Gouvernail

POTUS Takes Russians Side Vs FBI, CIA, etc.

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, aA said:

 

so a terrible but correct decision becomes "it is what it is man"? have i understood that correctly?

Yep, pretty much.  Look, I despise CU.  It has done many things to this country in a very negative way.  But a strict interpretation of the 1st Am likely is the correct one in CU.  I haven't studied it that deeply, so I'm making assumptions here on that.  

But my point is, over and over the SCOTUS has said that it really is up to Congress to set many of these laws.  If the congress doesn't like it, they can change campaign finance laws to make sense and rein (reign for tom) in some of this spending.  I think if Congress wanted to make a good law that passed SC muster, they could do it.  But there is no will.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RKoch said:

Joe Scarborough in Scathing Op-Ed: The GOP Trump Leads 'No Longer Deserves to Survive'



 
 
Are today’s Republicans now so tribal as to blindly endorse a foreign policy warped by President Trump’s obvious allegiance to a former KGB chief who controls Russia through repression, bribery and political assassination and who has called the collapse of that evil empire the “greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century”? Exactly who are these people, and what have they done with my party? And how could any American support Trump’s tragically weak performance at Helsinki?




“It strains credulity to believe that any Republican would be so foolish as to defend the diplomatic debacle that led one European newspaper to call the U.S. president ‘Putin’s Poodle.'” Scarborough continued on. “Even at home, Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post blasted Trump’s ‘see-no-evil’ approach, and the Wall Street Journal editorialized that Congress needed to develop a containment strategy for both Vladimir Putin and Trump.” 



“But regardless of the verdicts ultimately handed down by historians and the special counsel’s office, the Helsinki summit brought two distressing realities into even sharper focus,” he wrote. “The president of the United States is under the thumb of Putin. And the Republican Party he leads no longer deserves to survive.” 

 


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/who-are-you-and-what-have-you-done-with-my-party/2018/07/19/4827d7a8-8b7c-11e8-a345-a1bf7847b375_story.html

 

Burning this bitch down one GOPer at a time.  

#Winning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Bus Driver said:
16 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I too would like to read a transcript of the meeting, but, the reality is that compelling the interpretor/translator to do so would violate the tenet of executive privilege.  Do you think that this circumstance warrants violation of that precedent?   I don't think that I do. 

If, during the Summit, an agreement was made that is illegal or detrimental to the security of the US, you’re damned right I do. 

The problem with this is that the other team will ALWAYS see whatever the President did as detrimental, if not also illegal, so the effect is that no translator can ever be trusted again. Bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yep, pretty much.  Look, I despise CU.  It has done many things to this country in a very negative way.  But a strict interpretation of the 1st Am likely is the correct one in CU.  I haven't studied it that deeply, so I'm making assumptions here on that.  

But my point is, over and over the SCOTUS has said that it really is up to Congress to set many of these laws.  If the congress doesn't like it, they can change campaign finance laws to make sense and rein (reign for tom) in some of this spending.  I think if Congress wanted to make a good law that passed SC muster, they could do it.  But there is no will.  

Wrong again flyboy.  The SCOTUS interprets the application of laws congress passes to determine if they are constitutional.  In CU, they have ruled that corporations have the same rights as humans (American ones, not those dirty immigrants).   In order to reverse that, you will need to pass an amendment.  Unlikely as corporations will not allow that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Groups of people have the right to express their collective opinion. There is no basis for concluding that a group if organized as a corporation relinquishes that right.

CU was correctly decided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dog said:

Groups of people have the right to express their collective opinion. There is no basis for concluding that a group if organized as a corporation relinquishes that right.

CU was correctly decided.

So if groups are given equal rights to individuals, should the individual who do not join a group get twice the representation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

The problem with this is that the other team will ALWAYS see whatever the President did as detrimental, if not also illegal, so the effect is that no translator can ever be trusted again. Bad idea.

nah, not always.

besides there's always an out - Putin/russians are now saying "things may have been said outside the hearing of the translator".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dog said:

Groups of people have the right to express their collective opinion. There is no basis for concluding that a group if organized as a corporation relinquishes that right.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, aA said:

 

 

Why should a corporation not have the same right to collective expression as a trade union or a knitting club?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

Why should a corporation not have the same right to collective expression as a trade union or a knitting club?

when it comes to buying politicians, no group should be able to, buy your politician individually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Spatial Ed said:

when it comes to buying politicians, no group should be able to, buy your politician individually.

I don't disagree with that. Call your rep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

Why should a corporation not have the same right to collective expression as a trade union or a knitting club?

 

i have no problem with any of these groups expressing opinions nor do i take umbrage with equal representation aka corp vs trade assoc/union, i take issue with them writing checks and policy in closed door sessions. it is wrong that they have more influence than you or i

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is questioning whether individuals have free speech rights (well, almost no one). No one is questioning whether trade unions or knitting clubs have a right to association (well, almost no one). However, when Congress and the States create corporations, they explicitly assign a bundle of rights to them, chief amongst is the right of (limited) non-liability of the owners. Congress (and the States) did not assign free speech rights to corporations. They could have but they didn't.

However, the right wing fantasists who sit on the Court thought otherwise and so they constructed this 'right' out of thin air. And just as they got Dred Scott wrong 160+ years ago, Scott was held not to be a person, they got Citizens United wrong in holding Citizens United to be a person.

Why did they do this? They did this because it was in their interests to do so. It took a civil war to undo slavery because conservatives are very particular about their property rights. Conservatives will similarly defend corporate speech 'rights' no less tenaciously.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2018 at 6:22 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

You can't abolish it completely because its a $peech thing and Tom Ray would lose his fracking mind over our corporate people not being allowed to $peak. 

I guess no one wants to discuss this in the thread on the topic so let me just quote Justice Stevens' dissent in Citizens United:

Quote

We have long since held that corporations are covered by the First Amendment

He was talking about stuff like this from decades earlier, when another non-profit, non-pre$$ corporation's first amendment rights were upheld.

Quote

Petitioner challenges the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals on many grounds. But we reach only one: that Chapter 33, as construed and applied, abridges the freedoms of the First Amendment, protected against state action by the Fourteenth. [Footnote 10] More specifically, petitioner claims that the chapter infringes the right of the NAACP and its members and lawyers to associate for the purpose of assisting persons who seek legal redress for infringements of their constitutionally guaranteed and other rights. We think petitioner may assert this right on its own behalf, because, though a corporation, it is directly engaged in those activities, claimed to be constitutionally protected, which the statute would curtail.

But SCOTUS recognizing the corporation's first amendment rights in that case in 1963 did not bring about the downfall of our civilization.

From the thread on this topic:

On 6/6/2015 at 5:36 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

 

Quote
In critiquing Austin ’s antidistortion rationale and campaign finance regulation more generally, our colleagues place tremendous weight on the example of media corporations. See ante , at 35–38, 46; ante , at 1, 11 (opinion of Roberts , C. J.); ante , at 6 (opinion of Scalia , J.). Yet it is not at all clear that Austin would permit §203 to be applied to them. The press plays a unique role not only in the text, history, and structure of the First Amendment but also in facilitating public discourse; as the Austin Court explained, “media corporations differ significantly from other corporations in that their resources are devoted to the collection of information and its dissemination to the public,” 494 U. S., at 667. Our colleagues have raised some interesting and difficult questions about Congress’ authority to regulate electioneering by the press, and about how to define what constitutes the press. But that is not the case before us. Section 203 does not apply to media corporations, and even if it did, Citizens United is not a media corporation. There would be absolutely no reason to consider the issue of media corporations if the majority did not, first, transform Citizens United’s as-applied challenge into a facial challenge and, second, invent the theory that legislatures must eschew all “identity”-based distinctions and treat a local nonprofit news outlet exactly the same as General Motors. 75 This calls to mind George Berkeley’s description of philosophers: “[W]e have first raised a dust and then complain we cannot see.”

 

 

Stevens' objection amounts to "this wouldn't be a question if no one asked it."

 

Well, someone did and it's a good question.

In a world where MR CLEAN on a boat without the proper pink flag can loudly claim to be INTERNATIONAL MEDIA, can anyone tell me how to identify a "media corporation" so we know who has extra first amendment rights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The court has resorted to “I know it when I see it” before. Was it perhaps less convenient to do that in this instance because a “settled law” argument helped attack a Clinton?

maybe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Olsonist said:

No one is questioning whether individuals have free speech rights (well, almost no one). No one is questioning whether trade unions or knitting clubs have a right to association (well, almost no one). However, when Congress and the States create corporations, they explicitly assign a bundle of rights to them, chief amongst is the right of (limited) non-liability of the owners. Congress (and the States) did not assign free speech rights to corporations. They could have but they didn't.

However, the right wing fantasists who sit on the Court thought otherwise and so they constructed this 'right' out of thin air. And just as they got Dred Scott wrong 160+ years ago, Scott was held not to be a person, they got Citizens United wrong in holding Citizens United to be a person.

Why did they do this? They did this because it was in their interests to do so. It took a civil war to undo slavery because conservatives are very particular about their property rights. Conservatives will similarly defend corporate speech 'rights' no less tenaciously.

"Congress (and the States) did not assign free speech rights to corporations".

Yes they did....Absent a law revoking their free speech rights the members of a corporation enjoy the right to free speech guaranteed by the first amendment both individually and collectively. "Nulla poena sine lege" One cannot be punished for doing something that is not prohibited by law.

Citizens United was correctly decided.

BTW...The  Dred Scott decision did not bestow rights, it recognized them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

The court has resorted to “I know it when I see it” before. Was it perhaps less convenient to do that in this instance because a “settled law” argument helped attack a Clinton?

maybe

In practice, "I know it when I see it" gets translated to "the Secretary shall decide." Or maybe "the Attorney General shall decide."

So at the moment, that would translate to "Jeff Sessions shall decide which corporations are special pre$$ corporations with extra first amendment rights and which are not."

I should not have to explain the problem with this to you, given the name. I don't find it any more comforting if the name at the beginning of that sentence is Eric Holder or anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Congress (and the States) did not assign free speech rights to corporations. They could have but they didn't.

They exempted media corporations from the law at issue in Citizens United. Can you explain why?

20 hours ago, Olsonist said:

And just as they got Dred Scott wrong 160+ years ago, Scott was held not to be a person, they got Citizens United wrong in holding Citizens United to be a person.

The danger in holding Scott to be a person was described in that case:

Quote

It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

I wonder what made the judge think that bolded part is a right of the people? My theory is NRA time travelers.

As noted above, all 9 SCOTUS Justices agreed that corporate first amendment rights are "long since" established so there was no need to "hold Citizens United to be a person" and they did not. They all just assumed that fact, just as they did in Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific and many cases since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Dog said:

Citizens United was correctly decided.

It was a muddled mess.

 

Quote

 

Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.

     Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia and Alito, JJ., joined, in which Thomas, J., joined as to all but Part IV, and in which Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined as to Part IV. Roberts, C. J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Alito, J., joined. Scalia, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Alito, J., joined, and in which Thomas, J., joined in part. Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Ginsburg, Breyer , and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

 

But they all agreed that, as Justice Stevens said for the minority,

Quote

We have long since held that corporations are covered by the First Amendment

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

In practice, "I know it when I see it" gets translated to "the Secretary shall decide." Or maybe "the Attorney General shall decide."

So at the moment, that would translate to "Jeff Sessions shall decide which corporations are special pre$$ corporations with extra first amendment rights and which are not."

I should not have to explain the problem with this to you, given the name. I don't find it any more comforting if the name at the beginning of that sentence is Eric Holder or anyone else.

Good point. I guess what I’m saying is that the seeing politics in this decision and Bush v Gore was inevitable. There is latitude to make more nuanced decisions than this decision might suggest. 

If the court continues on its march to the right, the result is simply what you describe. If, for example, Justice Ginsburg suffers a debilitating stroke and Pence is given the opportunity for an appointment, what is the practical difference between that circumstance and Jeff Sessions getting to decide?

The GOP has achieved their goals vis a vis SCOTUS. Why can’t they, in a show of bipartisanship and patriotism, restore the supermajority needed to confirm Federal and SCOTUS judges? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

The GOP has achieved their goals vis a vis SCOTUS. Why can’t they, in a show of bipartisanship and patriotism, restore the supermajority needed to confirm Federal and SCOTUS judges? 

You might wonder why it was removed in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

You might wonder why it was removed in the first place.

Nope. I don’t wonder at all.  As I recall, I thought it was a mistake then, and that proved correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Good point. I guess what I’m saying is that the seeing politics in this decision and Bush v Gore was inevitable. There is latitude to make more nuanced decisions than this decision might suggest. 

I think that if it got any more nuanced they might not have decided anything at all.
 

Quote

 

Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.

     Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia and Alito, JJ., joined, in which Thomas, J., joined as to all but Part IV, and in which Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined as to Part IV. Roberts, C. J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Alito, J., joined. Scalia, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Alito, J., joined, and in which Thomas, J., joined in part. Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Ginsburg, Breyer , and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

 

Have you read them? They're insanely long and nuanced. Though they all agree that corporations are people with first amendment rights, they have very different views of what that means.

3 hours ago, phillysailor said:

If the court continues on its march to the right, the result is simply what you describe. If, for example, Justice Ginsburg suffers a debilitating stroke and Pence is given the opportunity for an appointment, what is the practical difference between that circumstance and Jeff Sessions getting to decide?

But the majority in Citizens United did not want special treatment for pre$$ corporations because they didn't think someone like Sessions should be deciding which corporations get such special treatment.

 

3 hours ago, phillysailor said:

The GOP has achieved their goals vis a vis SCOTUS. Why can’t they, in a show of bipartisanship and patriotism, restore the supermajority needed to confirm Federal and SCOTUS judges? 

You'd have to ask a TeamR player but my guess is the response might be, "What happened to that again?"

I'm not sure it's so important that we make it easier for the Senate to block them. I thought Obama made good appointments and Trump has so far too. Not that I agree with them all the time, but each has been qualified for the job. The last bad one was that unfortunate woman that W nominated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2018 at 8:49 AM, Olsonist said:

No one is questioning whether individuals have free speech rights (well, almost no one). No one is questioning whether trade unions or knitting clubs have a right to association (well, almost no one). However, when Congress and the States create corporations, they explicitly assign a bundle of rights to them, chief amongst is the right of (limited) non-liability of the owners. Congress (and the States) did not assign free speech rights to corporations. They could have but they didn't.

However, the right wing fantasists who sit on the Court thought otherwise and so they constructed this 'right' out of thin air. And just as they got Dred Scott wrong 160+ years ago, Scott was held not to be a person, they got Citizens United wrong in holding Citizens United to be a person.

Why did they do this? They did this because it was in their interests to do so. It took a civil war to undo slavery because conservatives are very particular about their property rights. Conservatives will similarly defend corporate speech 'rights' no less tenaciously.

The problem that I see is that "granting corporations the same rights as a person" just grants them superior rights because of their scope vs an individual.

Very few individual citizens can make billion dollar campaign donations...... very few individual citizens can produce chemicals on a scale to effect the entire planet...... etc etc

-DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

The problem that I see is that "granting corporations the same rights as a person" just grants them superior rights because of their scope vs an individual.

Very few individual citizens can make billion dollar campaign donations...... very few individual citizens can produce chemicals on a scale to effect the entire planet...... etc etc

-DSK

Agreed. Large corporations can donate millions, average people can donate $2700 (presidential).  That allows corporations far greater access to lawmakers than us common folk. Also, since corporations aren't entitled to vote (I'm sure they're trying to 'fix' that), why should they be permitted to make political donations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RKoch said:

Agreed. Large corporations can donate millions, average people can donate $2700 (presidential).  That allows corporations far greater access to lawmakers than us common folk. Also, since corporations aren't entitled to vote (I'm sure they're trying to 'fix' that), why should they be permitted to make political donations?

Easy- start your own corporation!  It’s easy, and you too can give millions!

It’ll impress your friends!  You’ll get lots of cool mail from people you’ve only heard about in the news!  You’ll be invited to cool dinners and parties!  Beautiful young Russian Women will want to sleep with you!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2018 at 6:49 AM, Dog said:

Groups of people have the right to express their collective opinion. There is no basis for concluding that a group if organized as a corporation relinquishes that right.

CU was correctly decided.

You are as clueless about how corporations operate as you are about everything else.

The CEO speaks for corporations - period.

There IS no "collective opinion" in a corporation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2018 at 6:49 AM, Dog said:

Groups of people have the right to express their collective opinion. There is no basis for concluding that a group if organized as a corporation relinquishes that right.

CU was correctly decided.

“Collective?”

It’s like a little clue, comrades!

My malchiki-wikis!  ;)

A little tiny Post Modern Soviet clue!  And they call liberals post modern Marxists- Jesus Christ on a Stick.....it’s not even hidden!  It’s right out in the open!  :)

Egads!  Right here on PA! :o

Its everywhere!  Of course Dog doesn’t know how corporations work!  He doesn’t own stock!  How could he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

The problem that I see is that "granting corporations the same rights as a person" just grants them superior rights because of their scope vs an individual.

Very few individual citizens can make billion dollar campaign donations...... very few individual citizens can produce chemicals on a scale to effect the entire planet...... etc etc

-DSK

I might rethink my position on the death penalty if it could be applied to corporations.  Strip mining coal companies for example.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Death penalty for corporations. We tried that.

Go back to Enron. The accounting firm Arthur Andersen done wrong and it was essentially forced out of business but at the cost of 85,000 jobs. That's a lot of jobs. When 2008 rolled around, because of that history no one had the stomach to go after the big banks (outside of Lehman Brothers which was arguably a favor for Goldman) because no one could stomach those job losses again. Maybe they're right. But enacting legislation to curtail Too Big To Fail is impossible after the fact.

Giving corporations constitutional rights is part of this Too Big To Fail expansion. It doesn't get any easier to reverse. It gets harder.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Hard On The Wind said:

Image may contain: 3 people, suit

Now there's the face of a man who's won the war over himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Hard On The Wind said:

Image may contain: 3 people, suit

Even without the captions, as a person from the country those current President just met with one of our strongest adversaries, that photo presents to me a disturbing set of body language. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/18/2018 at 10:58 PM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
On 7/18/2018 at 10:24 PM, phillysailor said:

when the racism is having less of an impact, AMerica will have no need for Affirmative Action.

So - that's a long winded "NO"?   

I agree that equality of opportunity is the appropriate metric.  Affirmative action creates opportunity for one group at the expense of all others - so yes, I do indeed disagree with that, and think that if you want to improve a certain demographic's ability to pursue educational/vocational/professional opportunities?  Helping them to Improve their individual abilities is the best way to accomplish that, not setting aside a certain %-age of each opportunity for the "right people". 

I don't think that racism has disappeared either, and that it's been instituionalized in victim politics. Your post is an excellent example of that - instead of objectively discussing what might have caused the disparities you note, you immediately assign the cause to intentional bias. 

So tell me how you'd address individual bias if you were king for a day.  

What I don't understand about the focus on Affirmative Action is that we are wasting our time and energy on the wrong end of the problem.  Maybe at one point in the past it was appropriate because of discrimination and it was fair to give some people already affected by it a big a leveler.  However, if we want equal opportunities, as I hope we all do, the only way this will happen is to attempt to level the playing field at the earliest ages.  Even before children get to school is where the weight of effort needs to be.  We need to have semi-mandatory education programs for parents on how to be good parents, how to nurture children, nutrition, social skills, etc.  We need to provide day care and after school programs to working mothers and families so that kids are not left on their own and end up in gangs.  ALL of that needs to happen at the earliest ages.  If we are trying to level the playing field by holding a certain % of college seats for blacks, then we've waited too long.  AA is a Hello Kitty bandaid on a sucking chest wound.  

And while I don't deny there is plenty of racism left in the US, I still strongly maintain that the majority of the black communities problems stem much more from class rather than race.  The poor whites and blacks have essentially equal outcomes.  In fact a study I posted recently says that poor whites have seen MUCH more incarceration rates recently than poor blacks.  The poor of all colors lose in the justice system because they don't have the resources to reduce sentences and get charges dropped like the more affluent do.  Its sad but its less likely that is happening because of skin color rather than access to good legal representation.  

I don't see why we couldn't have a "moon shot" level of effort to address these class disparities in children and their parents?  THIS is where the most gains will be made if we want to see this race issue disappear.  We are losing entire generations of poor kids - black, white and brown - due to shitty educational opportunities from birth and then we wonder why there are so few minorities by the time they get to college???  WTF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2018 at 7:25 AM, phillysailor said:

I agree with the way you've written this, and its something I've experienced. I've watched black first year med students who had no ability to perform under pressure demonstrate deficient knowledge and reasoning skills while I was just a technician in the trauma center where they were doing a rotation. I didn't get into their med school, and the experience really set me against the idea of Affirmative Action for a time.

It's also true that surmounting daily obstacles before even making it to class or being able to afford the "free time" necessary to study makes the job of a poor student so much harder than that of a financially secure student. Take away some of those barriers and you begin to level the playing field.

I'm not really FOR Affirmative Action as I am for averting our eyes from something which, in the end, made me appreciate the myriad advantages I enjoyed. An excellent high school and college education, being raised in a Beaver Cleaver kind of family with a physician father and an English major mom with a degree in library science... we were tasked with treasure hunts through the Encyclopedia Brittanica for pete's sake. I had uncles, colleagues of my fathers and school classmates who helped me, at one point or another, out of a jam or to get ahead. All of those far advantaged me in comparison to those lost black kids in their first year of med school. I grew up speaking like the docs where I now work. I played against them on the sports fields and vacationed with them in NH. 

Minority patients are better served by minority docs. It's been shown that the cultural nuances and idiomatic speech particular to ethnic groups can determine the quality of interaction between doctors and patients and leads to better care. I might be a better doc for many of the folks visiting this page, but there are circumstances when I misread statements, mannerisms or communications with patients and family because they are culturally different to me. It's the kernel of truth in that scene in _Airplane_ where the nun reassures the stewardess, "I speak jive" and translates the menu to the homeboys. 

 

Read my bolded part above and then take out all your minority/racism BS and insert "poor" instead.  Do you think a poor white student who has to work 2 jobs and is worried where the next meal will come from is any better off in college than the black student in the same boat????  Are they going to have any more time to devote to study.  Do you think the poor white trash kid in college from the hills of deep coal mine country in WV has any better preparation for college than the poor black kid from inner city St Louis?  The entire racist excuse for why some segments do not do as well as others is specious at best.  To paraphrase:  "Its the economics, stupid!"

Quote

 

Black kids have names which stick out on a roster or an entry list, or on a list for scholarships. 

 

Here's a thought.... if "black names" are hamstringing your kid, maybe don't name them Orangello and Lemongello.  I suspect that white trash names like Cletus and Tami-Lynn probably gets about as much respect on a college or job application as Queen Sheneequa.  Just saying.

Quote

But Flint's lead poisoning happened mostly to black kids.

So now the flint water thing was a deliberate racist act?  I seem to remember a shit load of white folk also having to drink bottled water.  What did those blacks and whites in flint more likely have in common?  They were poor.  

Quote

Fight against the evil, not attempts to right a wrong. Be glad for the advantages you enjoy, and don't deny the impact the millions of stories which could be told of unjust treatment of minorities in America. We are not all treated equally, even in this day and age. Orwell got a lot exactly right.

No one is fighting attempts to right a wrong.  We are trying to explain that two wrongs do not make a right.  That AA is discrimination no matter how well intentioned it may be.  And continuing it will cause even more evil.  AA does not address equality of opportunity.  You are trying to have equality of "outcomes".  As I said in an earlier post, the focus of the effort ought to be well before a child ever even thinks about going to college.  That is equality of opportunity and then everything will sort itself out from there.  But that takes a much greater commitment of political will and resources than AA.  I believe AA was well intentioned in the early days, but now has become little more than a psychological salve to the liberals to assuage their white guilt and be seen to be looking like they care.  

Quote

but there are circumstances when I misread statements, mannerisms or communications with patients and family because they are culturally different to me.

I am assuming you are speaking of blacks being culturally different.  And this is one of the areas that baffles me the most.  Why is black America culturally different to white America????  Yeah they came from Africa 400 years ago, but they have far less excuse to be culturally different than l of the 2nd Gen Italian, Russian, Irish, etc who came to the US in the late 1800s/early 1900s.  IMHO, this cultural difference is a relatively recent phenomenon that has been a conscious choice on their part.  And that cultural choice has done nothing but drive further wedges between us.  Its one thing to remember your heritage, but its quite another to consciously pull away and live in a separate culture within your own country.  I believe that's what blacks have done.  Its no different than pakistani immigrants who might come here and yet refuse to integrate into American society and instead stay cloistered in their own shithole culture of female genital mutilation and honor killing their daughters, as an example.  

I think this Cultural divide to pull away from traditional American societal norms is a large part of why blacks are being left behind.  Not all, but its a contributor to the problem.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2018 at 11:35 AM, frenchie said:
On 7/19/2018 at 12:28 AM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

That it was, Gouv - but, I sincerely doubt that AA, in its current manifestation, is the best or even a preferable approach to achieving equality of access to opportunity.  I get quite aggravated when folks immediately cry "Racist!" "Bigot!" instead of actually discussing the matter from a realization that we both want the same thing, but, have different ideas about how to define and realize success. 

What would be a better, preferable approach? 

 

Post #635

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2018 at 4:22 PM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
On 7/19/2018 at 7:25 AM, phillysailor said:

Fight against the evil, not attempts to right a wrong. Be glad for the advantages you enjoy, and don't deny the impact the millions of stories which could be told of unjust treatment of minorities in America. We are not all treated equally, even in this day and age. Orwell got a lot exactly right.

Philly - I think you're spot on with this comment.  The kids who's parents raised them like yours did DO enjoy an advantage, but, where I think the conversation tends to go astray is the feeling that somehow or another those kids have done something wrong TO the kids who didn't enjoy those advantages, the idea that those kids should be ashamed of the advantage that proper parenting provided.  I think that focusing on the fact that improper parenting creates disadvantage and working to fix THAT would yield tremendously more benefit for everyone in society than trying to shame the kids of parents who did the right thing. 

Spot fucking ON!  The left wants to treat this like a zero sum game.  Its not.  MY advantage and my parent's involvement in my upbringing and education did not hold some black kid down in Baltimore.  Rather than lowering the bar and dragging us all down so we can all feel better that some black kid didn't get into college, why not instead address and fix the REASONS why they didn't get into college.  And those reasons started when the kid was like a just home from the hospital after birth and everyday since.  His/her lack of admission to college DID NOT start on the day he/she filled out their college admission application and then when some white admissions counselor read the name Shequanda or DeAndre on the form.  

This is so fucking blindingly obvious to me that it makes me want to scream!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

The problem that I see is that "granting corporations the same rights as a person" just grants them superior rights because of their scope vs an individual.

In that case, you'll probably be relieved to learn that, although corporations have had first amendment rights all my life, they have never had "the same" rights as a natural person.

 

4 hours ago, Left Shift said:

I might rethink my position on the death penalty if it could be applied to corporations.  Strip mining coal companies for example.  

Corporate charters can be, and are, revoked. That's a death penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

 

 

Corporate charters can be, and are, revoked. That's a death penalty.

Extremely rare, esp in light of high amount  of corporate criminal conduct. Typically, we elect the CEOs governor or president. I'm all in favor of some Teddy Roosevelt style Trust-busting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Amati said:

“Collective?”

It’s like a little clue, comrades!

My malchiki-wikis!  ;)

A little tiny Post Modern Soviet clue!  And they call liberals post modern Marxists- Jesus Christ on a Stick.....it’s not even hidden!  It’s right out in the open!  :)

Egads!  Right here on PA! :o

Its everywhere!  Of course Dog doesn’t know how corporations work!  He doesn’t own stock!  How could he?

If you've got a point, make it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

You are as clueless about how corporations operate as you are about everything else.

The CEO speaks for corporations - period.

There IS no "collective opinion" in a corporation.

Of course there is. It is expressed through it's leadership (which btw involves more than just a CEO) just like it is for labor unions or associations or partnerships. Is there any doubt in your mind that these other groups enjoy speech rights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the first amendment apply to corporations like NY Times Inc?

Anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Of course there is. It is expressed through it's leadership (which btw involves more than just a CEO) just like it is for labor unions or associations or partnerships. Is there any doubt in your mind that these other groups enjoy speech rights?

Labor unions , associations and partnerships are also corporations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Labor unions , associations and partnerships are also corporations.

Imagine they are the same. Imagine!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Labor unions , associations and partnerships are also corporations.

If only labor unions had the political power of corporations.  We can only dream.  When was the last Labor activist appointed to an administration position, say Secretary of Labor?  85 years ago? Just wondering....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RKoch said:

If only labor unions had the political power of corporations.  We can only dream.  When was the last Labor activist appointed to an administration position, say Secretary of Labor?  85 years ago? Just wondering....

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Saorsa said:

... partnerships are also corporations.

Saved for posterity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Shootist Jeff

It's because of people like you that Affirmative Action is necessary. It, or some version of it, is a necessary step resulting from normal folks refusing to see racism and how it impacts fellow Americans in objectionable ways. If you found the sinister effects of racism horrible, and were able to see it in the world around you, no doubt you would speak out against its practice.

The data, the stories and the examples are available, so it's not the "fault" of the media or the world to supply you with the information necessary for you to recognize the impact of racism in America. Perceptions of racism differ from you and black people: typically only 39% of whites think prejudice is a serious problem, whereas 66% of minorities (not just blacks) do. Now, you can write the opinions of millions of your neighbors off as "they are biased", but they are witness to its effects much more than you are, aren't they, while your enjoyment of white privilege is pretty quiet. 

Broken down by perceptions of how blacks are treated differently, perception of prejudice vary considerably between whites and blacks. With LEOs its 50 vs 84%, In the courts 43 to 75%, mortgage applications 25 to 66%, in stores and restaurants 21 to 49%, and when voting 20 to 43% blacks are shown prejudicial treatment. Seeing how being a "snowflake" seems to cross cultural, racial and political boundaries, it's fair to say that the perception of blacks is just as "valid" as yours. Given the size of the disparity of perception, it's only plausible that both groups "are calling like they see it." The two groups have independently formed impressions of racism in America, and its effects on its citizens.

In 2017, VOX did an analysis, and found that "The disparities appear to be even starker for unarmed suspects, according to an analysis of 2015 police killings by the Guardian. Racial minorities made up about 37.4 percent of the general population in the US and 46.6 percent of armed and unarmed victims, but they made up 62.7 percent of unarmed people killed by police."

Or how about the stat that in 2013, 9.5% of whites were determined to be using illicit drugs in the previous month and 10.5% for blacks, but arrest records were 332 vs 879 per 100,000 for drug-related offenses? Investigating the socio-economic realities of policing, the Sentencing Project found that although 61-80% of disparities of black overrepresentation in prison systems could possibly be explained by the type of neighborhood in which arrests were made, 39% of racially disparate incarceration rates cannot be explained without other factors being involved such as prior arrest records or, potentially, racism. 

In their cars, whites in Long Island between 2005 and 2006 represented 59% of traffic stops despite being 71% of the population, while blacks are pulled over at a rate more than twice their 7.1% of the population. These were opportunities for "stop and frisk" searches that were performed much more frequently on blacks than whites. These searches led to arrest more frequently for blacks (70%) than for whites (42%), and these charges were more frequently felonies for blacks vs misdemeanors for whites. This was one way in which arrests for marijuana, for example, were at a rate of 5 per 10,000 whites, 20 per 10,000 blacks.

In New Jersey, a small town cop, subsequently facing hate crimes, said that blacks "had no value" and "were like ISIS" and he wished he could "mow them down." He slammed a compliant, handcuffed 18 year old head against a doorjamb, later saying he was "fucking tired" of blacks. "Fucking nipple hanging bitch! I'm so tired of them, man!" "Fucking little fucking nigger!" "I'll tell you what, it's getting to the point where I could just shoot one of these motherfuckers." Think this guy hasn't shown that racist side to his officers, his fellow citizens and apply those beliefs to those he arrested and whose cases he considered and suggested courses of action?

Just a couple of weeks ago, it was reported that in Biscayne Park, the Chief wanted good statistics, so he told officers to pin crimes on black residents. “If they have burglaries that are open cases that are not solved yet, if you see anybody black walking through our streets and they have somewhat of a record, arrest them so we can pin them for all the burglaries,” one cop, Anthony De La Torre, said in an internal probe ordered in 2014. “They were basically doing this to have a 100% clearance rate for the city.”

Look, I could go on, and pull quotes for you about racist judges, racist principals and more. But the point is, there IS racism that impacts way more Americans than you witness or, more crucially, allow to impact your opinions. This isn't to mention the less overt forms of racism that falls under the rubric "white privilege" that you only recognize when you describe getting pulled over for driving while white in a black neighborhood, "obviously there only to buy drugs" to a black friend, who looks at you and says, "wtf, dude? That's my everyday. I warn my kids about this when driving anywhere, anytime." 

Once you and the millions more lie you show more understanding and alertness to the world around you, and start calling out overt and less obvious forms of racism impacting our society, efforts like AA to better enable blacks to compete or defend themselves won't be necessary. But you won't find me arguing not only to ignore white privilege AND to get rid of Affirmative Action, that's you and Chessy's privilege. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Saved for posterity.

Subchapter S

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Death penalty for corporations. We tried that.

Go back to Enron. The accounting firm Arthur Andersen done wrong and it was essentially forced out of business but at the cost of 85,000 jobs. That's a lot of jobs. When 2008 rolled around, because of that history no one had the stomach to go after the big banks (outside of Lehman Brothers which was arguably a favor for Goldman) because no one could stomach those job losses again. Maybe they're right. But enacting legislation to curtail Too Big To Fail is impossible after the fact.

Giving corporations constitutional rights is part of this Too Big To Fail expansion. It doesn't get any easier to reverse. It gets harder.

we can change this in a Democracy, if we concentrate on the useful rather than the theoretical- on both extremes-

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/are-corporations-people

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Subchapter S

More posterity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the first amendment apply to corporations like NY Times Inc?

Anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Olsonist said:

More posterity.

For me, at least.....I framed my Subchapter S (of 20 years!:lol:) dissolution letter and I pass it every day and I pat it like Bruce Willis does that <ahem> certain poster in Die Hard 1......

No more incomprehensible depreciation schedules!  :lol:  among other things!

And as long as I’m doing obscure movie references, rev-v-v-engel!  Well, actually, freedom!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Amati said:

we can change this in a Democracy, if we concentrate on the useful rather than the theoretical- on both extremes-

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/are-corporations-people

 

Quote

Because of this long tradition of legal understanding, it is not unusual for the word "person," when found in legal texts, to apply to corporations. In this common parlance, it simply means that corporations have certain legal rights and responsibilities. Congress acknowledged this principle explicitly in the so-called Dictionary Act of 1871, which laid down rules for construing federal laws. Contained in Section 1 of Title I of the United States Code, this provision notes that, "unless the context indicates otherwise," the "words 'person' and 'whoever' include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals."

So he's saying that 21st century conservatives, after inventing the idea of corporate personhood for the Citizens United case, time-traveled back to 1871 to change the Dictionary Act?

Fascinating. I thought the NRA had the only time machine in modern politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it was all a big hoax. Ok, move along.

1B761719-B686-4695-8100-837308A5CFAE.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2018 at 1:27 AM, Olsonist said:

Giving corporations constitutional rights is part of this Too Big To Fail expansion. It doesn't get any easier to reverse. It gets harder.

That might explain why NAACP v Button:

Quote

We think petitioner may assert this right on its own behalf, because, though a corporation, it is directly engaged in those activities, claimed to be constitutionally protected, which the statute would curtail.

Was among the citations in Citizens United.

Quote

 

The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations. Bellotti, supra , at 778, n. 14 (citing Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro , 431 U. S. 85 (1977) ; Time, Inc. v. Firestone , 424 U. S. 448 (1976) ; Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc. , 422 U. S. 922 (1975) ; Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad , 420 U. S. 546 (1975) ; Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn , 420 U. S. 469 (1975) ; Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo , 418 U. S. 241 (1974) ; New York Times Co. v. United States , 403 U. S. 713 (1971) (per curiam); Time, Inc. v. Hill , 385 U. S. 374 (1967) ; New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 ; Kingsley Int’l Pictures Corp. v. Regents of Univ. of N. Y. , 360 U. S. 684 (1959) ; Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson , 343 U. S. 495 (1952) ); see, e.g., Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC , 520 U. S. 180 (1997) ; Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC , 518 U. S. 727 (1996) ; Turner , 512 U. S. 622 ; Simon & Schuster , 502 U. S. 105 ; Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC , 492 U. S. 115 (1989) ; Florida Star v. B. J. F. , 491 U. S. 524 (1989) ; Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps , 475 U. S. 767 (1986) ; Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia , 435 U. S. 829 (1978) ; Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. , 427 U. S. 50 (1976) ; Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. , 418 U. S. 323 (1974) ; Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn., Inc. v. Bresler , 398 U. S. 6 (1970) .

     This protection has been extended by explicit holdings to the context of political speech. See, e.g., Button , 371 U. S., at 428–429;

 

 

The thing is, TeamR types don't want to crow about the 1960's civil rights victories of the NAACP and TeamD types are stymied because the evil corporation whose first amendment rights were recognized in NAACP v Button was, well, the NAACP.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

So he's saying that 21st century conservatives, after inventing the idea of corporate personhood for the Citizens United case, time-traveled back to 1871 to change the Dictionary Act?

Fascinating. I thought the NRA had the only time machine in modern politics.

It’s an older article, and he’s pissed off at the Left:  what he doesn’t contemplate (he’s Heritage Foundation after all) is that the Right would start neenering on about it for different reasons.  I asked my lawyer about the corporate thang and my lawyer’s view is it’s a legal construct (convenience?) to help raise capital.  Is there another way to do that?

I think we can limit corporate political power- the best way might be making enforced donating to political parties (dictated by management) for corporate employees actually illegal, rather than the wierd fig leaf they’ve go going now ^^^^- the courts have gone after unions for this, let’s see if they have the stones and follicles to go after corporations.  Dubious.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Amati said:

 I asked my lawyer about the corporate thang and my lawyer’s view is it’s a legal construct (convenience?) to help raise capital.  Is there another way to do that?

That is correct...to raise capital and limit liability. Earliest form was the Charters issued by English Kings. Used to establish colonies or finance trade expeditions. The charter would also grant a monopoly until it expired. typically they expired after 20 years, IIRC. Most notable was the charter granted the British East India Company, which was continually renewed and became the model for modern corporations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Amati said:

It’s an older article, and he’s pissed off at the Left:  what he doesn’t contemplate (he’s Heritage Foundation after all) is that the Right would start neenering on about it for different reasons.  I asked my lawyer about the corporate thang and my lawyer’s view is it’s a legal construct (convenience?) to help raise capital.  Is there another way to do that?

I think some corporations may have broader goals. The NAACP, for example. Do you think the purpose of that corporation is just to raise capital? I don't.

24 minutes ago, Amati said:

I think we can limit corporate political power

Why should we want to limit the power of corporations like the NAACP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I think some corporations may have broader goals. The NAACP, for example. Do you think the purpose of that corporation is just to raise capital? I don't.

Why should we want to limit the power of corporations like the NAACP?

I expanded post #660, but of course corporations spend the money they raise.  What I propose in my edit in that post would not effect the NAACP because nobody has any illusions about where the NAACP is spending its money - it would effect corporations where Democratic executives etc. are being arm twisted to donate to Republican candidates.  (Or Vice Versa for that matter) Jeffie should ask his wife about this- if she’s high enough in her corporate hierarchy she’s at least heard about it- the word is that if an executive balks at donating,  his or her future can be at risk.  

If anyone here is outraged at the Unions demanding dues for political influence, requiring donations in corporations for political reasons should make you see red.  :) .  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I think some corporations may have broader goals. The NAACP, for example. Do you think the purpose of that corporation is just to raise capital? I don't.

Why should we want to limit the power of corporations like the NAACP?

Still playing the false equivalency game I see. Clearly wasn’t worth the time to read a post of yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Amati said:

I expanded post #660, but of course corporations spend the money they raise.  What I propose in my edit in that post would not effect the NAACP because nobody has any illusions about where the NAACP is spending its money - it would effect affect corporations where Democratic executives etc. are being arm twisted to donate to Republican candidates.  (Or Vice Versa for that matter) Jeffie should ask his wife about this- if she’s high enough in her corporate hierarchy she’s at least heard about it- the word is that if an executive balks at donating,  his or her future can be at risk.  

If anyone here is outraged at the Unions demanding dues for political influence, requiring donations in corporations for political reasons should make you see red.  :) .  

I'm not sure how your proposal relates to the Citizens United decision under discussion. In that case, the corporation was $pending money to broadcast political propaganda.

43 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Still playing the false equivalency game I see. Clearly wasn’t worth the time to read a post of yours.

How is talking about the NAACP a "false equivalency" of any kind?

The Supreme Court cited NAACP vs Button as precedent for the idea that non-profit, non-pre$$ corporations have first amendment rights. They clearly saw them as more or less equivalent.

The cases have many parallels. Both were re-argued as first amendment cases after being initially decided without reference to the first amendment. Both involve political expression by non-profit, non-pre$$ corporations.

The main difference is that the NAACP Inc was filing civil rights lawsuits while Citizens United Inc wanted to broadcast propaganda. The Supreme Court said both are forms of political expression that are protected by the first amendment. Of the two, broadcasting propaganda seems more clearly related to political expression to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I'm not sure how your proposal relates to the Citizens United decision under discussion. In that case, the corporation was $pending money to broadcast political propaganda.

It boils down to whose money inside a corporation is being spent.  Stockholders and analysts get concerned where and how much their money is being spent by a corporation and can sell or recommend selling stock. Rigging board membership by management can go only so far- activist share holders are real.  If stockholders, board members, management and employees are happy with massive required political funding, and aren’t attacked for it in any way, hey! It’s all good!

If a corporation’s main mission is to maximize share holder value, that is what it needs to do- if it exists to fund political action, that is what it will do.  Corporations are cultures as much as any other group.

But what if an executive, employee, board member or shareholder objects?  Do they have any rights?  The right to quit?  Or the right of the corporation to fire the employee?

Look what happened when Union members objected to the Union spending their money on political candidates or organizations!  Oh my God :o!  They had rights!

Does this spill over?  How much money for political activism is raised directly from individuals inside a corporation vs spent from a corporation’s coffers?  Who directs this?  Who takes responsibility?

edit-https://smallbusiness.chron.com/can-corporation-donate-presidential-election-36819.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my company, a partnership, mandatory political donations pissed off one member whose complaints at a board meeting led to the policy being rejected. 

I think the issue is quite topical, and very similar to union dues/donations. 

Why can’t the NAACP have a separate fund/PAC for political $peech & action? Why do corporate rights have to be sacrosanct to allow NAACP members and personnel to have full speech rights or to fulfill their mission? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Amati said:

I asked my lawyer about the corporate thang and my lawyer’s view is it’s a legal construct (convenience?) to help raise capital.  Is there another way to do that?

Raising capital from VCs.

First, VCs invest in people. They vet you as a management team first and foremost. But then as a matter of mechanics, they only invest in corporations, preferably C and more preferably Delaware C. It's possible for them to invest in an LLC but they first are converted to a C at a funding event. If it is a Delaware LLC that conversion is literally a one page form.

Delaware C Corps are great for VCs because they're standard. VCs and their lawyers understand them. There is extensive case law. It's just expected. They also offer founders limited liability protection. However, C Corps suffer DDOOUUBBLLEE TTAAXXAATTIIOONN. Luckily at founding that's not an issue since you won't have any profits to be taxed at all.

Is there another way to do that?

YES, LLCs. You can self fund or friends, families and fools fund or angel fund. Then you can use an LLC. In a sense an LLC is simpler but then you end up adding most of the machinery of a C Corp: partnership agreements, .... However, and this is the big kicker, if you can use an LLC, you only suffer pass through taxes. You also don't have all of the overhead of a C Corp (filings, board, ...). If you know you're not going to be the next Facebook, LLC is the way to start. FWIW, Facebook started as a Florida LLC.

If you are an LLC, you can still accept a seed investment as a convertible note, a SAFE or a KISS. These will convert to shares at funding events (implying that the LCC converts to a C). So you can accept funding and still remain an LLC for awhile, usually until an A round. The trouble with LLCs is that it's cumbersome to issue stock equivalents. Moreover, you will pay lawyer time whenever you do anything.

TL;DR start with a Delaware LLC. Convert to a Delaware C only when someone puts a gun to your head fully loaded with a lot of money. DON"T run things as a sole proprietorship or a partnership. LLCs are trivial to start and manage although they become unwieldy as a company grows.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Amati said:

If a corporation’s main mission is to maximize share holder value, that is what it needs to do- if it exists to fund political action, that is what it will do.

But non-profit, non-pre$$ corporations like the NAACP Inc and Citizens United Inc are not about shareholder value nor are they allowed to be primarily about political action, or they'd lose 501c(3) status.

 

4 hours ago, Amati said:

But what if an executive, employee, board member or shareholder objects?  Do they have any rights?  The right to quit?

Execs and board members have the right to quit. Shareholders can sell.

 

4 hours ago, Amati said:

Look what happened when Union members objected to the Union spending their money on political candidates or organizations!  Oh my God :o!  They had rights!

Does this spill over?

One difference would be that an exec who quits can likely find employment at another company or even in another industry. A union worker may quit one company but the union will follow them to the next one in place with mandatory membership. That element doesn't spill over.

 

4 hours ago, Amati said:

How much money for political activism is raised directly from individuals inside a corporation vs spent from a corporation’s coffers?  Who directs this?  Who takes responsibility?

At last a question related to the Citizens United decision: management can direct the expenditure of corporate money for those purposes. NBC News Inc can spend money on satellite time to talk about candidates and Citizens United can spend money on TV advertisements and the law can't treat one as a $pecial pre$$ corporation with extra rights.

And that is why this myth is so persistent:

On 7/20/2018 at 10:49 AM, Olsonist said:

they got Citizens United wrong in holding Citizens United to be a person.

Pre$$ corporations were very happy about their special treatment under the law and very unhappy when it was taken away, so they invented a myth for gullible people that a narrow majority of the SCOTUS had suddenly and inexplicably decided that corporations are people.

It's pretty stupid considering that no believer in the myth will answer this question:

Does the first amendment apply to NY Times Inc?

But it's smart enough to fool people like Olsonist and he's far from alone in not even getting close to the actual holding in Citizens United.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

But non-profit, non-pre$$ corporations like the NAACP Inc and Citizens United Inc are not about shareholder value nor are they allowed to be primarily about political action, or they'd lose 501c(3) status.

 

Execs and board members have the right to quit. Shareholders can sell.

 

One difference would be that an exec who quits can likely find employment at another company or even in another industry. A union worker may quit one company but the union will follow them to the next one in place with mandatory membership. That element doesn't spill over.

 

At last a question related to the Citizens United decision: management can direct the expenditure of corporate money for those purposes. NBC News Inc can spend money on satellite time to talk about candidates and Citizens United can spend money on TV advertisements and the law can't treat one as a $pecial pre$$ corporation with extra rights.

And that is why this myth is so persistent:

Pre$$ corporations were very happy about their special treatment under the law and very unhappy when it was taken away, so they invented a myth for gullible people that a narrow majority of the SCOTUS had suddenly and inexplicably decided that corporations are people.

It's pretty stupid considering that no believer in the myth will answer this question:

Does the first amendment apply to NY Times Inc?

But it's smart enough to fool people like Olsonist and he's far from alone in not even getting close to the actual holding in Citizens United.

I can appreciate why you used my posts, but I’m not wild about being used as a stalking horse- my point was more about common practice that may or may not survive scrutiny if things get sporty- a big problem with both extremes playing this is, as TS Elliott might have ascribed ‘The center will not hold....mere anarchy is loosed [on the world].....’

As far as the NYT and the 1st Amendment, I really think it’s going to be like the music business- you get to keep your copyright only if you defend it-  vigorously, I hope.  They need to know who has their back-

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Amati said:

As far as the NYT and the 1st Amendment, I really think it’s going to be like the music business- you get to keep your copyright only if you defend it-  vigorously, I hope.  They need to know who has their back-

I have their back. I think the first amendment has applied to corporations all my life and it applies to corporations like the NY Times.

Do you have their back on that issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Amati said:

I can appreciate why you used my posts...

Count your blessings. He copies my posts to different threads on a different topic, then replies to them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, benwynn said:

Count your blessings. He copies my posts to different threads on a different topic, then replies to them. 

Just don't ever insult him since he will then go to any mutual friends you have crying.  Don't ask me how I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

Just don't ever insult him since he will then go to any mutual friends you have crying.  Don't ask me how I know.

Thanks for the tip. 

Say... Wanna meet at the range this weekend with our .22s?

 

I know... Kinda lame, but it's all I could think up to work that in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, benwynn said:

Thanks for the tip. 

Say... Wanna meet at the range this weekend with our .22s?

 

I know... Kinda lame, but it's all I could think up to work that in.

Awesome, got a couple of bricks that need to be shot up. Also, some old stocks that folded we can use for targets. Win win baby. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I have their back. I think the first amendment has applied to corporations all my life and it applies to corporations like the NY Times.

Do you have their back on that issue?

Well, duh....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Amati said:
9 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I have their back. I think the first amendment has applied to corporations all my life and it applies to corporations like the NY Times.

Do you have their back on that issue?

Well, duh....

I'll take that to mean, "Yes, I understand that the first amendment applies to corporations."

 

On 7/22/2018 at 3:37 PM, Amati said:

we can change this in a Democracy, if we concentrate on the useful rather than the theoretical- on both extremes-

I think it would be useful to discuss campaign finance laws and Citizens United but it's darn near impossible because of the pervasive myth that

 

On 7/20/2018 at 10:49 AM, Olsonist said:

they got Citizens United wrong in holding Citizens United to be a person.

Until there's broad understanding that corporate personhood and whether corporations have first amendment rights was NOT an issue in the case since those are long-established law, it's hard to discuss the actual holdings in Citizens United.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
55 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Much like people who talk about the Citizens United decision without actually learning about it, I can't be bothered.

and by "learn about it" Tom means "read stuff that confirms Tom's view is correct".


Well, yeah, with respect to the pervasive myth I noted above, that would be a good start. We could at least agree on what the case was about and what the court held.

As for my view of the case as a whole, it's as muddled as the SCOTUS' views. 5 different opinions and...

 

Quote

 

Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.

     Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia and Alito, JJ., joined, in which Thomas, J., joined as to all but Part IV, and in which Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined as to Part IV. Roberts, C. J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Alito, J., joined. Scalia, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Alito, J., joined, and in which Thomas, J., joined in part. Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Ginsburg, Breyer , and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

We could at least agree on what the case was about and what the court held.

If the legal system were so patently obvious there wouldn't be such political fights about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But.... 

the fact remains.

Gropenfuhrer stood before the world press and:

1. Endorsed the Russian leader for his honesty

2. Derided the people of the USA for investigating how Russia effectively influenced our elections 

 

Gropenfuhrer has financial obligations. Those to whom he is obligated may influence his decision making process and public statements. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is still deriding the investigation. When asked about it, Trump said, "Yes, I deride."

 

Jul 23, 2018 06:09:39 AM .....”Carter Page wasn’t a spy, wasn’t an agent of the Russians - he would have cooperated with the FBI. It was a fraud and a hoax designed to target Trump.” Tom Fitton @JudicialWatch A disgrace to America. They should drop the discredited Mueller Witch Hunt now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites