Cliff Varnell Posted November 10, 2022 Share Posted November 10, 2022 18 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said: So why do big-money donors flood the zone? Because the Citizens United Supreme Court case in 2010 declared money is free speech, striking down common sense regulation of campaign finance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted November 10, 2022 Share Posted November 10, 2022 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: Because the Citizens United Supreme Court case in 2010 declared money is free speech, striking down common sense regulation of campaign finance. Yes, and it was a 5-4 vote by the conservative Republican majority on the SCOTUS. Yet Ben continues to tirelessly push his false narrative that there is no significant difference between Donks and Phants. Also, I read somewhere recently that dark money accounted for 85% of Senate GOP campaign funding in 2022. The Koch brothers bought GOP control of the Senate in 2014-- a disaster that prevailed until January of 2021. Mitch McConnell has always been the Koch's head Senate bell boy. Edited November 10, 2022 by W. Niederhut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted November 10, 2022 Share Posted November 10, 2022 (edited) 48 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said: Yes, and it was a 5-4 vote by the conservative Republican majority on the SCOTUS. Yet Ben continues to tirelessly push his false narrative that there is no significant difference between Donks and Phants. Also, I read somewhere recently that dark money accounted for 85% of Senate GOP campaign funding in 2022. The Koch brothers bought GOP control of the Senate in 2014-- a disaster that prevailed until January of 2021. Mitch McConnell has always been the Koch's head Senate bell boy. W/CV may be correct about Citizen United, and its effects---but we are where we are. The two parties raise almost exactly equal amounts of money. It is no secret that Silicon Valley, Wall Street, media and globalist enterprise have largely moved to the Donk party in recent decades. Maybe even the armaments industry, I have not checked. How important was Citizens United? Not sure. Fortunately or otherwise, people do have free speech, and even if there are campaign laws, there probably should not be a law against people running their own ad campaigns against this or that candidate. So, we will always see heavily financed attack ad campaigns, even if there are campaign laws. If I am pro-abortion, and run a heavily-financed campaign against Dr. Oz---should that be curtailed under law? Tough issue. Yes, money rules DC. Add on: Ruth Bader Ginsburg voted with the majority in Citizens United. Edited November 10, 2022 by Benjamin Cole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted November 10, 2022 Share Posted November 10, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said: . Add on: Ruth Bader Ginsburg voted with the majority in Citizens United. No she didn’t, Ben. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC But Glen Greenwald did. https://www.theusconstitution.org/blog/what-glenn-greenwald-got-wrong-about-the-constitution/ Edited November 10, 2022 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted November 10, 2022 Share Posted November 10, 2022 2 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: No she didn’t, Ben. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC Fred Wertheimer said, at the time, that Citizens United essentially wiped out a century of campaign finance reforms in the U.S. It opened the floodgates to unregulated plutocratic influence over U.S. elections through dark money funded advertising. And, contrary to Ben's false equivalence trope, Big Oil has heavily funded the Republican Party for years, effectively preventing legislation to promote clean energy and mitigate climate change. The same thing can be said about the NRA and gun control legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted November 10, 2022 Share Posted November 10, 2022 To be clear: Glenn Greenwald started out as a corporate lawyer. Glen Greenwald supported George Bush's War in Iraq. He never doubted WMD. His statement in Nov.2005. Greenwald: There is no denying the fact that much of the world is opposed to the war in Iraq, and Latin America is no exception. That is hardly a surprise. Whatever one thinks of the Iraq war, it is always the case that threats to the national security of one country are going to be taken far more seriously by the people of that country, and far less seriously by the people in other countries… American media refuses to understand what American citizens understand quite well: particularly as to matters of American national security, the fact that people in other countries are opposed to what we are doing does not mean that what we are doing is misguided or wrong.” Just like Donald Trump! https://www.weblinenews.com/donald-trump-glenn-greenwald-iraq-war/ But here is his disclaimer. Greenwald_When the Iraq War was debated and then commenced, I was not a writer. I was not a journalist. I was not politically engaged or active. https://thedailybanter.com/2013/04/glenn-greenwalds-hilarious-denial-about-his-support-for-iraq-war/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted November 10, 2022 Share Posted November 10, 2022 1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said: No she didn’t, Ben. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC But Glen Greenwald did. https://www.theuscon 2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said: No she didn’t, Ben. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC But Glen Greenwald did. https://www.theusconstitution.org/blog/what-glenn-greenwald-got-wrong-about-the-constitution/ stitution.org/blog/what-glenn-greenwald-got-wrong-about-the-constitution/ Greenwald says he takes an absolutist view of free speech. I tend to agree with Greenwald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted November 10, 2022 Share Posted November 10, 2022 1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said: To be clear: Glenn Greenwald started out as a corporate lawyer. Glen Greenwald supported George Bush's War in Iraq. He never doubted WMD. His statement in Nov.2005. Greenwald: There is no denying the fact that much of the world is opposed to the war in Iraq, and Latin America is no exception. That is hardly a surprise. Whatever one thinks of the Iraq war, it is always the case that threats to the national security of one country are going to be taken far more seriously by the people of that country, and far less seriously by the people in other countries… American media refuses to understand what American citizens understand quite well: particularly as to matters of American national security, the fact that people in other countries are opposed to what we are doing does not mean that what we are doing is misguided or wrong.” Just like Donald Trump! https://www.weblinenews.com/donald-trump-glenn-greenwald-iraq-war/ But here is his disclaimer. Greenwald_When the Iraq War was debated and then commenced, I was not a writer. I was not a journalist. I was not politically engaged or active. https://thedailybanter.com/2013/04/glenn-greenwalds-hilarious-denial-about-his-support-for-iraq-war/ So Greenwald was a corporate lawyer early his professional life. So what? He has said many times he became interested in politics in general, after 9/11, and what he saw as government excesses in response to that. Greenwald then gravitated into being a political reporter, and one of the better ones. He is independent--the right position, I contend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted November 10, 2022 Share Posted November 10, 2022 2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said: No she didn’t, Ben. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC But Glen Greenwald did. https://www.theusconstitution.org/blog/what-glenn-greenwald-got-wrong-about-the-constitution/ What does this mean? What was Part IV? Majority Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Alito; Thomas (all but Part IV); Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor (Part IV) Concurrence Roberts, joined by Alito Concurrence Scalia, joined by Alito; Thomas (in part) Concur/dissent Stevens, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor Concur/dissent Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted November 10, 2022 Share Posted November 10, 2022 23 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said: What does this mean? What was Part IV? Majority Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Alito; Thomas (all but Part IV); Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor (Part IV) Concurrence Roberts, joined by Alito Concurrence Scalia, joined by Alito; Thomas (in part) Concur/dissent Stevens, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor Concur/dissent Thomas 4 dissenting votes: Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted November 10, 2022 Share Posted November 10, 2022 28 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: 4 dissenting votes: Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor Yes, but Ginsburg and Sotomayor voted with the majority for parts of the majority decision? Why? What parts? We had a split SC vote, and then further fractures within those fault lines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted November 10, 2022 Share Posted November 10, 2022 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said: Yes, but Ginsburg and Sotomayor voted with the majority for parts of the majority decision? Why? What parts? We had a split SC vote, and then further fractures within those fault lines? https://time.com/3445010/ruth-bader-ginsburg-citizens-united/ https://www.vox.com/2016/7/11/12148066/ruth-bader-ginsburg-citizens-united Edited November 10, 2022 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted November 10, 2022 Share Posted November 10, 2022 1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said: He has said many times he became interested in politics in general, after 9/11, and what he saw as government excesses in response to that. Did you read any of this? Bush and Cheney's much publicized run up to the Iraq war started in 2003. Read this again! He wrote this with Bush Cheney in almost 2006!. If he was so concerned about 9-11 rights violations. Why did he bandwagon with Bush Cheney Iraq war hysteria 5 years after 9-11? How about this quote Ben. So do you also think there was a MSM conspiracy to get us out of the Iraq War, like Glenn think? .Did you also feel Glenn's frustration at the MSM at the time? Are you aware of his tone here? Greenwald;American media refuses to understand what American citizens understand quite well: Do you think Smedley Butler would agree with Glenn?. Greenwald: There is no denying the fact that much of the world is opposed to the war in Iraq, and Latin America is no exception. That is hardly a surprise. Whatever one thinks of the Iraq war, it is always the case that threats to the national security of one country are going to be taken far more seriously by the people of that country, and far less seriously by the people in other countries… American media refuses to understand what American citizens understand quite well: particularly as to matters of American national security, the fact that people in other countries are opposed to what we are doing does not mean that what we are doing is misguided or wrong.” But what's worse is how he's tried to weasel out of his complicity. Look at the final link. https://thedailybanter.com/2013/04/glenn-greenwalds-hilarious-denial-about-his-support-for-iraq-war/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted November 10, 2022 Share Posted November 10, 2022 8 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said: Did you read any of this? Bush and Cheney's much publicized run up to the Iraq war started in 2003. Read this again! He wrote this with Bush Cheney in almost 2006!. If he was so concerned about 9-11 rights violations. Why did he bandwagon with Bush Cheney Iraq war hysteria 5 years after 9-11? How about this quote Ben. So do you also think there was a MSM conspiracy to get us out of the Iraq War, like Glenn think? .Did you also feel Glenn's frustration at the MSM at the time? Are you aware of his tone here? Greenwald;American media refuses to understand what American citizens understand quite well: Do you think Smedley Butler would agree with Glenn?. Greenwald: There is no denying the fact that much of the world is opposed to the war in Iraq, and Latin America is no exception. That is hardly a surprise. Whatever one thinks of the Iraq war, it is always the case that threats to the national security of one country are going to be taken far more seriously by the people of that country, and far less seriously by the people in other countries… American media refuses to understand what American citizens understand quite well: particularly as to matters of American national security, the fact that people in other countries are opposed to what we are doing does not mean that what we are doing is misguided or wrong.” But what's worse is how he's tried to weasel out of his complicity. Look at the final link. https://thedailybanter.com/2013/04/glenn-greenwalds-hilarious-denial-about-his-support-for-iraq-war/ Kirk- Greenwald may have been naive early in his career. Many people are. We have to allow people to grow, and possibly change positions. I more or less accepted the Warren Commission findings for many years, maybe even decades. I was not a public figure, so there are no records of me saying only kooks believed in conspiracies. Greenwald today is a very good independent reporter, IMHO. I wish he lived in the US, and there another 20 like him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Thomas Posted November 10, 2022 Share Posted November 10, 2022 8 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: It looks like they're calling the Senate squeaker in Wisconsin for RoJo the Clown. Words fail. Hard to believe that this shamelessly corrupt idiot could get re-elected to the U.S. Senate. W., The greatest political feat, and one that I will never understand, is getting people to vote against their own self-interest. Reporter to voter: "Are you on Social Security?" Voter: "Yes." Reporter: "Who are you going to vote for?" Voter: "Ron Johnson." Reporter: "You do know that he wants to eliminate Social Security, don't you?" Voter: "Yes." Reporter: "Then why are you going to vote for him?" Voter: "Because he shares my values." Observer (me): shaking his head and muttering: "I'll just never understand." Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts