Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., weighed in on businesses criticizing Georgia over its new voting law, saying those businesses should stay out of politics. The Morning Joe panel discusses. Aired on 04/06/2021.
» Subscribe to MSNBC: http://on.msnbc.com/SubscribeTomsnbc
About Morning Joe with Joe Scarborough: Join Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, and Willie Geist, for in-depth and informed discussions that help drive the day’s political conversation. Top newsmakers, Washington insiders, journalists, and cultural influencers, come together on Morning Joe for unparalleled insight and analysis around the day’s biggest stories.
MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, Meet the Press Daily, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House with Nicolle Wallace, Hardball, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and more.
Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com: http://on.msnbc.com/Readmsnbc
Subscribe to MSNBC Newsletter: http://MSNBC.com/NewslettersYouTube
Find MSNBC on Facebook: http://on.msnbc.com/Likemsnbc
Follow MSNBC on Twitter: http://on.msnbc.com/Followmsnbc
Follow MSNBC on Instagram: http://on.msnbc.com/Instamsnbc
#MitchMcConnell #Georgia #MSNBC
Sen. Mcconnell Tells Big Business To ‘Stay Out Of Politics’ | Morning Joe | MSNBC
Stay out of politics but just ” GIVE ME YOUR MONEY “
They have just as much right to get involved as anyone else on twitter. You sure dont mind when they are donating millions to your campaign. The my pillow guy stayed involved and you love him.
“…in these big fights…”
Sounds too much PERHAPS, LIKE mitch HAS NO WILLINGNESS TO COMPROMISE WHATSOEVER, ONLY FIGHT.
WHO ELSE
SEEZ
THIS
AS
THE
REASON MITCH IS NO LONGER VALUABLE ALIVE. (POLITICALLY, OF COURSE)
The failed neoliberal experiment also makes the case not just for better-regulated capitalism but for direct public alternatives as well. Banking, done properly, especially the provision of mortgage finance, is close to a public utility. Much of it could be public. A great deal of research is done more honestly and more cost-effectively in public, peer-reviewed institutions such as the NIHthan by a substantially corrupt private pharmaceutical industry. Social housing often is more cost-effective than so-called public-private partnerships. Public power is more efficient to generate, less prone to monopolistic price-gouging, and friendlier to the needed green transition than private power. The public option in health care is far more efficient than the current crazy quilt in which each layer of complexity adds opacity and cost. Public provision does require public oversight, but that is more straightforward and transparent than the byzantine dance of regulation and counter-regulation.
The two other benefits of direct public provision are that the public gets direct evidence of government delivering something of value, and that the countervailing power of democracy to harness markets is enhanced. A mixed economy depends above all on a strong democracy—one even stronger than the democracy that succumbed to the corrupting influence of economic elites and their neoliberal intellectual allies beginning half a century ago. The antidote to the resurrected neoliberal fable is the resurrection of democracy—strong enough to tame the market in a way that tames it for keeps.

Robert Kuttner
Robert Kuttner is co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect, and professor at Brandeis University’s Heller School.
<~~wrong answer~~>
America Is Now the Divided Republic the Framers Feared
John Adams worried that “a division of the republic into two great parties … is to be dreaded as the great political evil.” And that’s exactly what has come to pass.
LEE DRUTMANJANUARY 2, 2020
George Washington’s farewell address is often remembered for its warning against hyper-partisanship: “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.” John Adams, Washington’s successor, similarly worried that “a division of the republic into two great parties … is to be dreaded as the great political evil.”
America has now become that dreaded divided republic. The existential menace is as foretold, and it is breaking the system of government the Founders put in place with the Constitution.
Though America’s two-party system goes back centuries, the threat today is new and different because the two parties are now truly distinct, a development that I date to the 2010 midterms. Until then, the two parties contained enough overlapping multitudes within them that the sort of bargaining and coalition-building natural to multiparty democracy could work inside the two-party system. No more. America now has just two parties, and that’s it.
The theory that guided Washington and Adams was simple, and widespread at the time. If a consistent partisan majority ever united to take control of the government, it would use its power to oppress the minority. The fragile consent of the governed would break down, and violence and authoritarianism would follow. This was how previous republics had fallen into civil wars, and the Framers were intent on learning from history, not repeating its mistakes.
James Madison, the preeminent theorist of the bunch and rightly called the father of the Constitution, supported the idea of an “extended republic” (a strong national government, as opposed to 13 loosely confederated states) for precisely this reason. In a small republic, he reasoned, factions could more easily unite into consistent governing majorities. But in a large republic, with more factions and more distance, a permanent majority with
a permanent minority was less likely.
US Supreme Court strikes down key component of Voting Rights Act
Coverage formula no longer meaningful and rational
SOCIETY AND CULTURECIVIL RIGHTS

Sharon Kehnemui
@digisharon
June 25, 2013
In a momentous 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court Tuesday invalidated a major provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that mandated federal oversight of election laws in states with a history of discriminatory practices.
The justices concluded that section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act was no longer applicable, noting that voter turnout models show that minority voters are on par or exceed white turnout in many of the very states and localities that had been put under federal watch in 1965.
“Congress’s failure to modernize the law in light of the enormous improvements in minority electoral opportunities in the states covered by the law rendered it unconstitutional,” Chief Justice John R. Roberts wrote in the majority opinion of the court.
“Congress’ failure … leaves us today with no choice but to declare §4(b) unconstitutional,” Roberts wrote.
“This decision restores an important constitutional order to our system of government which requires that all 50 states are entitled to equal dignity and sovereignty,” AEI Visiting Fellow Ed Blum said after the court’s ruling.
“Our nation’s laws must apply uniformly to each state and jurisdiction,” he said.
Blum, who is director of The Project on Fair Representation (POFR), a not-for-profit legal defense foundation based in Alexandria, Va., provided counsel to Shelby County, Ala., which sued the federal government in 2010 claiming that the voting rights rules unfairly singled out jurisdictions based on outdated data.
“We are grateful the Supreme Court recognized that our vibrant and diverse county no longer requires federal supervision of our elections,” Frank C, Ellis, Jr., the county attorney for Shelby County, Ala., said.
The entirety of nine states — Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia — and 69 other jurisdictions in California, Florida, New York, North Carolina, Michigan and South Dakota were originally covered by the law, which abolished barriers to voting and required the jurisdictions to get “preclearance” from the Justice Department to make any changes to voting rules.
The formula … can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance,” Roberts wrote, noting that discriminatory practices are still forbidden by the law.
Originally scheduled to expire in five years after it was enacted in 1965, the law had been renewed four times without any changes to acknowledge the progress made in minority voting. The 2006 vote in Congress, which received overwhelming support, put it in force for another 25 years.
At the time the law was enacted, it had real impact. The racial disparity in voting in 1964 showed a 49.9 percentage-point gap in Alabama. But by 2004, that number was 0.9, according to a chart compiled by the Supreme Court from House and Senate compilations of Census data. In 2012, black turnout in Alabama was 3.5 percentage points higher than white turnout, according to the US Census.
“There is no valid reason to insulate the coverage formula from review merely because it was previously enacted 40 years ago. If Congress had started from scratch in 2006, it plainly could not have enacted the present coverage formula,” Roberts wrote.
“The justices correctly acknowledged that the covered jurisdictions should no longer be punished by the federal government for conditions that existed over 40 years ago,” Ellis said. “The South is an altogether different place than it was in 1965.”
“The Supreme Court today confirmed that there are no meaningful differences in minority voting opportunities between the covered and non-covered jurisdictions,” Blum said. “The American South long ago laid down the burdens of minority disfranchisement and has integrated African Americans fully into its political life.
“The Supreme Court’s opinion is a great testament to the character of the American people who have labored to fulfill the guarantee of racial equality in voting,” he added.
While there will be a lot of individuals that feel that more discussions about politics only lead to arguments and cuss words, we feel those are individuals that are exposed to the wrong kind of discussions. Politics is a subject which affects everyone because of policies which are passed and maintained by the law.
Here is why it is important to talk about politics:
It Raises Awareness

Whenever there are issues in the existing political system, it is because of officials who are willfully ignorant or incompetent to handle the job. Talking about politics in general will help to raise public awareness about policies or politicians that really shouldn’t be voted into the position in the future.
It Promotes Involvement

When people don’t take part in the politics of their country or even their localized politics, this allows problematic individuals to take hold of power. When people are more comfortable about talking about politics, the better chances they have of being actually involved. Keeping track on who’s running, what sort of policies are being promoted—all these are under the watchful eye of those that discuss politics.
When it comes to the topic of politics, being open and honest with your thoughts and your feelings is important. This is how you can really get your ideas across and find people you can converse with that will not devolve into hurling insults or going with opinion rather than facts. The discussion of politics is essential if there is to be any true and effective change in our collective futures.
So there you have it! We’ve given a few points regarding the importance of talking about politics. What about you? Do you think there is any merit to the discussion of politics? What do you think can be obtained through discussions about politics?
Share this:
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)
Related
Indeed, empirical evidence suggests that political knowledge contributes to more stable and consistent political attitudes, helps citizens achieve their own interests and make decisions that conform with their attitudes and preferences, promotes support for democratic values, facilitates trust in the political system, …May 31, 2016
Why is it important to have political knowledge?
Indeed, empirical evidence suggests that political knowledge contributes to more stable and consistent political attitudes, helps citizens achieve their own interests and make decisions that conform with their attitudes and preferences, promotes support for democratic values, facilitates trust in the political system, …May 31, 2016
If you pay attention— you will see REPUBLICANS PREFER ILLEGAL PARTICIPATION IN POLITICS!
Illegal Participation: activities that break the law. Most of the time, people resort to illegal participation only when legal means have failed to create significant political change.
Example: Illegal political participation includes political assassination, terrorism, and sabotaging an opponent’s campaign through theft or vandalism.
LIKE
ATTACKING
THE
U.S. CAPITAL
TO
STOP
THE
VOTE
COUNTS .
JAN.6
Political Participation
Summary Political Participation
Political Participation is any activity that shapes, affects, or involves the political sphere. Political participation ranges from voting to attending a rally to committing an act of terrorism to sending a letter to a representative. Broadly speaking, there are three types of participation:
Conventional Participation: Activities that we expect of good citizens. For most people, participation occurs every few years at election time. People strongly committed to politics are more likely to participate on a regular basis.
Example: Conventional political participation includes voting, volunteering for a political campaign, making a
__________________________
campaign donation, belonging to activist groups, and serving in public office.
Unconventional Participation: Activities that are legal but often considered inappropriate. Young people, students, and those with grave concerns about a regime’s policies are most likely to engage in unconventional participation.
Example: Unconventional political participation includes signing petitions, supporting boycotts, and staging demonstrations and protests.
Political participation refers to voluntary activities undertaken by the mass public to influence public policy, either directly or by affecting the selection of persons who make policies. Examples of these activities include voting in elections, helping a political campaign, donating money to a candidate or cause, contacting officials, petitioning, protesting, and working with other people on issues. Particular activities cluster into modes of participation. Substantial cross-national data have shown that wealthier and better-educated people participate at higher rates than the less advantaged, although this relationship is weaker in countries where strong parties or other political organizations provide alternative resources. Research associated with the Civic Voluntarism Model (CVM) has documented that people transfer to political activity skills which they acquire in organizations. The CVM and other recent studies have also demonstrated that people participate more in response to recruitment or mobilization. (Both terms refer to efforts by one person to increase the activity of another.) The Political Action project has shown that people have expanded their ‘political action repertory’ to encompass both protest and conventional participation. The patterns of participation in authoritarian regimes and in economically less-developed countries raise other issues but substantially follow these broad outlines.
View chapterPurchase book
Sexism
P. Johnson, in Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics (Second Edition), 2012
Political Representation
Political participation and recognition is a basic platform for gender equality. In democratic countries, women have achieved formal equality with men in many areas. They have attained the right to vote, to stand in elections, and to compete for political office. However, women remain vastly underrepresented in local and national assemblies. Female heads of government are still a great rarity, and in 2005 only in two countries throughout the world did women make up half of a national cabinet (Sweden and Spain).
A liberal critique of the underrepresentation of women in government insists that the expansion of numbers of women into the higher echelons of political power is an equal opportunity issue. The history of exclusion of women from political power appears as the same sort of problem as the barriers encountered by women as they seek career advancement in the arenas of corporate power. A liberal critique of sexism resists all attempts to view the problem of underrepresentation in terms other than an equal employment issue. Traditionally, liberalism has insisted that the processes of political decision making must maintain a relative autonomy with respect to sectarian, private interests. Political decision making is seen to be properly a matter for the exercise of impartial judgment steered by a view to the general interests of the nation-state as a whole. Hence, for classical liberalism, the person of the political representative ought, from the standpoint of the constituent, to be considered immaterial.
Against this liberal construction of the problem of underrepresentation, conceived as an equal opportunity issue, there has been a growing trend to view the problem more broadly as matter of concern for the well-being and vigor of liberal democratic institutions. The interests of women, it is argued, have been neglected and overlooked by political institutions in which major decision-making functions have been monopolized by men. On this view, the domination of political decision-making processes by men is seen to have itself promoted a systematic betrayal of the responsibility of government to exercise its authority on behalf of the well-being of the community as a whole. In particular, it is argued that a history of male-dominated government has skewed the definition of those issues deemed politically relevant in narrow, sectarian terms – in terms seen to reflect the acquired priorities and perspectives of a certain class of privileged men.
The twentieth century saw a progressive shift of issues, such as housing and welfare and sexual relations, formerly deemed social questions, into the domain of politics. The climate of economic rationalism that currently grips many Western democracies has suggested to some the fragility of this only lately achieved expansion of the scope of politically relevant concerns. Women, it is argued, have a specific, vested interest in actively seeking to arrest this return to a narrow
conception of the political. Seen as particular beneficiaries of a broader conception of politically relevant issues – one that assumes jurisdiction over formerly ‘social questions’ (women have, for example, benefited from the introduction of legislation designed to outlaw violence in marriage) – women appear as central stakeholders in those vigorous struggles underway in many liberal democratic countries over the question of the character and the scope of politics.
The underrepresentation of women in parliament has been perceived not merely in terms of a problem of equal opportunity and not simply in terms of the supposed peculiar investments of women in protecting a broad conception of the scope of politics; a case has also been made that women might change for the better the culture of political decision-making processes. The argument here is that although the inclusion of individual women into government may have no evident impact on the culture of politics, a recruitment of women into processes of political decision making in sufficient numbers may succeed in bringing about substantial change in the conduct of political decision-making processes. The hope is that women, as a group, might bring a different style of argumentation to the political process – a style that is less combative, more receptive to the force of the better argument, and less influenced by the claims of personal interests. Several major parties within liberal democratic countries (including the federal Australian Labour Party, the British Labour Party, and the Swedish Social Democrats) have introduced quota systems designed to help redress the gender imbalance in the elected representatives in their national assemblies.
View chapterPurchase book
What are the principles of participation?
Principles of participation
Mutual respect and reciprocity: participants will be open to, and interested in learning from, each other. …
Equality: everyone has assets. …
Equity in collaboration: the INOSAAR will develop a culture of equal value and respect for all disciplines.
Telling “ceo’s of corporations”, to stay out of politics
Sounds
Like
MITCH
THINKS
POLITICIANS
HAVE
COMPLETE
POWER
THAT
CAN’T
BE
CRITICIZED
NOT EXACTLY MITCH!
Since WHEN
WERE
RIGHTS
OF
CITIZENS
TO
VOTE
TAKING
SIDES
MITCH?
What are state laws called?
The state may then enact state statutes, which apply to everyone within the state. State statutes cannot violate the state constitution, the federal constitution, or federal law. The term “statute” simply refers to a law enacted by a legislative body of a government, whether federal or state.
Okay so they can write you a check but it’s not okay to say the voter law is wrong just keep writing check keep your mouth shut
McTurtle is such a tool ⚠️❗
One that serves no useful
purpose ‼️
Tell that old fossil to go back to the ocean where he belongs. What a pile.
As voting members of the public you work for these people McConnell so if they want to to object to what your party is doing you are being paid to listen to them.
Mitch McConnell is no longer the majority leader Chuck Schumer is
Moscow Mitch should retire from politics not the big business.