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

[FA_Q2]

The implication is that government will punish them. And for what? Speaking their minds? Refusing to do business in a state they think is going off the rails? Pissing of Trumpster twats?

You do get the circularity of your argument, right?

Nope. It's not circular. It's not even an argument. I'm asking why McConnel is threatening these companies. It's straight up statist bullying. The bread and butter of authoritarian leftists.

Threatening is the OP and your wording. McConnell warned of consequences which could be something as simple as myself not buying MLB,tv this year and the millions like me. Many people believe that products and sports in particular are not appropriate venues for virtue signaling. You've got tunnel vision boy.

Alright. If you want to pretend he wasn't threatening retribution form government, fine. Hopefully he'll walk it back as well. But I think the message was clear.

Our Open Letter To Facebook - Joe Biden for President: Official Campaign Website

Dear Mark Zuckerberg, Over the past year, the Biden for President campaign has called on Facebook to meet the commitment the company made after 2016 — to use its platform to improve American democracy rather than as a tool to spread disinformation that undermines our elections. The campaign has...

joebiden.com

What should the repuiblicans response be though?

They should condemn Democrats for trying to pressure Facebook into doing their bidding, for the implied threat that their "open letter" clearly contains. Joining them in their attempts to bully the media merely legitimizes what Democrats are doing.

That certainly would be ideal. That does nothing to actually address the fact that democrats are in power right now and they are not going to heed and condemnation of what they want to accomplish. IOW, this seems like facing an adversary that has nuclear weapons when the best you have is a pop gun.

The democrats have already gained control over most of corporate America and certainly have the major 'news' sources outside of FOX. They are openly advocating for republican opinions to essentially become illegal. I cannot think of a more pressing threat to actual democracy.

The democrats have been threatening the tech companies for months now. So have the republicans so this is not new. Did you listen to the senate hearing with the tech giants? Considering the current push, stay out of this is likely the most hands off message they can send.

However, you now have a group of tech companies that holds MORE power over the dissemination of speech than the government does.

That's as it should be, and how it's pretty much always been. Government should have zero power over the dissemination of speech. That's the point of the First Amendment.

ALL power when consolidated is antithetical to freedom. The idea that government is somehow a special outlier in this is mistake a lot of libertarians, IMHO, make. I do not care who is holding me hostage or infringing on my rights, just that they are. The government is normally the problem there because we grant the government specific powers that are extreme, like the power to imprison you and infringe on all of your rights. When a few companies gain that power they invariably use it to becomes so intertwined with government that there is almost no difference.

Is Boeing a company or a governmental apparatus? Is the 'company' that brings you your power a governmental arm? What about the Federal Reserve? How long until twitter is just another extension of the government?

The right pf speech is what the entire idea of self governance and separation of powers rests in. Without that, there is no other freedoms as there is absolutely no means to protect them.

I cannot see any real way to differentiate a power that is held by cabal of tech companies that tie speech directly to the success of a specific political party, a political party that is threatening to 'regulate' policies within those companies and also ensuring that they are never threatened by real competition, as that is what such regulation will accomplish, with the government applying that power directly. The outcomes are the same, a political entity with direct power over the public discourse.

Amazon damn near controls the internet.

Damn near? Whatever control Amazon has over the internet, we give them. It's entirely voluntary and we can revoke it at any time. If we give that power to government instead, revoking it will be considerably more difficult.

When they decided that Parlor needed to go that was that. The entire company would have simply vanished if not for the backlash.

Exactly. The backlash prevented it.

It was a test run and the backlash here prevented it in this singular instance. You are kidding yourself if you think that this was a one off and there is no indication of such. The book burnings have continued and the rhetoric is increasing. They are just finding out how quickly they can control the discourse, not if they can or should.

What do you do when corporate interests gain power that is equal to that of the government?

As I've mentioned elsewhere, in a free country, private wealth (including corporate interests), has more power to shape society than the government does. That's as it should be.

Private wealth does, yes.

A private individual or entity does not. The difference here is how diffuse power is. The danger with power, any power, is not necessarily the power itself but how concentrated it is. If I can control what you are allowed to say or hear, I can control what you think. Its 1984 projected in reality.

 

[FA_Q2]

The implication is that government will punish them. And for what? Speaking their minds? Refusing to do business in a state they think is going off the rails? Pissing of Trumpster twats?

You do get the circularity of your argument, right?

Nope. It's not circular. It's not even an argument. I'm asking why McConnel is threatening these companies. It's straight up statist bullying. The bread and butter of authoritarian leftists.

Threatening is the OP and your wording. McConnell warned of consequences which could be something as simple as myself not buying MLB,tv this year and the millions like me. Many people believe that products and sports in particular are not appropriate venues for virtue signaling. You've got tunnel vision boy.

Alright. If you want to pretend he wasn't threatening retribution form government, fine. Hopefully he'll walk it back as well. But I think the message was clear.

Our Open Letter To Facebook - Joe Biden for President: Official Campaign Website

Dear Mark Zuckerberg, Over the past year, the Biden for President campaign has called on Facebook to meet the commitment the company made after 2016 — to use its platform to improve American democracy rather than as a tool to spread disinformation that undermines our elections. The campaign has...

joebiden.com

What should the republicans response be though?

The democrats have been threatening the tech companies for months now. So have the republicans so this is not new. Did you listen to the senate hearing with the tech giants? Considering the current push, stay out of this is likely the most hands off message they can send.

I have a problem with how this is flushing out. On the one hand you have the fact that companies and people are allowed to do with their property as they will. However, you now have a group of tech companies that holds MORE power over the dissemination of speech than the government does. Hell, Amazon is actively participating in book burning. The store front for Amazon, Facebook's website and the rest of these companies public faces are just a blip. Amazon damn near controls the internet. When they decided that Parlor needed to go that was that. The entire company would have simply vanished if not for the backlash. What do you do when corporate interests gain power that is equal to that of the government?

Well.


A number of commentators reacted to the Republican leader's remarks by reminding him of his support for the Citizens United ruling that permitted corporations, unions and other outside groups to spend unlimited sums on elections.

"Mitch McConnell knows corporations are not people—that's why he's so quick to silence them," the End Citizens United campaign tweeted Sunday. "He only considers them 'people' when cashing their checks and watching their dark money ads in support of his campaign of voter suppression and gridlock."

Mitch McConnell Reminded of Citizens United Backing After Warning to CEOs (newsweek.com)

There was a time, not so long ago, that some republicans supported limited the role of corporations in politics. And to be clearer, it's not so much corporations as concentrated wealth having a "bigger" voice that avg citizens. And before the Trumpistas lead us down the road of "fake news," there's really no change since Horace Greeley and Hearst. The media reports what people want to know because the media is in the biz of selling subscriptions and ads.

This has nothing to do with citizens united. That is one of the most poorly understood yet widely cited cases. Almost no one even knows what the suit was over.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

So, let me get this straight.

Right wingers don't know how the 1st amendment works or where it applies.

So, let me get this straight.

Leftists don't understand the difference between "I have a right to do it" and "It's a good thing to do it".

I have it straight now.
You don't know how the 1st amendment works.
You may have the right to do it, that doesn't mean you're protected from repercussions from doing it.

I have it straight now.
You decided what you were going to hear before I ever said anything, and are sticking to that script.
So talking to you is a waste of time, because I'm drowned out by the pretend conversation happening in your head.

Dismissed.

 

[Utilitarian]

And how is the "bake the cake" hypocrisy dance going? Are the Trumpsters still all in on nationalizing social media (and I guess various airlines and sports leagues are on their shit list too)? Are the libs bending over backward to protect the rights of corporations? Do any of you have whiplash?

What both sides should realize now is that free speech is defined by more than just government restraint. It's about resources. If most public discourse is taking place in a market that is dominated by one supplier, then that supplier has the power to steer speech in whatever direction it likes.

Granted, it also says a lot about groupthink. Free speech itself may be moot, when considering that most people aren't critical thinkers. Most people only have opinions that are a product of what they've been propagandized to think. They don't try to think outside of whatever box they've been put in.

What people really need to realize is that the companies currently dominating the information and discourse market are only doing so because of government protection. That's actually the crux of the whole argument: they were given that government protection precisely because they promised NOT to "steer speech in whatever direction they like".

I also don't find "People are too stupid for free speech to matter anymore" to be a compelling argument. How in the hell are you supposed to counteract that stupidity in any way without the ability to tell people they're being stupid and how and why it's stupid?

I agree that government protection is part of the problem.

My point about the general public is that studies have shown that people are very resistant to facts. If facts go against the narrative they prefer, they will tend to ignore said facts, which is why reasoning with people is very difficult.

I kind of wonder if maybe the idea of an AI running things is preferable, but we're not at that technological level yet.

 

[Utilitarian]

When competition is kept out due to collusion, there's not much voluntary about it. Parler's collapse was a good example of that.

It depends on whether the collusion is fraudulent. There's nothing illegal about shunning those we find reprehensible. Nor should there be.

Plenty of people find certain races or ethnicities reprehensible, but it is illegal to shun them from service. So, the precedent has already been set for protecting some classes over others. It's why political orientation isn't a stretch to include in that group. Political orientation is no more mutable than religion is, yet we protect religion from discrimination.

I actually really like this point. We protect freedom of religion in this country, because we believe - or we once did, when people actually had some clue about such things - that each person should be able to believe what he or she wants, express those beliefs, and act on them, without fear of persecution. Politics is just another set of beliefs, and people should have as much freedom to act in accordance with their own conscience in that set of beliefs as they do in a set of religious beliefs.

There's also growing evidence that there are fundamental differences in how morals are structured between liberals and conservatives. Said differences also appear to have genetic components. So, there is the possibility that political orientation is somewhat inherited. That would make orientation immutable to an extent.

 

[Utilitarian]

When competition is kept out due to collusion, there's not much voluntary about it. Parler's collapse was a good example of that.

It depends on whether the collusion is fraudulent. There's nothing illegal about shunning those we find reprehensible. Nor should there be.

Plenty of people find certain races or ethnicities reprehensible, but it is illegal to shun them from service. So, the precedent has already been set for protecting some classes over others. It's why political orientation isn't a stretch to include in that group. Political orientation is no more mutable than religion is, yet we protect religion from discrimination.

I actually really like this point. We protect freedom of religion in this country, because we believe - or we once did, when people actually had some clue about such things - that each person should be able to believe what he or she wants, express those beliefs, and act on them, without fear of persecution. Politics is just another set of beliefs, and people should have as much freedom to act in accordance with their own conscience in that set of beliefs as they do in a set of religious beliefs.

"It's different when we do it".

This simply extends and legitimizes a policy that is a direct violation of equal protection (as well as freedom of association). Inviting another 'protected class' to join the gravy train. Who's next?

What's different now? I doubt Andrew Carnegie becomes the same philanthopist if the Homestead Strike had not happened and public opinion turned on him.

Huh? Not following.

Well, I was asking what you meant about another protected class. All I see is corporations acting in their own (shareholders's) financial interests.

I think Carnegie went for "image" as well.

Just smile and nod. Their entire culture and way of life is dying off in the next 10 years, and they are going to insanity rather than assimilation. Just pat them on the back and say "I know, I know".

As long as the Overton Window continues to shift leftward, you eventually may find yourself considered a conservative unless you change your views to meet whatever agenda is pushed.

I was liberal by 90s standards. Now, apparently, that's conservative or even "alt-right" by some people's standards.

In 20 years, you may be called a bigot if you don't tolerate pedos.

 

[Utilitarian]

When competition is kept out due to collusion, there's not much voluntary about it. Parler's collapse was a good example of that.

It depends on whether the collusion is fraudulent. There's nothing illegal about shunning those we find reprehensible. Nor should there be.

Plenty of people find certain races or ethnicities reprehensible, but it is illegal to shun them from service. So, the precedent has already been set for protecting some classes over others. It's why political orientation isn't a stretch to include in that group. Political orientation is no more mutable than religion is, yet we protect religion from discrimination.

I actually really like this point. We protect freedom of religion in this country, because we believe - or we once did, when people actually had some clue about such things - that each person should be able to believe what he or she wants, express those beliefs, and act on them, without fear of persecution. Politics is just another set of beliefs, and people should have as much freedom to act in accordance with their own conscience in that set of beliefs as they do in a set of religious beliefs.

"It's different when we do it".

This simply extends and legitimizes a policy that is a direct violation of equal protection (as well as freedom of association). Inviting another 'protected class' to join the gravy train. Who's next?

What's different now? I doubt Andrew Carnegie becomes the same philanthopist if the Homestead Strike had not happened and public opinion turned on him.

Huh? Not following.

Well, I was asking what you meant about another protected class. All I see is corporations acting in their own (shareholders's) financial interests.

I think Carnegie went for "image" as well.

Just smile and nod. Their entire culture and way of life is dying off in the next 10 years, and they are going to insanity rather than assimilation. Just pat them on the back and say "I know, I know".

Best description of the left being deaf to all reason because they're too in love with the destruction they wreak I've ever heard. Thanks for sharing.

I don't even know why I'm still amazed that you people can't hear what you actually sound like.

Your way of life will be gone by 2030. So enjoy it.

There's a good chance yours will be as well, unless you "assimilate" to whatever is pushed in the near future. Right now, we already have people suggesting that it's "transphobic" for a straight guy to not be willing to date a transwoman. In 10 to 20 years, this level of "transphobia" may be considered "alt right."

 

[Utilitarian]

When competition is kept out due to collusion, there's not much voluntary about it. Parler's collapse was a good example of that.

It depends on whether the collusion is fraudulent. There's nothing illegal about shunning those we find reprehensible. Nor should there be.

Plenty of people find certain races or ethnicities reprehensible, but it is illegal to shun them from service. So, the precedent has already been set for protecting some classes over others. It's why political orientation isn't a stretch to include in that group. Political orientation is no more mutable than religion is, yet we protect religion from discrimination.

I actually really like this point. We protect freedom of religion in this country, because we believe - or we once did, when people actually had some clue about such things - that each person should be able to believe what he or she wants, express those beliefs, and act on them, without fear of persecution. Politics is just another set of beliefs, and people should have as much freedom to act in accordance with their own conscience in that set of beliefs as they do in a set of religious beliefs.

"It's different when we do it".

This simply extends and legitimizes a policy that is a direct violation of equal protection (as well as freedom of association). Inviting another 'protected class' to join the gravy train. Who's next?

What's different now? I doubt Andrew Carnegie becomes the same philanthopist if the Homestead Strike had not happened and public opinion turned on him.

Huh? Not following.

Well, I was asking what you meant about another protected class. All I see is corporations acting in their own (shareholders's) financial interests.

I think Carnegie went for "image" as well.

Just smile and nod. Their entire culture and way of life is dying off in the next 10 years, and they are going to insanity rather than assimilation. Just pat them on the back and say "I know, I know".

Best description of the left being deaf to all reason because they're too in love with the destruction they wreak I've ever heard. Thanks for sharing.

I don't even know why I'm still amazed that you people can't hear what you actually sound like.

Your way of life will be gone by 2030. So enjoy it.

What "way of life" is that, Adolf?

Every single person you watch on Twitter and Youtube in the year 2021 will be banned and gone by 2030.

That "way of life". So enjoy it while it lasts.

With the way things are going, the same might be true for some of the people you watch, unless you only watch people on the farthest part of the left.

 

[sartre play]

Take there money & then demand they shut up. way to go Mitch.

 

[AFrench2]

Who changed the topic title?