Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Corporate personhood has nothing to do with free speech. It's a concept that exists so that groups of people can have the same legal abilities and properties as individual people. A class action lawsuit, for example. Or paying out money.
The problem with Citizens United is that it gives undue protection to campaign finance spending. Remember that a lot of megadonors are not groups, corporate personhood does not apply here.
Yes, the gun used at Sandy Hook was originally Nancy Lanza's one.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanQuestion, Fighteer:
If you don't think corporations have constitutional rights, how does that apply to, say, the right against unreasonable search and seizure? If a building is owned by a corporation, rather than by an individual, does that mean police should be able to search the building and confiscate property at will, no warrant needed?
It's still private property. That doesn't change just because no one person owns it. Anyway, Citizens United specifically has to do with the First Amendment rights of corporations, not their Fourth Amendment rights.
edited 20th Jun '16 9:50:18 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@ Fighteer: So you're not against the concept of a joint-stock company?
And don't you know that a State, or a Town Council is actually a corporationnote ?
Indeed, it's what everything else rests upon. Corporate Law (for all sizes of businesses), Contract Law...in fact it's hard to think of a country (perhaps North Korea) where corporate personhood doesn't exist.
edited 20th Jun '16 10:01:02 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling OnTactical Fox 88: Understood, but it is not a natural person, and the distinction matters. I believe that only natural persons can have the protections enumerated in the Bill of Rights. It's worth noting that there was a strong dislike for corporations among the Founders and it was a long time before they attained the exalted status and privileges that they enjoy today.
Raven Wilder: Groups do not have opinions. Individuals do. As CEO of AwesomeCorp, you have free speech rights. AwesomeCorp should not, because that essentially gives you a double-voice. "The Democratic Party", or "Westboro Baptist Church" are not people capable of expression, and one should not gain special privileges of speaking because one does so as a collective entity.
Edit: To be clear, I mean that one may speak for a group of people as their representative or spokesperson — that's fine. But I believe that one may not incorporate as AwesomeCorp and gain free speech rights as that legal person.
Vandro: It should not affect them at all.
edited 20th Jun '16 1:16:06 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Massive article on where Trump's appeal comes from and who plans to vote for him and why.
Not finished reading, but a couple things so far stand out:
- Trump performs best among self-described "moderates" rather than "very conservative" voters.
- Of all the things his supporters bring up, the number one thing that keeps coming up again and again is the idea that he's uncorrupted and can't be bought.
I suspect that his supporters want to believe that he can't be bought. They want a hero. They want to believe that he is here to save them.
THAT is totally understandable. "Conservatives" aren't as far right on all the issues as we may have been led to believe, and certainly as the Republican establishment liked to convince themselves of.
edited 20th Jun '16 1:47:29 PM by BonsaiForest
Guess who else can't be bought? The Joker.
edited 20th Jun '16 1:48:47 PM by flameboy21th
Non Indicative UsernameSure he can. Then he burns the money with an accountant on top of the pile.
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.Not surprised about that appeal to self-perceived moderates. He is a moderate in comparison to other GOP candidates, and the unkeepable promises that Republican politicians have made to appease the Tea Party (and probably a bit of self-delusion) have probably lowered the bar for "trustworthy".
Also, is it absolutely necessary to shove TRUMP in big allcaps letters into the face of whoever reads that article?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanDan Powers, a 51-year old Trump supporter from Wisconsin who runs a business installing electronic systems, described himself as “more Democratic than Republican,” but complained that the Democrats he supports “never make it to the front of the line.”
Powers did not vote for Obama, whom he considers hostile to gun rights, and he doesn’t like Hillary Clinton either. Republicans usually left him cold, as well. When the tea party movement took off, Powers said he had little interest.
When Trump came to Janesville for a rally, however, Powers donned an oversized paper mask of the candidate’s face to cheer him on.
“We need to lock the borders down,” Powers said.
What does surprise me a bit, though, is this:
Meaning he has a lot of single-issue voters.
edited 20th Jun '16 1:57:45 PM by BonsaiForest
According to Cracked, the #1 trait that Trump voters share is that they want revenge on someone.
Leviticus 19:34![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
If the Democrats had picked Sanders, they'd be on their way to a landslide victory, and the most progressive president in over half a century. He's got the characteristics that many of the Trump voters want to think Trump has - he's not beholden to corporate lobbyists, he's genuinely honest and sincere - and he's a strong economic progressive who favours free college, a higher minimum wage, and universal health care. Instead, they chose the only politician in the country who rivals Trump in unpopularity. The Dems are so scared of shifting to the left that they may have lost this election by going to the centre.
edited 20th Jun '16 1:59:54 PM by Galadriel
Ah, the self perceived loser demographic again. People who see their life expectancy dropnote , Dixiecrats who cannot put up with a black president, evangelicals who see themselves as marginalized, Republicans who perceive their party as serving them off to the plutocrats, and so on.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman![]()
![]()
The voters picked Hillary over Sanders, buddy.
Also, Sanders lost a lot of respect recently.
edited 20th Jun '16 2:03:38 PM by flameboy21th
Non Indicative Username![]()
![]()
![]()
You say that as if Clinton was picked by like a round table of people instead of legitimately getting voted on by more people.
I'm honestly very confused by this "Sanders could win in a landslide" mentality. If he couldn't even win in the race to become the candidate what makes you so confident he could easily beat Trump or anyone else?
edited 20th Jun '16 2:05:05 PM by LSBK
![]()
![]()
![]()
Clinton is just as left as Bernie, they share an almost identical voting record. And she's leading Trump by a lot.
Honestly after that California mess I'm glad Bernie lost.
Also that
. Clinton won fair and square, she won the most delegates and the popular vote too. By every measure the people have decided that they want her over Bernie.
edited 20th Jun '16 2:03:38 PM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?Yes Democratic voters picked Hillary over Trump (Sanders voters were more likely to be Independents). When I say Democrats, I mean 'members of the Democratic Party', which is a pretty big group, not a few people in a back room.
I'm saying they made a bad choice in terms of both policy and electoral strategy. The general public seems to want literally anything except an establishment candidate this year, and Hillary is the epitome of one.
Sanders could win because 1) it's a given that Democratic voters would support him against Trump and 2) he's got a much stronger ability to appeal to voters who are just generally frustrated by the political and economic system - i.e., the kind of voters that lean towards Trump - than Hillary does. Trump's advantage is among lower-income white people, a group Bernie did well among during the primary. And minority voters who didn't favour Sanders during the primary would still back him against Trump. So Sanders has got a prospective electoral coalition of pretty mych everyone except rich white people.
What polls we have bear me out on this. Sanders has done far better than Hillary in head-to-head polls against Trump.
edited 20th Jun '16 2:14:44 PM by Galadriel

Small businesses are inherently punishable by virtue of their owners being directly liable (partnerships). I don't see why you'd need an Act of Congress to create a corporation, though. Seems to be taking things a bit far. We're well past the mercantilism stage.
edited 20th Jun '16 9:33:59 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"