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: 2) by number11 on Monday November 21 2016, @12:18AM
Team Blue just fielded a candidate who literally said she would repeal the 1st Amendment if it took it to overturn the Citizens United decision.
What a load of crap. If you claim she literally said that, give us the quote where she did.
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Monday November 21 2016, @01:59AM
Look around in this thread, I ain't in the habit of repeating myself, especially for a link that is a trivial Google search. We are not talking about some obscure utterance, she has said it over and over again, including her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. Lemme guess, you couldn't be bothered to actually endure her screeches anymore than I could. But that is why they made transcripts. Remember, I usually know more about the positions of my Enemies than most supporters do. Doubt me at your peril of being made a fool of.
(Score: 5, Informative) by aristarchus on Monday November 21 2016, @02:33AM
Jmorris, you are a fool.
Look around in this thread, I ain't in the habit of repeating myself,
You cannot say things that every Soylentil knows for a fact are not true, it doesn't work.
We are not talking about some obscure utterance, she has said it over and over again, including her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention.
Yes, we are. Given your usual right-wing nut job understanding of the Constitution of the United States, you may be unaware there are amendments beyond the first two. Hilary was referring to the 14th, and the legal decisions that allowed corporations legal status as fictional persons, which given the totally corrupt Citizens United decision, could use some clarification (if America is to survive: who do you think is "free speeching" or paying for all the fake news?) She never said she wanted to abolish the First Amendment.
Remember, I usually know more about the positions of my Enemies than most supporters do.
Oh, if only we could forget! If only it were true! If ONLY you stopped claiming things that are not true. But lets talk about Stalin and Dialectical Materialism, OK?
Doubt me at your peril of being made a fool of.
Right back at ya, bro! But you never seem to understand that you are making a fool out of yourself with farfetched paranoid interpretations of rather straightforward statements in public speeches. Come in from the cold, jmorris! I worry what might happen to you if Thiel ever decides that you are an irritation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @01:58PM
a corporation is a fictional person with the legal rights of a person
that's what a corporation is
that's what the word means
it was not invented by a clerk in the 1860, the clerk knew it had always been the case
don't lecture others on the law when you don't know basic shit like this
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday November 21 2016, @04:26PM
a corporation is a fictional person with the legal rights of a person
that's what a corporation is
Are we speaking in general, or only about American law? A legal fiction, which is a special kind, not just a "Sherlock Holmes" kind of fictional person, but as opposed to a natural person.
that's what the word means
I am embarrassed by your ignorance. Corpus is Latin for "body", as in corpse, or corps d'espirit. Now a corporation is not literally a body, it is a group, a collection, a pool, usually formed for purposes of sharing risk or avoiding liability.
Don't lecture people about lecturing about something you know nothing about, please?
(Score: 2) by number11 on Tuesday November 22 2016, @02:49AM
A trivial google search for turns up nothing except nutcase rightwing websites and an idiot Congressman making the claim. Polifact rated the claim as false. You're the one who made the claim that she literally said it. Maybe English isn't your forte, "literally" means "those exact words", so those words would be in the direct quote. Funny, if it really happened, I'd think it there would be a transcript of the quote or something, not just hysterical rightwingers. But nope. Just hysterical rightwingers.
She thinks the Supremes got it wrong in Citizens United, as does a lot of the rest of the country. I do not think either of us believes that the Supremes never make a mistake. She proposed an amendment to correct the problem, not to "repeal the first amendment."
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday November 22 2016, @06:10PM
How many other 9-0 decisions have ever been overturned? And she doesn't promise her supporters in her nominating speech she will find some way to replace five SCOTUS judges, because even a Democrat is smart enough to know that isn't going to happen and her followers don't want to hear about a multi-generation effort. No, she promised an Amendment. Would any proposed Amendment be a cut/paste of the 21st and just say "The first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed."? Of course not, it will be, as I state elsewhere in this thread, some NewSpeak babble that will say the same thing. Because lying is what they do, deception their principle value. But just like Obama lied about Obamacare, her Amendment would be another "pass it to find out what is in it" scam where we would be ringing the alarm bell about the danger and her media would be telling us we were being paranoid.
But I'm game, so go ahead big boy, tell us what she won't; tell us of this magical Amendment that doesn't repeal the 1st Amendment while reversing a 9-0 decision that says the FEC can't ban a movie OR book critical of a candidate for office. Remember, it was when the lead lawyer was asked that question, whether these restrictions would apply equally to books, that every court watcher knew the verdict was sealed. So tell us how your perfectly balanced text will only ban SOME books. Tell us how we will still have free speech, a free press, etc. after this is done.