SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The fallout of the American Presidential election of 2016 continues, and many are concerned about what the eventual consequences will be. One potential member of a Trump administration has many more worried than not. Observe:
As Donald Trump commences his ghastly slouch toward Washington, a coterie of sycophants snatches at his coattails: Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie—we knew this particular trio would scurry after heightened relevance and authority. Unsurprisingly, all three have slavered their way to the president-elect's transition team, and possibly into the Cabinet. Less expected, perhaps, was billionaire PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel's recent appointment to the same advisory committee. And yet, an alliance between Trump and Thiel, however appalling, seems so fitting that hindsight renders it almost preordained.
One wonders about the temperament of the President-Elect, but even more about the basket of, um, unemployed, that swarm around him seeking positions in the new administration. Peter Thiel is well know for having bankrupted Gawker over the Hulk Hogan affair, but for personal reasons.
But Thiel did not bankroll Hogan's lawsuit in a show of fraternity. He had nurtured a grudge since December 2007, when Gawker published an article entitled, "Peter Thiel is totally gay, people." Thiel condemned Gawker for publicly outing him, though the site contended that he had already disclosed his sexuality to those in his social sphere. Although Thiel referred to Gawker as "a singularly terrible bully," he did not pursue legal action. Instead, his rancor smoldered until, nine years later, he landed a belated—but fatal—blow.
What might such vindictiveness accomplish with more than millions of dollars, but the full faith and credit of the United States, if it sought to silence criticism, whistle-blowing, truth-telling and journalism? Should Soylentils be worried?
(Score: 3, Informative) by jmorris on Sunday November 20 2016, @11:56PM
I know they are usually Fake News bullshitters, but since they are just posting the full text of Mrs. Clinton's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, I'll take a chance on posting a link to Politico:
HRC Accepting Nomination at DNC [politico.com]
Might I bring your attention to this paragraph:
That's why we need to appoint Supreme Court justices who will get money out of politics and expand voting rights, not restrict them. And we'll pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United!
What do you think the amendment she is proposing is? The entire SCOTUS agreed that banning a movie is entirely inconsistent with the 1st Amendment. Nine to zero. HRC would 'fix' that by removing the 1st and replacing it with some newspeak bullshit that would allow her to ban any dissent. You won't believe me so Google around, you can find plenty of examples directly from her evil hate hole where she is promising to raise heaven and earth to overthrow Citizens United. Ponder that. Nine to Zero decision. How do you overturn that and leave anything resembling a 1st Amendment? This wasn't a case where the SCOTUS was inventing a new right, they were just reading the 1st Amendment and saying, "yup, it really says what it looks like it says."
The way you know they are lying is a google search won't easily give you the actual Amendments being proposed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @03:00AM
> I know they are usually Fake News bullshitters
It says a lot about your credibility when you say politico is fake news but insist that breitbart is not really alt-right [soylentnews.org] despite the CEO's claim that "We're the platform for the alt-right," [motherjones.com]
> The way you know they are lying is a google search won't easily give you the actual Amendments being proposed.
Or... because it wasn't actually written yet since that shit is complicated. Nah. Its really a conspiracy to have a repeal of the 1st amendment secretly ratified by all 50 states while no one is looking.
A while back everybody was telling you to smoke some weed and chill out. What did you end up smoking? Meth?
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Monday November 21 2016, @03:13AM
It says a lot about your credibility when you say politico is fake news but insist that breitbart is not really alt-right despite the CEO's claim that "We're the platform for the alt-right,"
They aren't what anyone else on the alt-right really considers alt-right. But they do seem to be the closest thing to mass media allowing them to get any coverage other than "haters! racisss! shun!". Sorta like Rupert Murcoch's FNC isn't some sort of conservative bastion either, it just doesn't go out of their way to insult half the country and has a couple of fairly vanilla conservatives as prime time commentators.
Go read some real alt-right sites and compare. The difference isn't hard to see.
Or... because it wasn't actually written yet since that shit is complicated.
A fast Google should get you the same thing I found a bit earlier. (on a differnt machine now, so no browser history... bleh) NPR says the Senate actually voted on an amendment and passed it 52 to something at some point in the Obama years, but not the required supermajority though. But while I assume there was actual language being voted on, not even a mention of HOW it was supposed to overturn it. Because there isn't any way to overturn it without enraging every sane American who can see the consequences have to be far worse than any objection to the current situation.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday November 21 2016, @04:48PM
Citation definitely not provided. Excellent example of moving the goalposts, though.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Monday November 21 2016, @05:03PM
Not to abolish the first amendment, but to make the law Citizens United overturned part of the Constitution. The SCOTUS was wrong, money is NOT speech and the rich should have no more of a soapbox than anyone else.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Monday November 21 2016, @06:39PM
What do you think the amendment she is proposing is?
Me? I think it would be to explicitly define "money" as being outside the scope of what is "speech". And this seems reasonable.
Citizens United might have been the correct decision under the law, but it doesn't make the country a better place.
HRC would 'fix' that by removing the 1st and replacing it with some newspeak bullshit that would allow her to ban any dissent.
No she wouldn't. Even if that's what she wanted there's no way she'd ever get the votes or the state's to ratify anything approaching that. Constitutional amendments are hard -- its impossible that anything without really broad support would EVER pass. (Frankly, I don't think even undoing citizens united has enough broad support -- due to the number of people who benefit from it. And replacing the 1st with "some newspeak bullshit that would allow here to ban any dissent" is just over the top nutter FUD.