Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Joe Fan, Dec 18, 2020.
Biden is sooooo misleading.
Rut Roh Raggy....back to the drawing board.
Back to the subject of the post:
If these companies hold their current commitment with regards to political funding it's going to get tough for the Pro-Trump crowd.
Companies announcing halts or restrictions to political funding.
Man, wouldn’t it be great if they all got completely out of politics? But that isn’t going to happen.
I'd love all corporate money to be out of politics. Citizen's United is the worst SCOTUS decision ever, IMHO.
SH, once again shows his distaste for free and open political speech.
Tell Dion on me. I said something else you don't agree with.
Yeah, not agreeing that corporations are people means I'm anti-free speech. /s
Are you always the victim? I've never reported anyone but was pleading to your more rational side. Lately I'm detecting that's gone, strongly suspecting that Musberger has somehow acquired your credentials.
That actually wasn't the point of the whole case. It was about a PAC being able to make a political video or not. The SC ruled PAC's could make them and be protected by the 1st ammendment. In order to protect the rights of the individuals who were in the PAC, the court protected the speech that came out of their organization. Again. You want to violate the rights of people to speak. Par for you.
You warned me by saying you were going to tell on me. I said, "do it!". Then you whined so more. I'm the victim?
It’s going to get rough for them too. Why these companies want to ostracize customers is amazing. I’ve let a few know I’m boycotting them already.
Personally I would love for corporations to be eliminated from all contributions but ain’t gonna happen. I wonder if that’s why congressmen go out richer than coming in, gee could there be any connection?
You'd have to be Ted Kacszynski to boycott all of those companies.
I'm not a fan of its rationale and don't think it was correctly decided, but its far less consequential than it's made out to be. Business interests found ways to bankroll politicians long before Citizens United, and they'd be able to do it just as much if it went away. They'd just use more complicated methods to bankroll them that are harder for ordinary citizens to track.
No doubt. In some industries I have no choice. But I will actively avoid these companies. I’m at the highest tier level possible with Marriott. I’m not staying at one of their properties in the near future. It might not make a difference, but if enough people do the same it will. I also let them know every chance I get.
No longer at the higher tier but definitely not looking for Marriott properties first, although since not traveling as much not a big deal. Heck me alone is not a big deal anyway to be honest about it.
Citizens United wasn't about business interests it was about citizens pooling their resources to create political speech.
We all need something to whine about.
We are all such VICTIMS!!!!
Are you whining about whiners?
I know what it was about. It wasn't just about business interests, but it's false to say it wasn't at all about them. Also, citizens could pool their resources to create political speech before Citizens United and would still be able to if it had gone the other way.
Ultimately, campaign finance reform is a ******** issue. It comes up every now and then, and Congress passes some piece of crap legislation and pats itself on the back for weakening the power of "special interests." All that really happens is that Congress makes the money harder to track and easier to conceal the source. It is the opposite of what they claim it to be.
What business interests? Isn't it more correct to say this was about Hillary not wanting a video about her to come out?
Maybe in the ruling other things came out of it, but doesn't sound like the central issue of the suit.
The underlying facts involved a video about Hillary, but saying the case was about that video is like saying Roe v. Wade was only about Norma McCorvey's ability to get an abortion.
I didn't say business interests were the central issue in the case. It was broader than that, but it certainly impacted them - just not as much as SH suggests.
Not sure how your 2 paragraphs are related. I think there is a simple answer to your first paragraph. Second paragraph sounds like a different issue.
I was responding to the two paragraphs you wrote.
I hope this guy is wrong
But he probably isn't
The bigger problem is corruption, cheating, lying, rejecting rule of law, rejecting the Constitution, creating a version of economics to promote unlimited money printing.
Democracy isn't great but it can work okay if your culture is strong and good. Our culture has been sick for a long time.
Just thought about actually the most important thing. Natural law and how it translates into natural rights. Any government that formulates natural law adequately and enforces natural rights is doing an okay job.
The US government and its States aren't preserving and protecting rights. Another way to put it is protecting freedoms.
2024 already? Kill me now.
DeSantis assuming he doesn’t have skeletons or dead women in the closet is going to be the nominee. Cotton is the other possibility.