• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gotta love it

N

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
35,037
Reaction score
14,503
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The Citizens United decision said corporations could donate to campaigns, much to the delight of some conservatives. Now some of them are upset that corporations are objecting to voter laws passed by the GOP. Sweet irony.
 
Nickyjo said:
The Citizens United decision said corporations could donate to campaigns, much to the delight of some conservatives. Now some of them are upset that corporations are objecting to voter laws passed by the GOP. Sweet irony.
Click to expand...


Is there a difference between being allowed to donate and undermining Election laws?
 
Nickyjo said:
The Citizens United decision said corporations could donate to campaigns, much to the delight of some conservatives. Now some of them are upset that corporations are objecting to voter laws passed by the GOP. Sweet irony.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with corporation expressing themselves, but what they should consider is that they are putting their profit where their mouths are. In other words, if a corporation takes a public position on an issue that has no bearing on their business and people take issue with their position, they might find their business suffers.

For example: https://theconservativetreehouse.co...-flights-on-sunday-but-cites-staff-shortages/

In any case, this current event is totally unrelated to the Citizens United issue. Citizens United was about corporations making campaign donations to politicians...ostensibly for legislative favors in return. Not about publicly expressing a corporation's position on political or social issues. Heck, corporations have been expressing positions on political and social issues for ages.

For example: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...uper-bowl-ads-that-trolled-donald-trump-video
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
I have no problem with corporation expressing themselves, but what they should consider is that they are putting their profit where their mouths are. In other words, if a corporation takes a public position on an issue that has no bearing on their business and people take issue with their position, they might find their business suffers.

For example: https://theconservativetreehouse.co...-flights-on-sunday-but-cites-staff-shortages/

In any case, this current event is totally unrelated to the Citizens United issue. Citizens United was about corporations making campaign donations to politicians...ostensibly for legislative favors in return. Not about publicly expressing a corporation's position on political or social issues. Heck, corporations have been expressing positions on political and social issues for ages.

For example: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...uper-bowl-ads-that-trolled-donald-trump-video
Click to expand...


There you go again. Vainly attempting debate.

The current case IS related to CU because CU was a case of free speech. BECAUSE corps have a right to free speech, and because campaign donations are an EXPRESSION of political free speech, corps can make largely unrestricted donations. So, for Moscow Mitch and the anti-free speech Republicans to be against corps expressing their opinion on political matters, then they should be against corps making the kind of campaign donation guaranteed under the 1st A and the CU decision. Spending is speech, and is therefore protected by the Constitution — even if the speaker is a corporation.

Poor Mycroft. Can't get anything right. Shellacked again.
 
bluesmoke said:
There you go again. Vainly attempting debate.

The current case IS related to CU because CU was a case of free speech. BECAUSE corps have a right to free speech, and because campaign donations are an EXPRESSION of political free speech, corps can make largely unrestricted donations. So, for Moscow Mitch and the anti-free speech Republicans to be against corps expressing their opinion on political matters, then they should be against corps making the kind of campaign donation guaranteed under the 1st A and the CU decision. Spending is speech, and is therefore protected by the Constitution — even if the speaker is a corporation.

Poor Mycroft. Can't get anything right. Shellacked again.
Click to expand...
Who is Delta making a campaign contribution to when they express their opinion about the GA voter law? Can you name the politician who received their "donation"?
 
bluesmoke said:
There you go again. Vainly attempting debate.

The current case IS related to CU because CU was a case of free speech. BECAUSE corps have a right to free speech, and because campaign donations are an EXPRESSION of political free speech, corps can make largely unrestricted donations. So, for Moscow Mitch and the anti-free speech Republicans to be against corps expressing their opinion on political matters, then they should be against corps making the kind of campaign donation guaranteed under the 1st A and the CU decision. Spending is speech, and is therefore protected by the Constitution — even if the speaker is a corporation.

Poor Mycroft. Can't get anything right. Shellacked again.
Click to expand...

I am 99% confident that all that matters is how he sees it. If he is satisfied, then it was was an incredible victory. Whatever nonsense he wrote.
 
Mycroft said:
I have no problem with corporation expressing themselves, but what they should consider is that they are putting their profit where their mouths are. In other words, if a corporation takes a public position on an issue that has no bearing on their business and people take issue with their position, they might find their business suffers.
Click to expand...

Because Republicans actively engage in cancel culture.
 
Drowning Man said:
Because Republicans actively engage in cancel culture.
Click to expand...

It is really interesting how willing they are to dismiss reliable data in order to believe things that make them continue sitting back in their La-Z-Boy and farting a lot and blaming the rest of the world for being lazy.

We might be able to solve our national debt if we could recycle the cheeseball farts of our older conservatives, but that would destroy freedom.
 
Luther said:
Is there a difference between being allowed to donate and undermining Election laws?
Click to expand...
Of course. But my point, sorry if it wasn't clear, was that in one instance allowing corporations to participate in campaigns was applauded since I assume they viewed corporations as political allies and presumed it would be to their benefit. Somewhat ironic or hypocritical that they complained when coprporations got involved in a way they didn't approve of.
 
Mycroft said:
I have no problem with corporation expressing themselves, but what they should consider is that they are putting their profit where their mouths are. In other words, if a corporation takes a public position on an issue that has no bearing on their business and people take issue with their position, they might find their business suffers.

For example: https://theconservativetreehouse.co...-flights-on-sunday-but-cites-staff-shortages/

In any case, this current event is totally unrelated to the Citizens United issue. Citizens United was about corporations making campaign donations to politicians...ostensibly for legislative favors in return. Not about publicly expressing a corporation's position on political or social issues. Heck, corporations have been expressing positions on political and social issues for ages.

For example: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...uper-bowl-ads-that-trolled-donald-trump-video
Click to expand...
Fair enough. But at times corporations either roll the dice about their profits when they comment, or even do what's right, irrespective of the risks, as some did in the civil rights era. Example of the first thing: it's said that when Jackie Robinson came up, some owners resisted til they saw increased black attendance at ball games.
 
Yakshi said:
I am 99% confident that all that matters is how he sees it. If he is satisfied, then it was was an incredible victory. Whatever nonsense he wrote.
Click to expand...


Mycroft is supposed to be Sherlock's smarter brother.
 
Mycroft said:
Who is Delta making a campaign contribution to when they express their opinion about the GA voter law? Can you name the politician who received their "donation"?
Click to expand...


I didn't say that Delta speech expression is necessarily a campaign contribution. A campaign contribution is free speech, but free speech is not necessarily a campaign contribution. Comprende? Or, please clarify what you mean.
 
Mycroft said:
Who is Delta making a campaign contribution to when they express their opinion about the GA voter law? Can you name the politician who received their "donation"?
Click to expand...
Once again you are basically supporting mitch's stance. Give us the money and shut up. You don't like it because corporations are now speaking out against the gop voter suppression plans across the country.
 
bluesmoke said:
I didn't say that Delta speech expression is necessarily a campaign contribution. A campaign contribution is free speech, but free speech is not necessarily a campaign contribution. Comprende? Or, please clarify what you mean.
Click to expand...
If Delta's comments are not a campaign contribution, then those comments are unrelated to the concept of CU.
 
bongsaway said:
Once again you are basically supporting mitch's stance. Give us the money and shut up. You don't like it because corporations are now speaking out against the gop voter suppression plans across the country.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

I don't like a political elite taking money...and providing the necessary service required...from deep pocket donors. And I don't care if Delta speaks out against GA legislation.

I'm smart enough to understand both McConnell's and Delta's motivations for their positions and their motivations actually have nothing to do with the legislation...rather, it's all about money.
 
Mycroft said:
Wrong.

I don't like a political elite taking money...and providing the necessary service required...from deep pocket donors. And I don't care if Delta speaks out against GA legislation.

I'm smart enough to understand both McConnell's and Delta's motivations for their positions and their motivations actually have nothing to do with the legislation...rather, it's all about money.
Click to expand...
Indeed it is all about money. As I've said before, corporate america writes much of our legislation.
 
Luther said:
Is there a difference between being allowed to donate and undermining Election laws?
Click to expand...

They aren't undermining election laws.
 
Delta has a very high % of black employees, which has apparently gotten the attention of company management. The black pop of GA, being second only to TX and to MS in % of state, certainly got the attention of the GA state Republicans. So, Delta has a corp/employee relation reason for speaking up and Republicans have a survival reason, with 33% of the state being African-American.
 
Mycroft said:
If Delta's comments are not a campaign contribution, then those comments are unrelated to the concept of CU.
Click to expand...


Mycroft said:
If Delta's comments are not a campaign contribution, then those comments are unrelated to the concept of CU.
Click to expand...


Delta's comments are not related to CU. The comments made by McConnell does make for a relationship to CU. Being, if you're in favor of CU, then you should also be in favor of free political speech by corps. Conversely, if you're against political speech by corps, then you should be against the CU ruling that allows practically uninhibited political donation by corps due to it being protected by 1A free speech rights.

Delta's comments, though, are business related as employees are a business concern. It is apparent that with so high a % of black employees, company management shares the concern of their employees about the new voter law.
 
Mycroft said:
In any case, this current event is totally unrelated to the Citizens United issue. Citizens United was about corporations making campaign donations to politicians...ostensibly for legislative favors in return. Not about publicly expressing a corporation's position on political or social issues. Heck, corporations have been expressing positions on political and social issues for ages.
Click to expand...
Funny thing. At the time of our founding there were only about 50 corporations in the new nation; all were incorporated to achieve a specific goal within a timeframe; one of the conditions for forming a corporation was to stay out of politics.
 
Nickyjo said:
The Citizens United decision said corporations could donate to campaigns, much to the delight of some conservatives. Now some of them are upset that corporations are objecting to voter laws passed by the GOP. Sweet irony.
Click to expand...

And the Democratic Party - and you - 100% support Citizens United.

Your message is 100% false. I NEVER supported Citizens United. Not before, not since. I've often posted NO organization should be allowed to make political donations and only people should. But in your worship of the richest and most powerful International corporations and richest white racist men on earth you do.
 
less right said:
Funny thing. At the time of our founding there were only about 50 corporations in the new nation; all were incorporated to achieve a specific goal within a timeframe; one of the conditions for forming a corporation was to stay out of politics.
Click to expand...
The other was to give up personhood in exact for immunity of personal liability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom