Trump's Appointments

[KCFlyer]

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

And with advances in AI, misinformation can look very convincing. And too many people believe it because "I seen it on the internet"

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

Musk gave the Trump campaign almost a quarter billion dollars. I guess that's the price it takes to take over the nation.

 

[Elixir]

failing to show how it's not

Again?

 

[Elixir]

Musk gave the Trump campaign almost a quarter billion dollars. I guess that's the price it takes to take over the nation.

Citizens United is simply a recognition of free speech.

That’s why we should simplify:
Just charge $1000 per vote. Buy as many as you like. That’s what’s happening anyhow under Citizens United.
No reason for us to waste billions on obnoxious TV ads and pageantry. Just tally it up as it goes into the treasury and post daily totals so billionaires know if they need to cough up another wad.
Open up “voting” for 2028 today. By November 2028 there will be a surplus that will let Trump buy Gaza, Panama and Greenland with money left over to buy Uncle Vlad a nice present.

 

[Elixir]

Musk gave the Trump campaign almost a quarter billion dollars. I guess that's the price it takes to take over the nation.

Citizens United is simply a recognition of free speech.

That’s why we should simplify:
Just charge $1000 per vote. Buy as many as you like. That’s what’s happening anyhow under Citizens United.
No reason for us to waste billions on obnoxious TV ads and pageantry. Just tally it up as it goes into the treasury and post daily totals so billionaires know if they need to cough up another wad.
Open up “voting” for 2028 today. By November 2028 there will be a surplus that will let Trump buy Gaza, Panama and Greenland with money left over to buy Uncle Vlad a nice present.

If you can’t afford a vote, you can pool with your friends to buy one. Nobody should be left out of the “free speech” game. Right, Loren?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

WTF? Money isn't speech!

The money is buying speech. You can't select on content--either they can buy speech or they can't. Permit political ads or prohibit all ads. Or change the Constitution. Freedom of speech is always (at least in the past, now they appear to be intending to use the First for toilet paper) about protecting unpopular speech.

 

[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.

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

Note: "not required to." Not: "prohibited from."

 

[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.

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.

Citizens United isn't the cause. The internet is international, the money would simply have been spent elsewhere. (And I'm left with wondering if social media is the Fermi suicide technology.)

 

[bilby]

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

WTF? Money isn't speech!

The money is buying speech. You can't select on content--either they can buy speech or they can't. Permit political ads or prohibit all ads. Or change the Constitution. Freedom of speech is always (at least in the past, now they appear to be intending to use the First for toilet paper) about protecting unpopular speech.

Broadcast media is not "speech", it's a megaphone.

There's no constitutional right to a megaphone with which to drown out the speech of other citizens.

Prohibiting all ads sounds like an excellent idea to me.

Anyone who wants to speak at a public meeting (or on a street corner) should be permitted to do so. Nobody should be allowed an amplifier, whether they are selling soap, or selling fascism.

The writers of the first amendment didn't consider TV, radio, or social media, for the same reason that the writers of the second didn't consider automatic rifles.

 

[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!

The money is buying speech.

I'm glad you agree with my statement.

You can't select on content--either they can buy speech or they can't. Permit political ads or prohibit all ads. Or change the Constitution. Freedom of speech is always (at least in the past, now they appear to be intending to use the First for toilet paper) about protecting unpopular speech.

And then you go off the rails again. If I use money to buy a loaf of bread is a loaf of bread now money?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

WTF? Money isn't speech!

The money is buying speech.

I'm glad you agree with my statement.

You can't select on content--either they can buy speech or they can't. Permit political ads or prohibit all ads. Or change the Constitution. Freedom of speech is always (at least in the past, now they appear to be intending to use the First for toilet paper) about protecting unpopular speech.

And then you go off the rails again. If I use money to buy a loaf of bread is a loaf of bread now money?

I still see nothing addressing how it's not an infringement of the First.

 

[ZiprHead]

Released just six hours ago.

 

[crazyfingers]

Released just six hours ago.

What's the summary. I hate watching videos.

 

[laughing dog]

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

WTF? Money isn't speech!

The money is buying speech. You can't select on content--either they can buy speech or they can't. Permit political ads or prohibit all ads. Or change the Constitution. Freedom of speech is always (at least in the past, now they appear to be intending to use the First for toilet paper) about protecting unpopular speech.

Neither corporations nor unions engage in speech. People engage in speech. There is no rational reason to automatically extend the rights of individuals to other entities.

 

[thebeave]

Released just six hours ago.

What's the summary. I hate watching videos.

Don't bother. Seems to be garbage. The thumbnail says the WSJ exposed the story, but if you watch the video, he cites the Daily Mail instead. And you know how much the DM is respected in these parts.

 

[ZiprHead]

Released just six hours ago.

What's the summary. I hate watching videos.

Hegseth is bringing his wife into secret meetings with him.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Released just six hours ago.

What's the summary. I hate watching videos.

Hegseth is bringing his wife into secret meetings with him.

It’s not clear to me that Pete knows how to identify a secret meeting.

 

[scombrid]

But it’s okay because he is keeping woke out of the military. That makes it strong like the Russian army.

 

[Tigers!]

When I will I get my invite to any of these secret meetings?

 

[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?

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.

Note: "not required to." Not: "prohibited from."

Quibbles.
People are being disappeared TODAY for saying the “wrong” thing about Gaza.
There is no nuance about it, it’s flat out fascism.
Justify it, complain about … whatever. Talking about what is “not required” of US citizens is turning a blind eye.