General Discussion

djean111

(14,255 posts)

37. Like the Koch brothers care any more if we peasants know what they are up to. Yawn.

Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:30 PM

Jan 2015

Not going to change a single vote, IMO.
I would be impressed if Obama said that, after reflection, the TTP and TTIP are really bad deals and so he will scuttle them, plus he will fulfill that rhetoric wherein he said he would re-address NAFTA. Um, re-address it to address the job losses, not make it even more corporate friendly.
What are the chances?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

129 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Rumors Swirl: Obama To Kneecap The Koch Brothers With Citizens United Executive Order [View all] herding cats Jan 2015 OP

That would be a master stroke. nt stevenleser Jan 2015 #1

The idea of such an EO has been discussed off and on for a few years now. herding cats Jan 2015 #6

What is to stop any company that submits a bid JimDandy Jan 2015 #46

I'll bet they thought of that. Betcha that'll be the part that is exposed, too... CTyankee Jan 2015 #59

I'm hoping so. JimDandy Jan 2015 #60

How can it not be? It's their favorite gambit, so to speak. CTyankee Jan 2015 #61

What's stopping them from ... aggiesal Jan 2015 #65

This is exactly what would be covered if an EO were to be issued. herding cats Jan 2015 #68

Obama said nothing about this in his speech, unfortunately. n/t JimDandy Jan 2015 #91

I would have been extremely surprised if he had. BeanMusical Jan 2015 #108

Couldn't this be overridden by the TPP? grahamhgreen Jan 2015 #117

No. nt stevenleser Jan 2015 #118

They could sue saying the rule impacts their profits. grahamhgreen Jan 2015 #119

No, they can't. nt stevenleser Jan 2015 #120

Of course they can. They got the money. The courts are in their favour if we sign the TPP. grahamhgreen Jan 2015 #125

Wow! HappyMe Jan 2015 #2

Agree this would be amazing, if true leftynyc Jan 2015 #3

I won't bet on it olddots Jan 2015 #4

I support Citizens United for free speech reasons, but I would have no problem with this. Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #5

Money is not speech and corporations upaloopa Jan 2015 #7

If the decision had gone the other way, Congress would be able to ban books Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #10

"Strongly Supports" is a stretch IMO Lochloosa Jan 2015 #13

Not only "supports", they filed an amicus brief with the court in the case. Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #14

Ban books? Nonsense. Books are books, and money is money. Maineman Jan 2015 #21

The government actually argued to the court that it should be possible to ban books. Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #23

Books are speech. Money is not. Orsino Jan 2015 #103

Money, as donations, is association Act_of_Reparation Jan 2015 #114

Money isn't speech. Orsino Jan 2015 #115

I'll repeat: it is association Act_of_Reparation Jan 2015 #121

And movies are movies... PosterChild Jan 2015 #82

What I said upaloopa Jan 2015 #22

Well-said. AzDar Jan 2015 #90

Yeesh MFrohike Jan 2015 #72

Again, the government argued before the justices that it had the power to ban books. Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #73

Oh? MFrohike Jan 2015 #74

The exact phrase he used was "prohibit the publication of the book" (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #77

Within the statutory period MFrohike Jan 2015 #80

Supporting Citizens United to prevent the banning of books is a silly non sequitur. n/t Orsino Jan 2015 #104

I think a big reason why the ACLU supports the decision so strongly Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #105

I wish I could rec this. we can do it Jan 2015 #20

I stand with the ACLU on this issue (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #36

Me, too. n/t Duval Jan 2015 #43

Citizens United did not say that "money is speech" skepticscott Jan 2015 #38

Where do you suppose those ideas came from? upaloopa Jan 2015 #48

They came from a misunderstanding or a deliberate twisting skepticscott Jan 2015 #70

I think that is pure bull shit upaloopa Jan 2015 #89

Post removed Post removed Jan 2015 #106

Actually, it was pretty much pulled out of someone's ass. Flatulo Jan 2015 #100

Citizens United squelches free speech. It makes it impossible for individual's voices to be heard Takket Jan 2015 #9

On the contrary, you can band together with other like-minded individuals, Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #11

How the hell are people who don't have time for their kids LawDeeDah Jan 2015 #17

Much of Obama's support came from small contributions from individuals. Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #26

Get real OK ? upaloopa Jan 2015 #29

WTF, indeed. Enthusiast Jan 2015 #92

How do you make your "collective voice heard" if you are hiding in a corner? A Simple Game Jan 2015 #24

Joining a union would be one example (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #30

because unions are so strong in the US today neverforget Jan 2015 #49

+1 an entire shit load. Enthusiast Jan 2015 #93

You can ban with other working class people upaloopa Jan 2015 #27

I support the right of unions to speak for their members. Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #32

What percent of people are in unions? upaloopa Jan 2015 #47

11.3%, or 14.5 million people Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #50

Unions have that right already. And it isn't working out well for my side. Enthusiast Jan 2015 #94

Funny how corporations use their money, sorry "free speech", to buy politicians while us little guys neverforget Jan 2015 #86

+1 Enthusiast Jan 2015 #95

So you agree edhopper Jan 2015 #25

Corporations are not "people", but do have constitutional rights. Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #28

Paying dues to a union edhopper Jan 2015 #33

It's one example of how people can have a collective voice. Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #35

Yes, and avoiding responsibility is the reason businesses incorporate in the first place whathehell Jan 2015 #67

True that edhopper Jan 2015 #69

limited liability isn't avoidance.. PosterChild Jan 2015 #83

Limited liability should mean limited rights.. whathehell Jan 2015 #88

+1 You nailed it. Enthusiast Jan 2015 #97

Thanks. n/t whathehell Jan 2015 #101

I generally agree (nt) PosterChild Jan 2015 #128

+1 Enthusiast Jan 2015 #96

No, and if Citizens United had said either of those things skepticscott Jan 2015 #41

I think that is debatable edhopper Jan 2015 #52

Wikipedia articulates the decision accurately: Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #57

Jesus. WilliamPitt Jan 2015 #55

Was that also your reaction to the ACLU filing an amicus brief in the case? Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #56

Are you constitutionally guaranteed protection to pay a police officer not to give harun Jan 2015 #107

No, bribing a law enforcement officer is very different from making a movie or publishing a book Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #109

A bribe is what the law says it is. harun Jan 2015 #111

Should a publisher be allowed to publish whatever book they want? (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #112

Publisher yes, PAC no. A PAC being what is defined by the Federal Elections Campaign Act as a PAC. harun Jan 2015 #122

How would you codify in the Constitution that a publisher has First Amendment rights, Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #123

As long as an individuals rights are not infringed upon I don't care if Congress screws them both. harun Jan 2015 #124

So you're OK with the constitution to allow Congress to ban publishers from publishing books, Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #127

PAC's, not publishers harun Jan 2015 #129

BUT, BUT, BUT... Ykcutnek Jan 2015 #8

Be still my heart! LawDeeDah Jan 2015 #12

Good start. Half-Century Man Jan 2015 #15

I've had a Citizens United inspired sig line from an Obama SOTU from a few years ago. Renew Deal Jan 2015 #16

If I can't have the lottery, Lord, let me have this one rurallib Jan 2015 #18

Hey! LOL! Enthusiast Jan 2015 #102

I don't think the Citizens United decision included a provision for anyone to hide their... George II Jan 2015 #19

Always give the Koch Brothers the benefit of the doubt. tridim Jan 2015 #31

+1 Enthusiast Jan 2015 #98

It's actually due to a loophole which is being exploited to that effect after the CU ruling. herding cats Jan 2015 #40

WAIT! "to disclose political contributions after contracts have been awarded" Roland99 Jan 2015 #34

It's the only legal way this can be done after the SC ruling. herding cats Jan 2015 #42

Closing the barn door after the animals have left.... Roland99 Jan 2015 #78

Like the Koch brothers care any more if we peasants know what they are up to. Yawn. djean111 Jan 2015 #37

Man, let us pray! Duval Jan 2015 #39

That's a start... vkkv Jan 2015 #44

Whoopie. We can already connect the dots, but the media belongs to the crooks, so no one knows. Scuba Jan 2015 #45

I won't believe it until I see those names in print. WHEN CRABS ROAR Jan 2015 #51

Worst of all is Rush Limbaugh having a government contract to spew his vile lies and misinformation kelliekat44 Jan 2015 #53

+1 an entire shit load. Enthusiast Jan 2015 #99

This comes rightt out of Teddy Roosevelt's book, and right when we need it. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #54

well I hardly call that "knee-capping" vlyons Jan 2015 #58

Halliburton, Bushco, Carlyle Group! grasswire Jan 2015 #62

Corporations are my kind of friends, my friend. kairos12 Jan 2015 #63

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! kpete Jan 2015 #64

Alito won't like this Enrique Jan 2015 #66

When pigs fly... blkmusclmachine Jan 2015 #71

Kneecapping? Hardly MFrohike Jan 2015 #75

I thought at first this may be an Onion type thing.. Cha Jan 2015 #76

Many Congressional Democrats will oppose such a thing madville Jan 2015 #79

Or else what? If you guessed or else nothing, you win, cuz that's how valerief Jan 2015 #81

Watched the entire speech, did I sleep through this part? George II Jan 2015 #84

Nope, I watched it, too. herding cats Jan 2015 #85

I say do it. LynneSin Jan 2015 #87

Terrible Supreme Court? Or the worst Supreme Court in history? world wide wally Jan 2015 #110

THat's great. Hope it's true - NOW WHAT ABOUT TPP? Ferd Berfel Jan 2015 #113

The only problem I see with this is that it would happen AFTER the contract has been awarded... DesertDiamond Jan 2015 #116

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE! Anansi1171 Jan 2015 #126