Trump's Appointments

[Elixir]

Disagree. Citizens United is simply a recognition of free speech.

WUT??

• The decision allowed corporations, unions, and non-profit organizations to spend unlimited amounts on independent political expenditures, such as advertisements and media campaigns (assuming these expenditures were not directly coordinated with a candidate's campaign, which is impossible to enforce)
• The ruling indirectly led to the creation of super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, unions, and non-profits, foreign Countries including our adversaries, and jackass billionaires like the Muskrat.
• The Court held that limiting political spending by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech.
  This interpretation expanded the definition of free speech to include corporate and union political expenditures and opened the door to unlimited "dark money".
• The decision led to a significant increase in political spending and allowed "dark money" (funds from undisclosed sources) to influence elections.

The ruling led to the repeal or striking down of lots of state laws that banned or limited corporate and union contributions. All these openings allowed unmeasured amounts of Rubles, Yuan and guys like Musk, to buy elections. Calling it "simply a recognition of free speech" reflects an utter lack of understanding of its consequences.

This is something that has to be addressed by a constitutional amendment, not a court ruling.

Like Roe V Wade?

 

[TomC]

Disagree. Citizens United is simply a recognition of free speech.

WUT??

• The decision allowed corporations, unions, and non-profit organizations to spend unlimited amounts on independent political expenditures, such as advertisements and media campaigns (assuming these expenditures were not directly coordinated with a candidate's campaign, which is impossible to enforce)
• The ruling indirectly led to the creation of super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, unions, and non-profits, foreign Countries including our adversaries, and jackass billionaires like the Muskrat.
• The Court held that limiting political spending by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech.
  This interpretation expanded the definition of free speech to include corporate and union political expenditures and opened the door to unlimited "dark money".
• The decision led to a significant increase in political spending and allowed "dark money" (funds from undisclosed sources) to influence elections.

The ruling led to the repeal or striking down of lots of state laws that banned or limited corporate and union contributions. All these openings allowed unmeasured amounts of Rubles, Yuan and guys like Musk, to buy elections. Calling it "simply a recognition of free speech" reflects an utter lack of understanding of its consequences.

This is something that has to be addressed by a constitutional amendment, not a court ruling.

Like Roe V Wade?

"All animals are equal,
but some are more equal than others."

~George Orwell

Tom

 

[Elixir]

"All animals are equal,
but some are more equal than others."

~George Orwell

Right? All animals have free speech but some have way more of it than others.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Dan Bogino in as second in command at the FBI. He was a cop and Secret Service agent. An avid Trump supporter with a Podcast too.

Lt Gen. Caine as head of Joint Chiefs... a position he legally isn't qualified for... but Congress can provide the mulligan. Trump hired gruff Generals last time, and even they didn't work out with Trump. So Trump is picking a guy who allegedly really likes Trump. It sounds like he was one of the pilots Cheney panic launched into the air to shootdown airliners (that had already crashed into the WTC Towers).

According to the NY Times article, people familiar with the person are a bit confused.

Friends and former colleagues say that General Caine, an intensely focused but low-key, self-effacing officer despite his nickname, has been uncomfortable with Mr. Trump’s characterization of his role in defeating the Islamic State. Friends who have known him for decades say they have no idea what his political affiliation is, explaining that the general does not talk about politics. General Caine did not respond to emails requesting comment on Sunday.

It'd quite be something if this guy wasn't even who Trump thought he was.

But what put him on Mr. Trump’s radar was the president’s short visit to Al Asad air base in western Iraq in late December 2018. In a briefing there, General Caine told the president that the Islamic State was not so tough and could be defeated in a week, not the two years that senior advisers predicted, Mr. Trump recounted in 2019.

And at a Conservative Political Action Conference meeting last year, Mr. Trump said that General Caine put on a Make America Great Again hat while meeting with him in Iraq.

The details of these accounts have shifted over time in Mr. Trump’s frequent retelling of the stories. But Mr. Bolton, who accompanied Mr. Trump on the trip to Iraq, said that General Caine and another senior general briefed the president on a plan to defeat the last remnants of the Islamic State in two to four weeks, not one week. And at no time, he said, did General Caine ever put on a MAGA hat. “No way,” Mr. Bolton said.

Regardless, he'll be rubber-stamped into the position by the GOP.

 

[Elixir]

It'd quite be something if this guy wasn't even who Trump thought he was.

Doesn’t matter. Trump thugs know his address, his family’s addresses and exactly where to apply pressure.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Disagree. Citizens United is simply a recognition of free speech.

WUT??

• The decision allowed corporations, unions, and non-profit organizations to spend unlimited amounts on independent political expenditures, such as advertisements and media campaigns (assuming these expenditures were not directly coordinated with a candidate's campaign, which is impossible to enforce)
• The ruling indirectly led to the creation of super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, unions, and non-profits, foreign Countries including our adversaries, and jackass billionaires like the Muskrat.
• The Court held that limiting political spending by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech.
  This interpretation expanded the definition of free speech to include corporate and union political expenditures and opened the door to unlimited "dark money".
• The decision led to a significant increase in political spending and allowed "dark money" (funds from undisclosed sources) to influence elections.

The ruling led to the repeal or striking down of lots of state laws that banned or limited corporate and union contributions. All these openings allowed unmeasured amounts of Rubles, Yuan and guys like Musk, to buy elections. Calling it "simply a recognition of free speech" reflects an utter lack of understanding of its consequences.

This is something that has to be addressed by a constitutional amendment, not a court ruling.

Like Roe V Wade?

I'm sure Loren would agree that the anti-Israel boycott law would violate free speech then, right? Oh right, nope.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Disagree. Citizens United is simply a recognition of free speech.

WUT??

• The decision allowed corporations, unions, and non-profit organizations to spend unlimited amounts on independent political expenditures, such as advertisements and media campaigns (assuming these expenditures were not directly coordinated with a candidate's campaign, which is impossible to enforce)
• The ruling indirectly led to the creation of super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, unions, and non-profits, foreign Countries including our adversaries, and jackass billionaires like the Muskrat.
• The Court held that limiting political spending by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech.
  This interpretation expanded the definition of free speech to include corporate and union political expenditures and opened the door to unlimited "dark money".
• The decision led to a significant increase in political spending and allowed "dark money" (funds from undisclosed sources) to influence elections.

The ruling led to the repeal or striking down of lots of state laws that banned or limited corporate and union contributions. All these openings allowed unmeasured amounts of Rubles, Yuan and guys like Musk, to buy elections. Calling it "simply a recognition of free speech" reflects an utter lack of understanding of its consequences.

This is something that has to be addressed by a constitutional amendment, not a court ruling.

Like Roe V Wade?

You are arguing why Citizens United is bad for the country. You are failing to show how it's not a violation of the First Amendment to prohibit such speech. The problem can only be fixed by a constitutional amendment, not via the courts.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Disagree. Citizens United is simply a recognition of free speech.

WUT??

• The decision allowed corporations, unions, and non-profit organizations to spend unlimited amounts on independent political expenditures, such as advertisements and media campaigns (assuming these expenditures were not directly coordinated with a candidate's campaign, which is impossible to enforce)
• The ruling indirectly led to the creation of super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, unions, and non-profits, foreign Countries including our adversaries, and jackass billionaires like the Muskrat.
• The Court held that limiting political spending by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech.
  This interpretation expanded the definition of free speech to include corporate and union political expenditures and opened the door to unlimited "dark money".
• The decision led to a significant increase in political spending and allowed "dark money" (funds from undisclosed sources) to influence elections.

The ruling led to the repeal or striking down of lots of state laws that banned or limited corporate and union contributions. All these openings allowed unmeasured amounts of Rubles, Yuan and guys like Musk, to buy elections. Calling it "simply a recognition of free speech" reflects an utter lack of understanding of its consequences.

This is something that has to be addressed by a constitutional amendment, not a court ruling.

Like Roe V Wade?

I'm sure Loren would agree that the anti-Israel boycott law would violate free speech then, right? Oh right, nope.

You realize all that law says is that US companies aren't required to comply with certain demands of other countries? US companies aren't required to not boycott Israel, they are just not required to cooperate with other countries trying to enforce a boycott.

 

[Elixir]

The problem can only be fixed by a constitutional amendment, not via the courts.

I’m not disagreeing, just being cynical about the robustness of the Constitutional stone into which such “liberal” freedoms are carved. The SCOTUS knife seems to cut it like butter, with little effort or regard.

 

[ZiprHead]

You are failing to show how it's not a violation of the First Amendment to prohibit such speech.

WTF? Money isn't speech!

 

[ZiprHead]

Disagree. Citizens United is simply a recognition of free speech.

WUT??

• The decision allowed corporations, unions, and non-profit organizations to spend unlimited amounts on independent political expenditures, such as advertisements and media campaigns (assuming these expenditures were not directly coordinated with a candidate's campaign, which is impossible to enforce)
• The ruling indirectly led to the creation of super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, unions, and non-profits, foreign Countries including our adversaries, and jackass billionaires like the Muskrat.
• The Court held that limiting political spending by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech.
  This interpretation expanded the definition of free speech to include corporate and union political expenditures and opened the door to unlimited "dark money".
• The decision led to a significant increase in political spending and allowed "dark money" (funds from undisclosed sources) to influence elections.

The ruling led to the repeal or striking down of lots of state laws that banned or limited corporate and union contributions. All these openings allowed unmeasured amounts of Rubles, Yuan and guys like Musk, to buy elections. Calling it "simply a recognition of free speech" reflects an utter lack of understanding of its consequences.

This is something that has to be addressed by a constitutional amendment, not a court ruling.

Like Roe V Wade?

I'm sure Loren would agree that the anti-Israel boycott law would violate free speech then, right? Oh right, nope.

You realize all that law says is that US companies aren't required to comply with certain demands of other countries? US companies aren't required to not boycott Israel, they are just not required to cooperate with other countries trying to enforce a boycott.

If money is speech then the bolded is a violation of their free speech.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Disagree. Citizens United is simply a recognition of free speech.

WUT??

• The decision allowed corporations, unions, and non-profit organizations to spend unlimited amounts on independent political expenditures, such as advertisements and media campaigns (assuming these expenditures were not directly coordinated with a candidate's campaign, which is impossible to enforce)
• The ruling indirectly led to the creation of super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, unions, and non-profits, foreign Countries including our adversaries, and jackass billionaires like the Muskrat.
• The Court held that limiting political spending by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech.
  This interpretation expanded the definition of free speech to include corporate and union political expenditures and opened the door to unlimited "dark money".
• The decision led to a significant increase in political spending and allowed "dark money" (funds from undisclosed sources) to influence elections.

The ruling led to the repeal or striking down of lots of state laws that banned or limited corporate and union contributions. All these openings allowed unmeasured amounts of Rubles, Yuan and guys like Musk, to buy elections. Calling it "simply a recognition of free speech" reflects an utter lack of understanding of its consequences.

This is something that has to be addressed by a constitutional amendment, not a court ruling.

Like Roe V Wade?

You are arguing why Citizens United is bad for the country. You are failing to show how it's not a violation of the First Amendment to prohibit such speech. The problem can only be fixed by a constitutional amendment, not via the courts.

This is the unfortunate issue that is the no graven images of Mohammod. Adherence of the rule becomes more important than the reason for the rule. Shouting "fire" in a crowded and packed theater can be held against someone despite the first amendment, people don't generally disagree with that. Of course, the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about restricting access to firearms to people who committed murder.

So, enough of this black/white nonsense. Regarding campaign finance, the question is, Does the Federal Government have a viable reason for the intrusion on speech that is in the general public's interest. The answer was undoubtedly YES!!! Our elections weren't fucked up because of campaign finance control. And now, one man used his unquenchable wealth to get a man into the White House who has given him unfettered access to just about everything.

So ummm... Citizens fixed a problem that didn't exist and made things worse.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Isn't this just admitting that voters are basically so stupid and uninformed that they just vote for whoever raises the most campaign money?

That may just be a true but very sad fact.

Maybe we should just skip the elections and give the position to whoever raises the most money. That would definitely make things more 'efficient'.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Isn't this just admitting that voters are basically so stupid and uninformed that they just vote for whoever raises the most campaign money?

That may just be a true but very sad fact.

Maybe we should just skip the elections and give the position to whoever raises the most money. That would definitely make things more 'efficient'.

Or go even further and have elections actually make money for the government. The government can print on demand a huge number of lottery tickets, each with a unique number, that are sold for $100 each, and anyone can buy one or more, and whoever has the ticket for the winning number becomes POTUS. What if they're not old enough (or don't really want to be POTUS)? Then they can choose someone of their choice (from a special list of candidates) to be POTUS and receive $10 million.

 

[Elixir]

Or go even further and have elections actually make money for the government.

Just charge $1000 per vote. Buy as many as you like. That’s what’s happening anyhow.
I don’t think all trumpsuckers are stupid. Some are just … suckers who have been dis-informed on an industrial scale.

 

[ImGod]

Isn't this just admitting that voters are basically so stupid and uninformed that they just vote for whoever raises the most campaign money?

That may just be a true but very sad fact.

Maybe we should just skip the elections and give the position to whoever raises the most money. That would definitely make things more 'efficient'.

That didn't happen this election. Harris spent $1 billion. They should have peeled off $300 million for congressional and senate races.

 

[Elixir]

Isn't this just admitting that voters are basically so stupid and uninformed that they just vote for whoever raises the most campaign money?

That may just be a true but very sad fact.

Maybe we should just skip the elections and give the position to whoever raises the most money. That would definitely make things more 'efficient'.

That didn't happen this election. Harris spent $1 billion. They should have peeled off $300 million for congressional and senate races.

I think she would have won with another quarter billion dollars and the full throated support and condemnation of her opponent, by the Nation’s most popular social media platform. Ya think?

 

[Tigers!]

Isn't this just admitting that voters are basically so stupid and uninformed that they just vote for whoever raises the most campaign money?

I thought Harris raised a billon dollars. Didn't do her much good.

That may just be a true but very sad fact.

Maybe we should just skip the elections and give the position to whoever raises the most money. That would definitely make things more 'efficient'.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Isn't this just admitting that voters are basically so stupid and uninformed that they just vote for whoever raises the most campaign money?

I thought Harris raised a billon dollars. Didn't do her much good.

That may just be a true but very sad fact.

Maybe we should just skip the elections and give the position to whoever raises the most money. That would definitely make things more 'efficient'.

Yes. Fair enough. It’s not just raising the money it’s what (dis)information you spread with that money that counts.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Isn't this just admitting that voters are basically so stupid and uninformed that they just vote for whoever raises the most campaign money?

That may just be a true but very sad fact.

Maybe we should just skip the elections and give the position to whoever raises the most money. That would definitely make things more 'efficient'.

Generally, it might be an indicator that the person who generally raises the most money is the candidate that is going to win. Trump violates every typical conjecture in politics, so he doesn't he isn't liable to those sorts of relationships.

Ultimately, we have an election system where money has overtly perverted our politics. Members of the House prostitute themselves at phone banks to raise massive chunks of money for the party. That is so wrong. Our government is bought and paid for by the wealthy because we allow it.