congress that exist in the states?

 

[BlindBoo]

Yet for some reason the Governors of the States have to sign a bill and can veto the Legislatures election Bills. Do you ever wonder why that is, or think perhaps the Legislature don't have the authority you think they have?

Read the Constitution.

We've already had lengthy discussions on this topic. Read them, too.

I don't have the time or the inclination to tutor you.

You obviously don't know what you think you know. The term "Legislature" in the election clause has been broadly interpreted as being the law making apparatus of the States.

Duh!

The legislature of a state does not include the Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Treasurer, or any other officer of the state. It includes only elected Representatives and Senators whose duties are to propose and either reject or pass bills to be sent to the Governor for signing into law.

That procedure is exactly what happened regarding the recent Georgia election reform law.

Can you provide a link to your apparent claim that the term legislature includes anything other than the two Houses of Congress that exist in the states?

Sure,

"One unusual feature of the Elections Clause is that it does not confer the power to regulate congressional elections on states as a whole, but rather the “Legislature” of each state. The Supreme Court has construed the term “Legislature” extremely broadly to include any entity or procedure that a state’s constitution permits to exercise lawmaking power. Thus, laws regulating congressional elections may be enacted not only by a state’s actual legislature, but also directly by a state’s voters through the initiative process or public referendum, in states that allow such procedures."

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's not illegal to incite violence. Donald Trump did it for 4 years with no problemo.

It IS illegal to incite violence, which is one way anyone with a brain - so apparently not you - knows that Donald Trump did no such thing.

If all you're going to do is parrot talking points at us, don't bother. We're already well over quota on mindless recordings masquerading as people, and most of them are far more experienced at it than your ignorant adolescent self.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Corporations are taking away our first amendment rights by censoring Conservatives on social media

False. First, that's not happening. Second, you have no first amendment right to post on social media.

Basically your entire post is hot garbage.

 

[BlindBoo]

I'm beginning to agree with the Turtle man. Keep Big Corporations and big money out of politics. Limit corporate donations and special interest lobbying on the corporations behalf.

 

[dblack]

The implication is that government will punish them. And for what? Speaking their minds? Refusing to do business in a state they think is going off the rails? Pissing of Trumpster twats?

You do get the circularity of your argument, right?

Nope. It's not circular. It's not even an argument. I'm asking why McConnel is threatening these companies. It's straight up statist bullying. The bread and butter of authoritarian leftists.

Threatening is the OP and your wording. McConnell warned of consequences which could be something as simple as myself not buying MLB,tv this year and the millions like me. Many people believe that products and sports in particular are not appropriate venues for virtue signaling. You've got tunnel vision boy.

Alright. If you want to pretend he wasn't threatening retribution form government, fine. Hopefully he'll walk it back as well. But I think the message was clear.

Our Open Letter To Facebook - Joe Biden for President: Official Campaign Website

Dear Mark Zuckerberg, Over the past year, the Biden for President campaign has called on Facebook to meet the commitment the company made after 2016 — to use its platform to improve American democracy rather than as a tool to spread disinformation that undermines our elections. The campaign has...

joebiden.com

What should the repuiblicans response be though?

They should condemn Democrats for trying to pressure Facebook into doing their bidding, for the implied threat that their "open letter" clearly contains. Joining them in their attempts to bully the media merely legitimizes what Democrats are doing.

The democrats have been threatening the tech companies for months now. So have the republicans so this is not new. Did you listen to the senate hearing with the tech giants? Considering the current push, stay out of this is likely the most hands off message they can send.

However, you now have a group of tech companies that holds MORE power over the dissemination of speech than the government does.

That's as it should be, and how it's pretty much always been. Government should have zero power over the dissemination of speech. That's the point of the First Amendment.

Amazon damn near controls the internet.

Damn near? Whatever control Amazon has over the internet, we give them. It's entirely voluntary and we can revoke it at any time. If we give that power to government instead, revoking it will be considerably more difficult.

When they decided that Parlor needed to go that was that. The entire company would have simply vanished if not for the backlash.

Exactly. The backlash prevented it.

What do you do when corporate interests gain power that is equal to that of the government?

As I've mentioned elsewhere, in a free country, private wealth (including corporate interests), has more power to shape society than the government does. That's as it should be.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Mitch loves regulating businesses. When it suits him, politically. Otherwise, that's communism. Who takes this jackass seriously anymore?

 

[dblack]

Mitch loves regulating businesses. When it suits him, politically. Otherwise, that's communism. Who takes this jackass seriously anymore?

The same idiots who take the Democrats seriously when they do the same thing.

 

[bendog]

I'm beginning to agree with the Turtle man. Keep Big Corporations and big money out of politics. Limit corporate donations and special interest lobbying on the corporations behalf.

But Turtle Man thrives on corp money in elections.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The democrats have been threatening the tech companies for months now.

weird! Because i am pretty sure it was Clarence Thomas threatening them yesterday.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The same idiots who take the Democrats seriously when they do the same thing.

That doesn't make any sense. Knee-jerk, amoeba-like response to stimulus.

 

[dblack]

The democrats have been threatening the tech companies for months now.

weird! Because i am pretty sure it was Clarence Thomas threatening them yesterday.

That was FA's quote, not mine. But it's pretty obvious both parties are playing this corrupt game.

 

[bendog]

The implication is that government will punish them. And for what? Speaking their minds? Refusing to do business in a state they think is going off the rails? Pissing of Trumpster twats?

You do get the circularity of your argument, right?

Nope. It's not circular. It's not even an argument. I'm asking why McConnel is threatening these companies. It's straight up statist bullying. The bread and butter of authoritarian leftists.

Threatening is the OP and your wording. McConnell warned of consequences which could be something as simple as myself not buying MLB,tv this year and the millions like me. Many people believe that products and sports in particular are not appropriate venues for virtue signaling. You've got tunnel vision boy.

Alright. If you want to pretend he wasn't threatening retribution form government, fine. Hopefully he'll walk it back as well. But I think the message was clear.

Our Open Letter To Facebook - Joe Biden for President: Official Campaign Website

Dear Mark Zuckerberg, Over the past year, the Biden for President campaign has called on Facebook to meet the commitment the company made after 2016 — to use its platform to improve American democracy rather than as a tool to spread disinformation that undermines our elections. The campaign has...

joebiden.com

What should the repuiblicans response be though?

They should condemn Democrats for trying to pressure Facebook into doing their bidding, for the implied threat that their "open letter" clearly contains. Joining them in their attempts to bully the media merely legitimizes what Democrats are doing.

The democrats have been threatening the tech companies for months now. So have the republicans so this is not new. Did you listen to the senate hearing with the tech giants? Considering the current push, stay out of this is likely the most hands off message they can send.

However, you now have a group of tech companies that holds MORE power over the dissemination of speech than the government does.

That's as it should be, and how it's pretty much always been. Government should have zero power over the dissemination of speech. That's the point of the First Amendment.

Amazon damn near controls the internet.

Damn near? Whatever control Amazon has over the internet, we give them. It's entirely voluntary and we can revoke it at any time. If we give that power to government instead, revoking it will be considerably more difficult.

When they decided that Parlor needed to go that was that. The entire company would have simply vanished if not for the backlash.

Exactly. The backlash prevented it.

What do you do when corporate interests gain power that is equal to that of the government?

As I've mentioned elsewhere, in a free country, private wealth (including corporate interests), has more power to shape society than the government does. That's as it should be.

But voters literally have a right to control the concentration of wealth. And until Citizens United, voters had a right to control how much money one entitiy or person could contribute to a particular candidate or party.

 

[dblack]

The same idiots who take the Democrats seriously when they do the same thing.

That doesn't make any sense. Knee-jerk, amoeba-like response to stimulus.

GIve it some more thought. Hypocrisy isn't always easy to see when you're mired in it.

 

[dblack]

As I've mentioned elsewhere, in a free country, private wealth (including corporate interests), has more power to shape society than the government does. That's as it should be.

But voters literally have a right to control the concentration of wealth.

"Voters" implies legislation - I assume you're suggesting some legal action to redistribute wealth. That isn't needed, nor should it be allowed. In a free market, consumers control the concentration of wealth, and they can divert it whenever they like.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The same idiots who take the Democrats seriously when they do the same thing.

That doesn't make any sense. Knee-jerk, amoeba-like response to stimulus.

GIve it some more thought. Hypocrisy isn't always easy to see when you're mired in it.

You're the expert. But your own observation of yourself shows why you are not to be taken seriously.

 

[dblack]

The same idiots who take the Democrats seriously when they do the same thing.

That doesn't make any sense. Knee-jerk, amoeba-like response to stimulus.

GIve it some more thought. Hypocrisy isn't always easy to see when you're mired in it.

You're the expert. But your own observation of yourself shows why you are not to be taken seriously.

Then quit trolling me, jackass.

 

[bendog]

As I've mentioned elsewhere, in a free country, private wealth (including corporate interests), has more power to shape society than the government does. That's as it should be.

But voters literally have a right to control the concentration of wealth.

"Voters" implies legislation - I assume you're suggesting some legal action to redistribute wealth. That isn't needed, nor should it be allowed. In a free market, consumers control the concentration of wealth, and they can divert it whenever they like.

The progressive income tax is const. As is the estate tax. But the Gop may elect a Court to change that too.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They are not assuming the regulatory powers of government. The government has no power to regulate speech.

Yes it does. A simple gander at tort law will tell you that. If I can sue you for slander or libel, that means the government has the power to determine whether the speech involved was or wasn't. Essentially, regulating free speech.

Any freedom is limited when it causes harm to others. But the First still stands:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And my point stands. Government doesn't have the power to prohibit or abridge free speech. Private citizens, institutions and businesses, however, have the right to do so all they wish.

Selective quoting is not a viable argument. Maybe Cecilie1200 can explain it better than I can.

Ugh. That would require me to take his dumb ass off ignore. The things I subject myself to for my friends.

Government has the responsibility, and thus the power, to set and enforce boundaries between your rights and my rights. No one anywhere in this country has unfettered, unlimited rights to anything, because that would require that no one ELSE had any rights at all. Government is the apparatus by which we say, "Your rights stop where they infringe upon my rights".

You're trying to tell us that the government can't in any way regulate the First Amendment, that free speech is completely unlimited and unfettered. Templar has pointed out, quite accurately, that free speech IS regulated by the government to the extent that you can't use it to infringe on the rights of others. You are free to express personal opinions about me all day, but the government has set a line at which saying things about me become either slander or libel; once your speech about me crosses that line, you can and will be punished, because you have violated MY rights.