McConnell warns corporations to stop exercising their free speech rights, or else

[Ana the Ist]

Basically you're saying the entire political system is screwed up.

I agree that Money=Speech is a bad idea.

Consider that you have supported the idea that companies and businesses can fire employees over public speech on social media for the past 4 years.

If they can run endless support for candidates (that's campaigning all the time) and fire you for speaking up against it....

We're quickly going to get to a point where appealing to voters won't really be necessary. The biggest companies can buy all the candidates since no candidates will win without both the 24/7 campaigning and the money. You won't be able to voice your disapproval in any significant way without threatening your job.

And you think you're protecting voting rights lol. Do you even consider the consequences of what you support or is it just a matter of who says it and what party they are from?

I'm pretty sure you believe in reasonable restrictions on gun rights. What's wrong with reasonable restrictions on voting rights?

 

[Ana the Ist]

What they are doing is responding to specific actions. Who are you to tell them they can't?

Let's say an employee tweets that he opposes those actions on social media....

Ok for his company to fire him for that?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I agree that Money=Speech is a bad idea.

We've been saying that for years. As it turns out, the For The People Act addresses this problem.

To the surprise of absolutely nobody, America's billionaires (more on them in a moment) are against it. Guess who else is? The recipients of their largesse.

Consider that you have supported the idea that companies and businesses can fire employees over public speech on social media for the past 4 years.

But of course -- businesses make business decisions -- if an employee proves to be a financial liability, the business has the right to can said employee like a tuna.

If they can run endless support for candidates (that's campaigning all the time)

Which they're not doing any more than they always are.

and fire you for speaking up against it....

That's the nightmare scenario you're claiming is imminent... the problem is, it's only going to come to pass if your political views end up costing the company money.

What you're worried about is already a reality: At the risk of Godwinning the discussion, I'll remind you that Nazism is a political affiliation -- and if your boss sees a video of you on social media waving a swastika flag and goose-stepping to a weekend reading of Mein Kampf, chances are you're going to be cleaning out your desk by the end of the week.

Not because of your politics in and of itself, but because those politics make you a financial liability -- people don't want to do business with Nazis... or the companies that employ them.

The fundamental flaw in your reasoning is that you're seeing workers as "people." But in the corporate structure, they're a human resource -- and like any other resource, they're used to generate profit. The only reason you have a job in the first place is because it would cost the company more money to train a replacement or buy a machine to do it instead.

I don't like the scenario any more than you, but it is what it is, not what we wish it were.

We're quickly going to get to a point where appealing to voters won't really be necessary. The biggest companies can buy all the candidates since no candidates will win without both the 24/7 campaigning and the money. You won't be able to voice your disapproval in any significant way without threatening your job.

We're already there -- there's a cadre of billionaires in this country whom the political elite are far more interested in appeasing than peasants such as you or I -- Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers come to mind (now, Adelson and one Koch -- David -- are dead now, but that money's still there for the political critter who grovels the best), and it shouldn't take a whole lot of research to find more names.

And you think you're protecting voting rights lol. Do you even consider the consequences of what you support or is it just a matter of who says it and what party they are from?

Do you? You want the government to punish corporations for making business decisions that the government doesn't approve of... the word "fascism" got tossed around a lot in the last few years, but that's a textbook example right there.

I'm pretty sure you believe in reasonable restrictions on gun rights. What's wrong with reasonable restrictions on voting rights?

I can understand why you would consider votes to be every bit as inherently dangerous as firearms... I, however, do not.

Besides, you're asking me the question you should be asking the corporations -- most likely because you know that the only reason they won't laugh in your face is because they wouldn't deign to listen to you in the first place.

After all, why should they? You're poor.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Let's say an employee tweets that he opposes those actions on social media....

Ok for his company to fire him for that?

Probably grounds for a lawsuit if they do.

And of course, win or lose, such a lawsuit would end up costing the company a fortune, not only in legal fees, but also bad publicity... and companies tend to avoid bad publicity like the plague. And that's all on top of the expense to replace the employee in the first place.

So I'm going to predict that no company that cares one whit about their bottom line is going to make such a costly error.

 

[Aldebaran]

The lines have been getting longer for a decade.

Why Do Nonwhite Georgia Voters Have To Wait In Line For Hours? Too Few Polling Places

The GOP solution to this is making it harder to vote, hindering mailing in votes, lowering number of drop boxes, hindering mobile voting locations, reducing the number of voting days, and closing earlier on election day.

They also took the even more provocative step to ban handing out water to people standing in their purposefully long lines.

When they get criticized on their handling of this they wine, complain, deflect and then minimize the problem.

Like you are.

So, we all have to ask why the GOP is threatened by easy voting access for all.

Don't the white voters stand in the same lines? Or are voting lines segregated?

 

[variant]

Don't the white voters stand in the same lines? Or are voting lines segregated?

Try reading the article.

Polling locations in the state have declined by 10% during a decade of population boom.

The population boom was mainly in non-white areas creating a problem.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court's Shelby v. Holder decision in 2013 eliminated key federal oversight of election decisions in states with histories of discrimination, Georgia's voter rolls have grown by nearly 2 million people, yet polling locations have been cut statewide by nearly 10%, according to an analysis of state and local records by Georgia Public Broadcasting and ProPublica. Much of the growth has been fueled by younger, nonwhite voters, especially in nine metro Atlanta counties, where four out of five new voters were nonwhite, according to the Georgia secretary of state's office.


The metro Atlanta area has been hit particularly hard. The nine counties — Fulton, Gwinnett, Forsyth, DeKalb, Cobb, Hall, Cherokee, Henry and Clayton — have nearly half of the state's active voters but only 38% of the polling places, according to the analysis.

As a result, the average number of voters packed into each polling location in those counties grew by nearly 40%, from about 2,600 in 2012 to more than 3,600 per polling place as of Oct. 9, the analysis shows. In addition, a last-minute push that opened more than 90 polling places just weeks before the November election has left many voters uncertain about where to vote or how long they might wait to cast a ballot.

The growth in registered voters has outstripped the number of available polling places in both predominantly white and Black neighborhoods. But the lines to vote have been longer in Black areas, because Black voters are more likely than whites to cast their ballots in person on Election Day and are more reluctant to vote by mail, according to U.S. census data and recent studies. Georgia Public Broadcasting/ProPublica found that about two-thirds of the polling places that had to stay open late for the June primary to accommodate waiting voters were in majority-Black neighborhoods, even though they made up only about one-third of the state's polling places. An analysis by Stanford University political science professor Jonathan Rodden of the data collected by Georgia Public Broadcasting/ProPublica found that the average wait time after 7 p.m. across Georgia was 51 minutes in polling places that were 90% or more nonwhite, but only six minutes in polling places that were 90% white.

Why Do Nonwhite Georgia Voters Have To Wait In Line For Hours? Too Few Polling Places

 

[Aldebaran]

Read the article.

The article written by NPR?
Former NPR CEO opens up about liberal media bias

 

[variant]

The article written by NPR?
Former NPR CEO opens up about liberal media bias

The article that cites it's sources and explains why black people in Georgia have to wait in line longer.

(that was the question you asked).

Black people in GA don't have to wait in line longer because the media is liberal, they do, and the liberal media reports on it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Probably grounds for a lawsuit if they do.

How would you afford a lawsuit if you're fired?

That doesn't happen often....and their right to fire people over opinions expressed in social media is pretty well established.

Harvard denied applicants for words spoken years ago.

Companies have fired people for less and won.

It's as if you don't remember saying "words have consequences" every time this has happened.

You're literally advocating that your input isn't necessary for governance.....and I'm starting to agree.

 

[Ana the Ist]

We've been saying that for years. As it turns out, the For The People Act addresses this problem.

To the surprise of absolutely nobody, America's billionaires (more on them in a moment) are against it. Guess who else is? The recipients of their largesse.

I started looking through it and I swear....I can't find any part where you have to prove you're actually a US citizen.

But of course -- businesses make business decisions -- if an employee proves to be a financial liability, the business has the right to can said employee like a tuna.

Which they're not doing any more than they always are.

That's the nightmare scenario you're claiming is imminent... the problem is, it's only going to come to pass if your political views end up costing the company money.

Right.

Which ends up being a situation where the company tells you what political views you can express freely.

What you're worried about is already a reality: At the risk of Godwinning the discussion, I'll remind you that Nazism is a political affiliation -- and if your boss sees a video of you on social media waving a swastika flag and goose-stepping to a weekend reading of Mein Kampf, chances are you're going to be cleaning out your desk by the end of the week.

Uh huh....know a lot of nazis getting fired?

Not because of your politics in and of itself, but because those politics make you a financial liability -- people don't want to do business with Nazis... or the companies that employ them.

It seems like you think this is limited to nazis.

Why wouldn't they just fire any employee supporting any candidate but the one they buy?

I don't like the scenario any more than you, but it is what it is, not what we wish it were.

Doesn't have to be.

I can understand why you would consider votes to be every bit as inherently dangerous as firearms... I, however, do not.

When I see the possibility of interference with the process....it's worthwhile to ensure it's integrity.

Besides, you're asking me the question you should be asking the corporations -- most likely because you know that the only reason they won't laugh in your face is because they wouldn't deign to listen to you in the first place.

After all, why should they? You're poor.

That's not where power comes from.

 

[TLK Valentine]

How would you afford a lawsuit if you're fired?

The same way most poor people afford justice.

Contingent fee - Wikipedia

That doesn't happen often....and their right to fire people over opinions expressed in social media is pretty well established.

Not as well as you'd like to pretend.

I just explained it all in detail, and have little interest in watching you ignore it again.

Harvard denied applicants for words spoken years ago.

As is their right to do,like it or not. Harvard wants students who are going to enhance their already prestigious reputation...and they can afford to be picky.

Whatcha gonna do about it?

Companies have fired people for less and won.

So you say... and I say that causing your bosses bad press is more, not less.

It's as if you don't remember saying "words have consequences" every time this has happened.

It's more like you don't understand my reasoning behind it -- but again, having explained it already so many times to no avail...

Hint: it rhymes with "money."

You're literally advocating that your input isn't necessary for governance.....and I'm starting to agree.

Our input, you mean... And I'm not "advocating" for anything-- I'm describing the reality; whether you choose to acknowledge it or not is of no concern to me; goodness knows you've never offered a viable solution.

Our government runs on money... and who has all the money these days?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I started looking through it and I swear....I can't find any part where you have to prove you're actually a US citizen.

Don't swear; it's a nasty habit.

Right.

Which ends up being a situation where the company tells you what political views you can express freely.

I already explained why it's unlikely to come to that.

You haven't explained what to do about it.

While you formulate an answer, you might find this interesting:

Can You Get Fired Because of a Facebook Post?

Uh huh....know a lot of nazis getting fired?

As a matter of fact...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nstrator-fired-from-libertarian-hot-dog-shop/

Nazi sympathiser profiled by The New York Times says he lost his job and may soon lose his home

More Nazis Are Getting Identified And Fired After Charlottesville | HuffPost

Minneapolis Lawyer Loses Job After Being Exposed as Neo-Nazi Record Label Head

Of course, you don't have to be an actual "Nazi"; consider Nicolas Rodean, who lost his job because of his participation in the 1/6 riot:

Let this be a valuable lesson: If you're going to storm the Capitol building...

1. Don't. It's a stupid idea that won't end well.
2. If you insist on doing so regardless, don't wear your work ID badge around your neck.

How embarrassing...

It seems like you think this is limited to nazis.

It seems like I just illustrated that it isn't...but I'll bet my blessings you'll forget that I did.

Anyone who makes their bosses look bad and hurts them financially is a downsizing waiting to happen... I'll bet my blessings you wouldn't find many Mar-a-Lago employees wearing "Ridin' with Biden" t-shirts.

Why wouldn't they just fire any employee supporting any candidate but the one they buy?

I literally explained that in detail, and you literally ignored it when you cut that part of my post our of your response.

Doesn't have to be.

No, it doesn't. But it requires a solution that doesn't violate the US Constitution and push this country off the cliff into full-blown fascism.

I have no such solution... and neither do you.

When I see the possibility of interference with the process....it's worthwhile to ensure it's integrity.

The possibility will always be there... perfection is impossible; we try for "good enough."

That's not where power comes from.

You're using "power" as a meaningless buzzword. You can do better.

A number of corporations have decided not to do business in Georgia because they don't like the politics. Whether their concerns are founded in reality or not is irrelevant. It's their company -- not yours, not mine, not the government's -- and they can do business (or not) in any state in the Union that they please.

Who are you to them to say they can't?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Don't swear; it's a nasty habit.

You can't find it either?

I already explained why it's unlikely to come to that.

I already explained that you have a lack of forsight.

Before we continue though....do you split with the left on any issue?

I don't want to waste my time with an ideologue who can't think for themselves. I'm not saying that's you....but let's hear a few issues you split against your side on.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You can't find it either?

What I can't find is relevance -- or are you under the impression that you're talking to a corporate CEO?

I already explained that you have a lack of forsight.

You claimed it, but you explained nothing.

Before we continue though....do you split with the left on any issue?

I don't want to waste my time with an ideologue who can't think for themselves. I'm not saying that's you....but let's hear a few issues you split against your side on.

I'm in favor of responsible gun ownership, I think reparations are a stupid idea,and the GND is noble but utterly unfeasible -- as irrelevant as this is, I only mention it to take away your imminent excuse.

This isn't about me, after all -- this is about businesses making business decisions based on the actions of political leaders. You don't like it, but you don't have a workable solution for it...hence, the change in subject.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What I can't find is relevance -- or are you under the impression that you're talking to a corporate CEO?

Well you claimed it was an effort to stop voting fraud.

To vote you have to be an American citizen of legal age.

I can't find anything that shows an effort to ensure these things.

In fact, they want to pre-enroll voters as young as 16.

You're saying there's no way a non-US citizen can game this system by showing up on the day of voting, register, and vote?

If this system makes no effort to ensure the 2 things that are the bare minimum of what is absolutely necessary to cast a valid vote.....then it's not worth the paper it's printed on.

I'm in favor of responsible gun ownership,

Did you mean responsible regulations?

I think reparations are a stupid idea,

And you don't support it?

and the GND is noble but utterly unfeasible --

GND? Did you mean the Green New Deal?

That is the left's position.

Let me be more clear....

I'm not asking about where your beliefs go from far left and creep towards center left.

I'm asking where you split from the left completely. A 100% split.

 

[essentialsaltes]

More than 100 chief executives and corporate leaders gathered online Saturday to discuss taking new action to combat the controversial state voting bills being considered across the country, including the one recently signed into law in Georgia.

Executives from major airlines, retailers and manufacturers — plus at least one NFL owner — talked about potential ways to show they opposed the legislation, including by halting donations to politicians who support the bills and even delaying investments in states that pass the restrictive measures, according to four people who were on the call, including one of the organizers, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a Yale management professor.

Leaders from dozens of companies such as Delta, American, United, Starbucks, Target, LinkedIn, Levi Strauss and Boston Consulting Group, along with Atlanta Falcons owner Arthur Blank, were included on the Zoom call, according to people who listened in.

Companies have jumped into hot-button political debates before, such as the corporate backlash to a 2016 North Carolina bill banning transgender people from using the public restroom that corresponds with their gender identities.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well you claimed it was an effort to stop voting fraud.

Did I?

Stop making this about me; you're not good at understanding my position, and frankly, I'm getting tired of explaining it to you.

The OP here is about the government trying to bring those corporations to heel. Got a plan for that?

No?

Moving on.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Did I?

Stop making this about me; you're not good at understanding my position, and frankly, I'm getting tired of explaining it to you.

The OP here is about the government trying to bring those corporations to heel. Got a plan for that?

Off the top of my head? Declare speech over the internet public speech regardless of whether or not it's a private platform and protected by the 1st amendment.

Then declare political speech protected from punishment by private entities.

Now.....do you have any position that you split from the left on or can I just disregard you as one of those incapable of thinking for yourself?

 

[Pommer]

Declare speech over the internet public speech regardless of whether or not it's a private platform and protected by the 1st amendment.

What?
Regulate speech between two private entities?
Good luck!

 

[Ana the Ist]

What?
Regulate speech between two private entities?
Good luck!

Didn't read the post huh?

I'm simply saying to deregulate it....protect it as free speech.