Doublespeak

all 49 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 1 point 44 minutes ago

The politicans you are able to choose from are decided by the wealthy families and interests that run your city, states and federal govt. It has always been this way and it will always be this way. That's why nothing will ever change through voting itself. The entire system is captured by the oligarchs. Even the new socialist wave is the same thing. Any time you hear them run to medicare for all or something else healthcare related, that's your signal who for who owns them. The giant health care establishment. This same form of corruption that has existed since the very first cities in the united states extends to every area of Government. Law enforcement, Judges, District Attorney, Attorney General, Governor, Mayor... All of them are put there by the wealthy class that owns everyone and everything. If any of them ever get out of line, they are removed.

Citizens United was just standardizing a system that began a long time ago.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 hour ago (1 child)

    The most idyllic names often hide the worst legislation.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 44 minutes ago

    If they are people they should be able to go to prison like people.

    Hey if corporations are people, and you own one, does that make you a slave owner?

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 hour ago

    Another take is that if money is speech then money is fraud, terrorism, fascist oppression, and servitude to foreign interests. So liars who are platformed by media should have all their money taken from them, as well as all media shareholders dispossessed/diluted through nationalization of their shares, and the board of directors/executives of said media also be zeroed out financially.

  • source
  • [–] 29 points 4 hours ago (4 children)

    The US was over the minute this happened

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

    I just can't comprehend how those SC judges were able to justify this to themselves. The reasoning seems absurd.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 hours ago (1 child)

    Americans are done. America is done.

    The time to fight this was before it became law.

    It's over can't you accept it?? We all saw this happening in front of our eyes but Americans sat on their hands and did nothing and let it happen.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 4 hours ago (1 child)

    Nothing the Cons do is about helping anyone but themselves. Our country is too stupid to realize that.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago

    I agree, but there's at least a few decent candidates who will be on ballots in November who know how to be entertaining, and they'll attract the stupid ones who only pay attention to the candidates who make the biggest spectacle.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 hours ago

    Au contraire, it is absolutely about helping people - the only people that matter (to themselves) - the billionaire oligarch class.

    (i.e. I do not actually disagree)

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 5 hours ago (5 children)

    If corporations are people, they should pay the same taxes.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

    their rate is usually higher actually

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 hours ago

    Johnny Harris made an excellent video about money in US elections: https://youtu.be/-NuXpwB2DV4

    People were way too scared about companies buying politicians. It turns out that the real danger did not come from companies, but from their rich owners.

  • source
  • [–] 42 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

    If corporations are people, every dollar they spend should be 100% supported by every member of said corporation. You think the janitor wants to donate millions to fascists? Because right now it looks like they do. Forced speech like that should be illegal.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 4 hours ago

    If corporations are people, then they need to pay all their dependants' taxes, and their own. Also, PPS (Personnel Protective Services) should take all the "children" away from toxic and abusive companies, and place them at companies that value their workers.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 4 hours ago (1 child)

    The employees aren't members. The stockholders are.

    Your point may still be valid, but the motivations of the stockholders are likely different than the motivations of the employees.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -3 points 1 hour ago (4 children)

    People don’t have fewer rights under the First Amendment when they assemble to exercise them than they do individually. Citizens United was correctly decided and if you disagree, it’s because you think it’s a ruling that “corporations are people.”

    When it’s actually a ruling that corporations are fictions.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 hour ago (1 child)

    Except that's not how they implemented it. Somehow organizing grants you EXTRA rights over being an individual. Suddenly you get an avenue to get around personal contribution limits, on top of retaining your original personal contributions allowance...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago (1 child)

    You’re kind of right, Citizens United did not rule that corporations are people.

    That determination was made in the 1880s in Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad. Kind of, it was in a summary before the ruling, but (like Robert Bork’s essay that said true monopolies don’t exist and even if they did competition would destroy them and so antitrust action should only be taken if a merger will negatively impact consumers where “negatively impact consumers” is constrained to mean “raise prices in the immediate future”) it was treated as having the force of law.

    https://uslawexplained.com/santa_clara_county_v_southern_pacific_railroad

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 6 hours ago

    This was a line that should have never been crossed, perhaps the last nail in the coffin of the USA.

    Once you open up campaigns to unlimited corporate and billionaire donations, it's precedent, it's done.

    Politics in the USA is now the easiest way to acquire generational wealth without inheriting it. Nancy Pelosi's family is set for generations. Trump's family is now financially secure for centuries. They're not hiding it.

    They won't give up that money willingly.

  • source
  • Billionaires aren’t people either

    More seriously: this line of reasoning has always struck me as incredibly contrived and facile:

    • Speech is not subject to the rule of scarcity, and is “free” (as in beer); as such, given a supply of food, water, and breathable air, a person could theoretically speak indefinitely. One’s wealth does not nominally affect how much speech they can output.
    • Money is subject to the rule of scarcity, and is not “free” (as in beer); as such, a person has access to substantially different amounts of money based on their personal circumstances, family, upbringing, birth country, etc.; one’s wealth has direct bearing on how much money they can output (and “speak” with).
  • source
  • [–] 5 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

    tbf, people should not be able to buy politicians either.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 hours ago

    Citizens United was never about helping people

    I can't believe it. An organization originally created to get Michael Moore's movies banned from theaters on the grounds that it was a form of campaign spending? These are the people with nefarious intent?

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 6 hours ago

    I wonder if he preferred that they leave the empty podium up there to remind all viewers that Mike Rogers is a weak little bitch, or if he'd have preferred they just do away with the debate format, sit in chairs and have a long-form interview.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 5 hours ago (8 children)

    I remain convinced (from my Canadian perch up above the USA) that if Occupy Wall Street had made repealing Citizens United as their main platform, it may have actually worked. Unfortunately OWS was instead a mélange of angst that couldn't organise itself effectively, for a hundred reasons that ten thousand people smarter than me could better speak about.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 hours ago (5 children)

    One problem is that it's a supreme court decision, and the only way to "repeal" those is a constitutional amendment, which requires support of a 2/3 majority of congress, or a new set of supreme court justices to make a new decision, but those are lifetime appointments and so you may have to wait decades for an opportunity. Realistically the only options are workarounds because a literal repeal has a very high barrier that's unlikely to be overcome even with a very successful mass popular movement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

    As a Canadian, I was entirely ignorant of the Supreme Court's role in this travesty of a Law. Appreciate the explainer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 hour ago

    Congress made a law greatly limiting what corporations and organizations could do with regards to publishing electioneering material. Citizens United wanted to publish electioneering material. Federal Election Commission said no. Citizens United sued. Case was appealed to the Supreme Court. SCOTUS said the law violated the first amendment rights of corporations, and overturned it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 4 hours ago

    Supreme court's decisions are not technically laws, but they're treated as such as far as I can understand - they set precedent on how some law is to be interpreted and other courts follow it

    Roe v Wade was another famous supreme court case that was essentially law, until the court was deemed republican enough to kick an abortion related case at them so they could undo it. Roe v Wade was what protected Americans' right to get abortions.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 hours ago*

    if Occupy Wall Street had made repealing Citizens United as their main platform

    It would have been ignored, just like all their other platforms.

    OWS was a moment for progressive organizing and collective altruism. But the biggest benefits of the movement came from their Rolling Jubilee, their local collectivism leading to shutdowns throughout Manhattan and other big urban centers, and their educational initiatives to turn the tide on anti-socialist propaganda.

    This was never a Congressional lobbying operation. It wasn't designed to be.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 hours ago

    How UNAMERICAN of Him!

    -Republicans who HATE Billionaires!

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 6 hours ago