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

[Nostra]

Okay, okay, get back on topic.

Ok, what was the threat?

Be specific and quote Mitch.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Okay, okay, get back on topic.

We ARE on topic. And, as always, we don't take orders from hairless little girly-boys.

Check the thread title, Punkin. "There will be consequences." Maybe we're talking about longer-term consequences than Mitch was, but we ARE talking about the consequences.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Lmao Robespierre

Who's Robespierre, Pantyboy? Do you know?

 

[TemplarKormac]

No. It is not. The guarantee is that the government will not interfere with your speech.

Didn't we just get through explaining that government can regulate speech? Cecilie and I both explained it already.

Or do you just ignore posts you don't like?

 

[marvin martian]

Lmao Robespierre

Who's Robespierre, Pantyboy? Do you know?

He doesn't have a clue. And he'll fuck it up even after he googles it.

 

[AFrench2]

I wish I could instill a reign of terror upon y'all, trust me.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Private entities aren't regulating speech. They can't.

Then why do they have governing policies on their platforms dictating what is acceptable to post and what isn't? Why is Facebook banning Trump's very voice from its platform?

It is because they are regulating speech, something the law never intended them to do.

They are regulating their platforms. You are free to speak elsewhere.

Sure you said the same thing about the gay couple in the cake shop.

Take the hypocrisy elsewhere.

What was your view on that issue?

The same as his is regarding a private entity's right to control their platform. But I sincerely doubt this guy believes in a cake artist's right to control his art.

But that's just me.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I wish I could instill a reign of terror upon y'all, trust me.

(smiles an evil smile)

You wish you could do what now? Nobody's scared of you.

 

[AFrench2]

I wish I could instill a reign of terror upon y'all, trust me.

(smiles an evil smile)

You wish you could do what now? Nobody is scared of you.

Stfu, Samusboy.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I wish I could instill a reign of terror upon y'all, trust me.

(smiles an evil smile)

You wish you could do what now? Nobody is scared of you.

Stfu, Samusboy.

You're gonna have to do better than that.

 

[marvin martian]

I wish I could instill a reign of terror upon y'all, trust me.

I knew you'd fuck it up even after you googled it.

 

[dblack]

Didn't we just get through explaining that government can regulate speech? Cecilie and I both explained it already.

No you didn't. She tried to, and failed. All she did was point out that there are limitations on free speech, an obvious fact. That's the case with all rights. The government is prohibited from regulating speech by the First Amendment. But that doesn't mean it can't pass and enforce laws that prohibit using free speech to harm others (slander, shouting fire in a crowded theater, etc...).

It's the same with religious freedom, or the right to bear arms. The Constitution prohibits government from infringing on either, but that doesn't mean you can practice human sacrifice in the name of religious freedom, or rob a bank with a gun. The government can always act, in fact, is obligated to, when someone is violating the rights of others.

 

[Nostra]

Okay, okay, get back on topic.

Ok, what was the threat?

Be specific and quote Mitch.

Shortpants admits his thread is bullshit.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Didn't we just get through explaining that government can regulate speech? Cecilie and I both explained it already.

No you didn't. She tried to, and failed. All she did was point out that there are limitations on free speech, an obvious fact. That's the case with all rights. The government is prohibited from regulating speech by the First Amendment. But that doesn't mean it can't pass laws prohibiting using free speech to harm others (slander, shouting fire in a crowded theater, etc...).

It's the same with religious freedom, or the right to bear arms. The Constitution prohibits government from infringing on either, but that doesn't mean you can practice human sacrifice in the name of religious freedom, or rob a bank with a gun. The government can always act, in fact, is obligated to, when someone is violating the rights of others.

Oh, I am pretty sure we succeeded.

Slander and libel law is just one example of government regulating speech. Copyright law is another. Getting a permit to peacefully protest in any major metropolitan area in the US is another.

And those "limitations" you speak of, are what lets the government control speech the way it does.

 

[dblack]

Didn't we just get through explaining that government can regulate speech? Cecilie and I both explained it already.

No you didn't. She tried to, and failed. All she did was point out that there are limitations on free speech, an obvious fact. That's the case with all rights. The government is prohibited from regulating speech by the First Amendment. But that doesn't mean it can't pass laws prohibiting using free speech to harm others (slander, shouting fire in a crowded theater, etc...).

It's the same with religious freedom, or the right to bear arms. The Constitution prohibits government from infringing on either, but that doesn't mean you can practice human sacrifice in the name of religious freedom, or rob a bank with a gun. The government can always act, in fact, is obligated to, when someone is violating the rights of others.

Oh, I am pretty sure we succeeded.

I'm pretty sure you don't actually understand the issue.

Slander and libel law is just one example of government regulating speech.

Slander and libel are not examples of government "regulating" speech. They're examples of government prohibiting harming others. Just like laws against using a gun to rob someone aren't regulating gun ownership. They're laws against using a gun to rob people. I'm sorry you don't understand that distinction.

 

[Coyote]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell lashed out at corporate America on Monday, warning CEOs to stay out of the debate over a new voting law in Georgia that has been criticized as restricting votes among minorities and the poor.

"Corporations will invite serious consequences if they become a vehicle for far-left mobs to hijack our country from outside the constitutional order," McConnell told a news conference in his home state of Kentucky.

Big business ties with Republicans began fraying under former President Donald Trump's leadership and the party's focus on voting restrictions has soured businesses embracing diversity as key to their work force and customer base. Major Georgia employers Coca-Cola and Delta Air Lines have spoken out against the law signed by Governor Brian Kemp, and Major League Baseball pulled the 2021 All-Star Game out of the state over the law strengthening identification requirements for absentee ballots and making it a crime to offer food or water to voters waiting in line.

'Stay out of politics,' Republican leader McConnell tells U.S. CEOs, warns of 'consequences'

U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell lashed out at corporate America on Monday, warning CEOs to stay out of the debate over a new voting law in Georgia that has been criticized as restricting votes among minorities and the poor. McConnell warned companies there could be risks for...

www.yahoo.com

Uh oh, Mitch is talking tough again. Watch out Coke.

So let me get this straight.

Corporations are taking away our first amendment rights by censoring Conservatives on social media, and that is Ok.

But a Republican tells corporations they need to straighten up and he becomes the threatening fascist insurgent?

LOL.

Corporate America have gone to war with the GOP, and with over 70 million Americans.

God forbid they get angry about it.

How does it feel to lick the arse of the top 1% as a Lefty?

...
Look's like another rightist no longer believes in private property rights...unless it's censoring leftwing protestors on private property...hmmmm

Looks like another leftist who's never given a damn about private property rights OR about corporations . . . unless it's trying to cynically use them as a talking point to cover up for heinous leftism. Hmmmm.

Looks like private property rights only matter when they fall on the right side of the partisan wall.

 

[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

That does not allow Secretaries of State to arbitrarily change the voting regulations such as happened in numerous states that extended the deadlines for mail in ballots and nixed the post mark and signature verification requirements.

In closing, your article states:

As this summary shows, congressional elections are conducted under a complicated mix of state and federal laws, reflecting the Elections Clause’s division of authority between state legislatures and Congress.

I think it depends on the state law and how the states court interprets their law.

None of those changes to procedures or clarifications changed any law as alleged, nor did they led to any fraud.

It's not a bad source for information.

 

[colfax_m]

Sure you said the same thing about the gay couple in the cake shop.

Take the hypocrisy elsewhere.

The gay couple in a cake shop is buying a cake, not forcing someone to propagate speech they disagree with.

 

[Nostra]

Sure you said the same thing about the gay couple in the cake shop.

Take the hypocrisy elsewhere.

The gay couple in a cake shop is buying a cake, not forcing someone to propagate speech they disagree with.

The courts disagree with you.

 

[dblack]

Sure you said the same thing about the gay couple in the cake shop.

Take the hypocrisy elsewhere.

The gay couple in a cake shop is buying a cake, not forcing someone to propagate speech they disagree with.

"It's different when we do it!"