I'm not sure how I feel about this. Normally, I would say no way, cutting their funding is beyond the pail.
On the other, these politicians have been raising millions of dollars in the last few months, very openly, on verifiably false information (that the election was stolen and that they were going to fix it).
So I'm not sure I see it any differently than a processor cutting off funding for any other scam operation out there.
Add to that the results were not just taking money from scammed donors, but ended up lending enough credence to the lies to incite a riot.
Edit: sorry, I completely misread what the article was saying. Those banks are halting their own PAC donations. I thought they were refusing to process donations for all PACs for those politicians. They are of course free to donate how they please.
The title has been editorialized enough that it’s inaccurate.
Actual title: Capitol Riot Prompts Some Big Banks and Companies to Pause Political Funding
Subtitle: JPMorgan and Citigroup to halt all PAC donations; Blue Cross and Marriott pause funding to Republicans who objected to Electoral College results
JPM and Citi are pausing their own donations to all PACs, regardless of party, not donations to specific Republican candidates or to only Republican PACs.
Thanks for providing the CNN link as well. Submitting WSJ’s own subtitle of “JPMorgan and Citigroup to halt all PAC donations” seems like it would have avoided the confusion entirely - it’s clear and accurate.
I did read the full story. The title you chose has a significantly different meaning than the title and content of the WSJ article, though. The WSJ article says that these banks are pausing all political funding to PACs, which is much different than pausing only funding of specific Republicans. Not funding any PACs means that the banks don’t want to be involved in party politics at all right now. On the other hand, not funding specific candidates or a specific party would be a statement about those entities.
The WSJ’s word choice also conveys that these banks are halting their own donations, not refusing to process all donations.
I hope that explains why the WSJ’s “all PAC donations” is much different than this submission’s “funding the Republicans who objected.”
1- This is from the story title "..pause funding to Republicans who objected to Electoral College" So I didn't invent something new.
2- CNN story has exactly the same title that I chose here.
3- the story itself about Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley.
Yet, you see it differently, because there's "all". And blame me for the poor choice. Well, I didn't see that coming.
one interesting dynamic of the Republican party now seems to be that the faction still allied to the president has to wage a culture-war, a war against America's political institutions and a war against the most productive industries in the country, none of which is going very well.
So you really have to ask yourself where this is going to end, are they at some point going to move into the Mojave desert and start a Fallout style cult?
People are writing Trump off. They think this is the end of the road for a candidate that received 72 million votes. Even the Dems are desperate to impeach him so he can't run again. Why else even bother with 2 weeks to go...
Trump will be back, that's guarantee and he will be more popular than ever. These companies like Twitter, FB, etc are finished if he runs in 2024 and wins. He would have won this election if it wasn't for a herculean effort by every Democrat and their supporters and add to that Covid 19, he would have won another 4 years.
This economy is going down the shitter real quick. Biden and his camp are in a lose lose. Only a mad man would have wanted to take over in these conditions. It is a guaranteed fail in the next 4 years...
> Trump will be back, that's guarantee and he will be more popular than ever.
Assuming he's still alive and mobile in 2024. Given his diet that's an assumption I'm not comfortable making.
> These companies like Twitter, FB, etc are finished if he runs in 2024 and wins.
I don't think he can EO his way into killing SV. Sometimes people need to be reminded that the USA is a democracy, not a monarchy, and any president doesn't have the power to unilaterally dead companies that prop up Wall Street earnings. Nor would they given the bloodbath that would occur on the markets as a result of a move like that.
> This economy is going down the shitter real quick.
Primarily due to the impact COVID has had on the US economy, right? Trump is still in office, right? I don't think you can blame Biden on Trump's economic woes due to his COVID response. If Trump would have shown some leadership in that space I expect he would have won the election. Thankfully that didn't occur.
Republican's are going to have to abandon the Trump faction to save the viability of their own party.
Its going to be hard to wage effective elections if they can't get funding, and grass roots are shallow roots... they dont have the deep cool resources of big business.
There's a meaningful difference between "dissenting opinion" on what tax policy should be, and "dissenting opinion" on whether we should be accepting the results of a free and fair election.
Eradication of dissension on the first is concerning (yes, even for tax policies that have been empirically shown to be utter bullshit).
Eradication of dissension on the second is more in the nature of A Very Good Idea If We Want Democracy To Continue.
Guess what? People can still be Flat Earthers if they want to be. They're absolutely wrong, and stupid, but they're welcome to be so.
What they're not welcome to do is inflame the public against the legitimately elected government with easily-disproven lies about the legitimacy of that election.
Inflame with differing political opinion? Sure.
Inflame with genuine possible electoral tampering? Fine.
Believe easily-disproven lies in the privacy of their own heads? Go for it.
But once they're trying to spread lies like that—and especially when they use those lies to incite a literal violent insurrection against our government—they've crossed a line.
You're begging the question by calling it a "free and fair election". The dissent is whether that is actually the case. And if it is not, then the eradication of that dissent is terrifying.
The question has been raised in over 60 different legal challenges. Every single one has failed utterly to show any evidence that it was not.
At this point, claiming there is any doubt means you are asserting an unprecedentedly massive conspiracy. It doesn't make you fair-minded, nonpartisan, or somehow above the fray. It makes you either deliberately attempting to sow unfounded doubt, or so ludicrously and willfully blind that you might as well be complicit in the attempt to overthrow the government.
"Agree with me or you're guilty too". Those challenges were defeated on procedural grounds, not because of a lack of evidence. The investigations of the 2016 election were started for less.
This initial point you make in this statement... applies exactly to the impeachment that already happed. And to the Kananaugh hearings...
Orange Man Bad is emotional, not factual.. Most proponents of this are unable to pinpoint much if anything "Bad" done by Orange Man.
26 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 61.8 ms ] threadOn the other, these politicians have been raising millions of dollars in the last few months, very openly, on verifiably false information (that the election was stolen and that they were going to fix it).
So I'm not sure I see it any differently than a processor cutting off funding for any other scam operation out there.
Add to that the results were not just taking money from scammed donors, but ended up lending enough credence to the lies to incite a riot.
Edit: sorry, I completely misread what the article was saying. Those banks are halting their own PAC donations. I thought they were refusing to process donations for all PACs for those politicians. They are of course free to donate how they please.
Actual title: Capitol Riot Prompts Some Big Banks and Companies to Pause Political Funding
Subtitle: JPMorgan and Citigroup to halt all PAC donations; Blue Cross and Marriott pause funding to Republicans who objected to Electoral College results
"JPMorgan and Citigroup to halt all PAC donations; Blue Cross and Marriott pause funding to Republicans who objected to Electoral College results"
edit:
This is from CNN: Corporate America halts donations to Republicans who voted to overturn the election https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/10/business/citigroup-bluecr...
I did read the full story. The title you chose has a significantly different meaning than the title and content of the WSJ article, though. The WSJ article says that these banks are pausing all political funding to PACs, which is much different than pausing only funding of specific Republicans. Not funding any PACs means that the banks don’t want to be involved in party politics at all right now. On the other hand, not funding specific candidates or a specific party would be a statement about those entities.
The WSJ’s word choice also conveys that these banks are halting their own donations, not refusing to process all donations.
I hope that explains why the WSJ’s “all PAC donations” is much different than this submission’s “funding the Republicans who objected.”
Yet, you see it differently, because there's "all". And blame me for the poor choice. Well, I didn't see that coming.
So you really have to ask yourself where this is going to end, are they at some point going to move into the Mojave desert and start a Fallout style cult?
Trump will be back, that's guarantee and he will be more popular than ever. These companies like Twitter, FB, etc are finished if he runs in 2024 and wins. He would have won this election if it wasn't for a herculean effort by every Democrat and their supporters and add to that Covid 19, he would have won another 4 years.
This economy is going down the shitter real quick. Biden and his camp are in a lose lose. Only a mad man would have wanted to take over in these conditions. It is a guaranteed fail in the next 4 years...
Assuming he's still alive and mobile in 2024. Given his diet that's an assumption I'm not comfortable making.
> These companies like Twitter, FB, etc are finished if he runs in 2024 and wins.
I don't think he can EO his way into killing SV. Sometimes people need to be reminded that the USA is a democracy, not a monarchy, and any president doesn't have the power to unilaterally dead companies that prop up Wall Street earnings. Nor would they given the bloodbath that would occur on the markets as a result of a move like that.
> This economy is going down the shitter real quick.
Primarily due to the impact COVID has had on the US economy, right? Trump is still in office, right? I don't think you can blame Biden on Trump's economic woes due to his COVID response. If Trump would have shown some leadership in that space I expect he would have won the election. Thankfully that didn't occur.
Its going to be hard to wage effective elections if they can't get funding, and grass roots are shallow roots... they dont have the deep cool resources of big business.
Nearly as terrifying as the otherwise intelligent people seeming to cheer for the authoritarianism.
Eradication of dissension on the first is concerning (yes, even for tax policies that have been empirically shown to be utter bullshit).
Eradication of dissension on the second is more in the nature of A Very Good Idea If We Want Democracy To Continue.
The notion of external opinions being crammed down through threat of deplatforming and blacklisting is scary stuff.
I urge reconsideration.
What they're not welcome to do is inflame the public against the legitimately elected government with easily-disproven lies about the legitimacy of that election.
Inflame with differing political opinion? Sure. Inflame with genuine possible electoral tampering? Fine. Believe easily-disproven lies in the privacy of their own heads? Go for it.
But once they're trying to spread lies like that—and especially when they use those lies to incite a literal violent insurrection against our government—they've crossed a line.
At this point, claiming there is any doubt means you are asserting an unprecedentedly massive conspiracy. It doesn't make you fair-minded, nonpartisan, or somehow above the fray. It makes you either deliberately attempting to sow unfounded doubt, or so ludicrously and willfully blind that you might as well be complicit in the attempt to overthrow the government.