Author Topic: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...  (Read 372664 times)

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8699
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2450 on: June 28, 2018, 01:04:03 PM »
If that's the case, it should be trivial for you to understand how the phrase "I think applying the United States Constitution to everyone in the World would create a dangerous scenario for the current citizens" means "within the USA" because otherwise, it would have nothing to do with this discussion (and you should simultaneously also have no idea why it would).
Note the difference in meaning between
a) "I think applying the United States Constitution within the USA to everyone in the World [who happens to be here] would create a dangerous scenario for the current citizens"
b) "I think applying the United States Constitution to everyone in the World [wherever they are] would create a dangerous scenario for the current citizens within the USA"

Which meaning are you using (or other, if I haven't captured your intent)?

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1705
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2451 on: June 28, 2018, 01:07:30 PM »
I have yet to see a single person from any political affiliation talk about...oh, let's say ICE going after Peruvian immigrants in Mexico.  It's an irrelevant distraction and patently obvious what the intent was.
Similar to MasterStache's Russian comment, I'll happily grant you that Peruvian immigrants in Mexico have nothing to do with this discussion, while simultaneously having no idea why they would.

Actually you posted the red herring by implying "in the world" meant something other than US border.

Or it could be the difference between "in the World" vs. "within U.S. borders".

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1705
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2452 on: June 28, 2018, 01:12:20 PM »
Literally the only time I see people bring up "open borders" is when conservatives accuse liberals of wanting them.  It's a fabrication intended to distract from rational discussion.
I don't live in New York and thus don't follow its politics closely, so when Cynthia Nixon and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez want to "abolish ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement)", what do they mean?
I'm not from there, either. My guess is they are trying to make the assertion that we as a country were better off before the major reorganization of immigration and customs that happened after the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and created ICE in 2003.
That's certainly possible.  Would be nice if the two candidates had some explanation beyond the sound bite "abolish ICE".

Well you could spend a minute or two on Google.

"ICE is relatively new, it came in after September 11th," she added. "We've been handling immigration and customs for a long time here, we don't need ICE." - Nixon

IF you lacked the understanding of what they meant then why did you respond with their names as a point of reference for completely opening up the borders? I mean you are point blank guilty of what JLee claimed.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8699
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2453 on: June 28, 2018, 01:18:23 PM »
I have yet to see a single person from any political affiliation talk about...oh, let's say ICE going after Peruvian immigrants in Mexico.  It's an irrelevant distraction and patently obvious what the intent was.
Similar to MasterStache's Russian comment, I'll happily grant you that Peruvian immigrants in Mexico have nothing to do with this discussion, while simultaneously having no idea why they would.
Actually you posted the red herring by implying "in the world" meant something other than US border.
Or it could be the difference between "in the World" vs. "within U.S. borders".
Because I think that's what ematicic (who may be having a good chuckle over this whole thing) meant.  If you have more insight into ematicic's thinking...?

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8699
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2454 on: June 28, 2018, 01:25:08 PM »
Well you could spend a minute or two on Google.

"ICE is relatively new, it came in after September 11th," she added. "We've been handling immigration and customs for a long time here, we don't need ICE." - Nixon

IF you lacked the understanding of what they meant then why did you respond with their names as a point of reference for completely opening up the borders? I mean you are point blank guilty of what JLee claimed.
Thanks for your time on Google!

But I am glad that you aren't judge and jury of whatever trial is going on here. ;)

It is unfortunate that sound bites sway many in political choices, whether that be Romney's "binders full of women", Clinton's "deplorables", or what have you.  It doesn't take much to imagine "abolish ICE" being used to imply "open borders" even when the fuller explanation would say otherwise.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4988
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2455 on: June 28, 2018, 01:29:55 PM »
I have yet to see a single person from any political affiliation talk about...oh, let's say ICE going after Peruvian immigrants in Mexico.  It's an irrelevant distraction and patently obvious what the intent was.
Similar to MasterStache's Russian comment, I'll happily grant you that Peruvian immigrants in Mexico have nothing to do with this discussion, while simultaneously having no idea why they would.
Actually you posted the red herring by implying "in the world" meant something other than US border.
Or it could be the difference between "in the World" vs. "within U.S. borders".
Because I think that's what ematicic (who may be having a good chuckle over this whole thing) meant.  If you have more insight into ematicic's thinking...?

The Constitution doesn't apply to US citizens "in the World" either.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8625
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2456 on: June 28, 2018, 01:36:31 PM »
I'm struck by how something like immigration reform, which previously had a fair level of bipartisan support, has now become such a hot-button issue.
Just a few years ago there was a lot of common ground, with the main sticking point seeming to be whether to grant non-citizens who had lived here peacefully a path to citizenship (amnesty!!) or not.
Now the football has been moved back quite a bit.

FIRE@50

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 321
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Maryland
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2457 on: June 28, 2018, 01:40:31 PM »
I'm struck by how something like immigration reform, which previously had a fair level of bipartisan support, has now become such a hot-button issue.
Just a few years ago there was a lot of common ground, with the main sticking point seeming to be whether to grant non-citizens who had lived here peacefully a path to citizenship (amnesty!!) or not.
Now the football has been moved back quite a bit.
Bipartisan support is quickly lost following unilateral policy changes.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1794
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2458 on: June 28, 2018, 01:43:47 PM »
I'm struck by how something like immigration reform, which previously had a fair level of bipartisan support, has now become such a hot-button issue.
Just a few years ago there was a lot of common ground, with the main sticking point seeming to be whether to grant non-citizens who had lived here peacefully a path to citizenship (amnesty!!) or not.
Now the football has been moved back quite a bit.
Bipartisan support is quickly lost following unilateral policy changes.


Trump is scapegoating immigrants both illegal and legal, as the root cause of all the problems of crime, and other ills. But research reveals immigrants have a lower rate of committing crime than natural born citizens. This scapegoating by Trump to revv up support amongst his base is akin to some kind of a blood libel.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2459 on: June 28, 2018, 01:45:36 PM »
I'm struck by how something like immigration reform, which previously had a fair level of bipartisan support, has now become such a hot-button issue.
Just a few years ago there was a lot of common ground, with the main sticking point seeming to be whether to grant non-citizens who had lived here peacefully a path to citizenship (amnesty!!) or not.
Now the football has been moved back quite a bit.

The problem is that there was bipartisan support for "reform" among politicians that generally involved some type of amnesty without actually addressing illegal immigration going forward, and there was bipartisan support among voters for generally some type of enforcement and then "amnesty" that ranged from not rushing to kick people out to legalized status without citizenship to a path to citizenship. 

Once aspiring politicians realized people on both sides of the aisle were sick and tired of being lied to about immigration, it was inevitable that the political calculus was going to move against reform. 

FIRE@50

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 321
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Maryland
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2460 on: June 28, 2018, 01:51:07 PM »
I'm struck by how something like immigration reform, which previously had a fair level of bipartisan support, has now become such a hot-button issue.
Just a few years ago there was a lot of common ground, with the main sticking point seeming to be whether to grant non-citizens who had lived here peacefully a path to citizenship (amnesty!!) or not.
Now the football has been moved back quite a bit.

The problem is that there was bipartisan support for "reform" among politicians that generally involved some type of amnesty without actually addressing illegal immigration going forward, and there was bipartisan support among voters for generally some type of enforcement and then "amnesty" that ranged from not rushing to kick people out to legalized status without citizenship to a path to citizenship. 

Once aspiring politicians realized people on both sides of the aisle were sick and tired of being lied to about immigration, it was inevitable that the political calculus was going to move against reform.
What was the lie?

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1794
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2461 on: June 28, 2018, 01:52:41 PM »
Around a third of the government positions that need to be confirmed by the Senate aren't filled. Like 205 of 645 or something. I mean, there's been no ambassador to South Korea through the whole "we will crush you! no wait, let's be friends!" thing with DPRK. 18 months.

And then when they do appoint people, they resign or get chucked out a short time later. Rex Tillerson, where are you?

Plus there's the mid-terms coming up, and if the Dems get a majority they might just return the favour the Reps did them under Obama and refuse to even have the confirmation hearings, stick with having 8 (or 7?) justices.

So hey, who knows if they'll even be able to appoint a new justice?


America. LOL.

Itís very unlikely that Democrats flip the Senate this fall, there are very few opportunities to flip seats in their favor, and many opportunities to lose seats.


The Democrats would have to pick up Senate seats in Arizona and Nevada, and not lose any of the vulnerable Democratic Senate seats, McCaskill in Missouri, Heitkamp in North Dakota, Manchin in West Virginia, Tester in Wyoming, etc.

Manchin voted for Gorsuch.

That's disappointing and signals that the Supreme Court very well may become an ultra conservative court for decades.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2462 on: June 28, 2018, 02:11:39 PM »
I'm struck by how something like immigration reform, which previously had a fair level of bipartisan support, has now become such a hot-button issue.
Just a few years ago there was a lot of common ground, with the main sticking point seeming to be whether to grant non-citizens who had lived here peacefully a path to citizenship (amnesty!!) or not.
Now the football has been moved back quite a bit.

The problem is that there was bipartisan support for "reform" among politicians that generally involved some type of amnesty without actually addressing illegal immigration going forward, and there was bipartisan support among voters for generally some type of enforcement and then "amnesty" that ranged from not rushing to kick people out to legalized status without citizenship to a path to citizenship. 

Once aspiring politicians realized people on both sides of the aisle were sick and tired of being lied to about immigration, it was inevitable that the political calculus was going to move against reform.
What was the lie?

That they wanted to stop illegal immigration.  McCain "build the darn wall" McCain comes to mind.  But lots of people claimed to want to stop illegal immigration and campaigned on it, but then when it is actually time to do something about it, they find other things to prioritize.   

That probably has been good for the country in the short run, but it has been poisonous for our politics.  And now when we could use some politicians to actually lead and try to convince voters that immigration and trade are good for us, we don't have anybody with credibility for most of the country.  Instead, we get Trump, who for all his many faults and tenuous relationship to the truth has shown voters that at least when it comes to immigration and trade, he more or less meant what he campaigned on (or at least more so than any other recent politicians). 

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2463 on: June 28, 2018, 02:27:34 PM »
https://player.fm/series/intercepted-with-jeremy-scahill-1342681/white-fear

This is a great interview with Ocasio-Cortez.  She goes into detail about abolishing ICE, the 2nd largest law enforcement agency in the country, behind only the FBI.  The work of ICE should fall under the purview of DOJ, not DHS according to her.

(I am surprised small government conservatives do not support eliminating this bureaucracy..../s)

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8625
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2464 on: June 28, 2018, 02:47:56 PM »
https://player.fm/series/intercepted-with-jeremy-scahill-1342681/white-fear

This is a great interview with Ocasio-Cortez.  She goes into detail about abolishing ICE, the 2nd largest law enforcement agency in the country, behind only the FBI.  The work of ICE should fall under the purview of DOJ, not DHS according to her.

(I am surprised small government conservatives do not support eliminating this bureaucracy..../s)

Somehow the same people who claim to want limited government and a smaller federal government have also been the ones calling for a much larger military and DHS.

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 523
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Dallas
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2465 on: June 28, 2018, 02:51:48 PM »
That's disappointing and signals that the Supreme Court very well may become an ultra conservative court for decades.

There are 9 justices by law, not by Constitution, so this can be remedied. I'm mildly hopeful that we can institute some real structural reforms in the near future, maybe even term limits for SC justices.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3121
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2466 on: June 28, 2018, 02:55:45 PM »
That's disappointing and signals that the Supreme Court very well may become an ultra conservative court for decades.

There are 9 justices by law, not by Constitution, so this can be remedied. I'm mildly hopeful that we can institute some real structural reforms in the near future, maybe even term limits for SC justices.

Troof. There were 9 justices to match the 9 circuit courts. There are now 13 circuit courts.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8699
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2467 on: June 28, 2018, 03:07:12 PM »
The Constitution doesn't apply to US citizens "in the World" either.
Not even when they want to (re)enter the country?

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2468 on: June 28, 2018, 03:59:37 PM »
Picking up on the theme of some of those on the right half of the yell-o-sphere also being terrible human beings, we have this:
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/394715-milo-yiannopoulos-my-call-for-shooting-journalists-was-just-a-troll?rnd=1530219455

Quote
Conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos on Thursday insisted that he "wasn't being serious" when he recently told two reporters that he “can’t wait for the vigilante squads to start gunning journalists.”

Freedom of speech is not freedom from repercussions. Milo clearly isn't a shining voice of the conservative movement, but he is a public figure for a point of view, much as Limbaugh and Alex Jones are as well. It is wrong to be glib about this type of thing and speaks to a disregard for the actual things that make America great: freedom of expression, religion, press and a viable and fair judicial system. Glib attacks on these cornerstones cumulatively erode and are not okay.

ETA: this was in particularly poor taste given the proximity to the tragic shooting in Maryland this afternoon.

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1067
  • Age: 36
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2469 on: June 28, 2018, 05:33:59 PM »
https://player.fm/series/intercepted-with-jeremy-scahill-1342681/white-fear

This is a great interview with Ocasio-Cortez.  She goes into detail about abolishing ICE, the 2nd largest law enforcement agency in the country, behind only the FBI.  The work of ICE should fall under the purview of DOJ, not DHS according to her.

(I am surprised small government conservatives do not support eliminating this bureaucracy..../s)

Somehow the same people who claim to want limited government and a smaller federal government have also been the ones calling for a much larger military and DHS.

Can we just stop saying conservative? Nothing is conservative about what they're doing. There are NO small government republicans, there are only reactionaries. If they like what an agency is doing at the moment (ICE) they want to keep it. If they don't (FBI) they want to kill it. I remember when the FBI could break into buildings with families and kill folks and still get kudos from the republicans... investigate a republican and you're on the shit list.

There are absolutely no republican positions whatsoever except to say whatever the other side is doing is going to lead to Armageddon. The republican party platform is a complete joke since they don't do any of the crap in there.

I bet if the dems were suddenly pro-life the republicans would switch to pro-choice because the communist democrats are taking away our freedoms!

They have no principles or positions whatsoever - but that's how you win elections: Simply oppose whatever the other side is doing regardless of if you agree with it or not. The dems should follow suit.

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 853
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2470 on: June 28, 2018, 05:43:09 PM »
The dems should follow suit.

I vote for them, I like my representatives, but I've got to tell you that as a party combined they're a bunch of pussies. They can't get any of their shit together because agreeing to an actual agenda would mean not thinking for yourself. As a party, they're older and seem out of touch. A bunch of fair-weather hippies.

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1067
  • Age: 36
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2471 on: June 28, 2018, 06:33:56 PM »
The dems should follow suit.

I vote for them, I like my representatives, but I've got to tell you that as a party combined they're a bunch of pussies. They can't get any of their shit together because agreeing to an actual agenda would mean not thinking for yourself. As a party, they're older and seem out of touch. A bunch of fair-weather hippies.

I agree. I like most democratic positions, I hate the way the party operates and tries (unsuccessfully) to win. All of this high road bullshit is ridiculous. If they get in power again, any power, like the house, or the senate and they don't block *literally* everything trump does and open a billion investigations into everything even if there is no issue, they should be primaried out.

And I mean everything. Want to do something that on it's face is a democratic position like raise the minimum wage or expand medicare? Who cares, block it and say it's crap. If dems get the senate they should block ALL of his nominations forever, judges, cabinet, everything. Let the underlings in the departments run em. Budget needs to pass? Block. Who cares, red states get most of the federal funding for crap anyway. Shut down the government for a year or two (it isn't even a real shutdown since all "essential" services still go).

They should have learned from the repubs by now, if your party is not in the presidency is is not in your interest to do ANYTHING or to say ANYTHING the party in power is doing is good - even if it is. That's how you win elections.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2472 on: June 29, 2018, 07:16:57 AM »
As a party, they're older and seem out of touch.

See: all the hand-wringing about Crowley's loss to Ocasio-Cortez.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8625
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2473 on: June 29, 2018, 07:55:08 AM »
THe GOP under DJT has doubled-down on their base of white affluent and evangelical voters.  They ran from the recommendations of the '2012 autopsy' by not only ignoring minorities, urbanites and the youth, but under this administration they have been downright hostile towards them. Current demographics and boundaries have allowed them to do this, but its a short-sighted strategy. Appointing a member to SCOTUS who might curtail LGBT rights or overturn Roe v. Wade will only exacerbate their longer-term problems.  Even with this current 'war on immigration' our country is going to be far more diverse in 10 and 20 years. The GOP already is many (most?) as the party for straight white people, and its going to be very hard for them to change the perceptions of the now 18-35 year olds after we've been treated to 2+ years of POTUS soundbites degradating minorities and images of child-immigrants being torn from their parents' arms and white talking heads belittling non-white celebs voicing their opinions.

What pisses me off about the Dems is that they've largely ignored and taken for granted these demographics.  If they tried a bit harder they could have a potent and expanding base for generations, but instead htey're spending most of their time trying to chip at the same affluent white voters the GOP also woos.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1705
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2474 on: June 29, 2018, 08:11:50 AM »
THe GOP under DJT has doubled-down on their base of white affluent and evangelical voters.  They ran from the recommendations of the '2012 autopsy' by not only ignoring minorities, urbanites and the youth, but under this administration they have been downright hostile towards them. Current demographics and boundaries have allowed them to do this, but its a short-sighted strategy. Appointing a member to SCOTUS who might curtail LGBT rights or overturn Roe v. Wade will only exacerbate their longer-term problems.  Even with this current 'war on immigration' our country is going to be far more diverse in 10 and 20 years. The GOP already is many (most?) as the party for straight white people, and its going to be very hard for them to change the perceptions of the now 18-35 year olds after we've been treated to 2+ years of POTUS soundbites degradating minorities and images of child-immigrants being torn from their parents' arms and white talking heads belittling non-white celebs voicing their opinions.

What pisses me off about the Dems is that they've largely ignored and taken for granted these demographics.  If they tried a bit harder they could have a potent and expanding base for generations, but instead htey're spending most of their time trying to chip at the same affluent white voters the GOP also woos.

+1 Well said!

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 523
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Dallas
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2475 on: June 29, 2018, 08:19:01 AM »
Can we just stop saying conservative? Nothing is conservative about what they're doing.


Regressives versus progressives is a better description at the moment.

Regressives want to slam on the brakes and turn around, the ideal society was somewhere back there in the past.
Progressives say there is still work to be done, and the ideal society is out in front of us.

You can see both progressive and regressive strains in both parties (it's pretty damn progressive to claim corporations are people...it's wrong, but....and anti-GMO/industrial-farming is definitely regressive), but Republicans have grown increasingly regressive since WW2, and Democrats vice versa.

OurTown

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 959
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2476 on: June 29, 2018, 09:04:42 AM »
Reportedly, his excellency wants the US to withdraw from the WTO.  Additionally, there are reports his excellency wants the US to withdraw from NATO.  Is this really what you guys want?  Really?  I know you all like to yell "fuck the libs," but really?  This is what you want?  Are you sure?  Would you like to take five and think about it a little more?

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2477 on: June 29, 2018, 09:15:02 AM »
Can we just stop saying conservative? Nothing is conservative about what they're doing.


Regressives versus progressives is a better description at the moment.

Regressives want to slam on the brakes and turn around, the ideal society was somewhere back there in the past.
Progressives say there is still work to be done, and the ideal society is out in front of us.

You can see both progressive and regressive strains in both parties (it's pretty damn progressive to claim corporations are people...it's wrong, but....and anti-GMO/industrial-farming is definitely regressive), but Republicans have grown increasingly regressive since WW2, and Democrats vice versa.

I don't know whether you are using short hand that you understand or not, but since other people are confused by it, it's worth clarifying:

nobody thinks corporations are literally people.  Corporations are legal fictions and when people argue for corporations having rights, what they are arguing is that groups of people do not lose their rights just because they join together in a formal organization.  I dont' know that that's particularly progressive or regressive.  Joining together in corporations does grant certain protectiosn from liability that are granted by statute, so I don't know that it's out of bounds to say in exchange for those protections, you also give up some rights, and the alternative is to join together in a partnership.  But I think the general rule has been that people don't lose rights just because they organize in a corporation rather than as a partnership.  So I guess ruling that that they ahve to give rights up to incorporate is regressive?

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2478 on: June 29, 2018, 09:24:57 AM »
Can we just stop saying conservative? Nothing is conservative about what they're doing.


Regressives versus progressives is a better description at the moment.

Regressives want to slam on the brakes and turn around, the ideal society was somewhere back there in the past.
Progressives say there is still work to be done, and the ideal society is out in front of us.

You can see both progressive and regressive strains in both parties (it's pretty damn progressive to claim corporations are people...it's wrong, but....and anti-GMO/industrial-farming is definitely regressive), but Republicans have grown increasingly regressive since WW2, and Democrats vice versa.

I don't know whether you are using short hand that you understand or not, but since other people are confused by it, it's worth clarifying:

nobody thinks corporations are literally people.  Corporations are legal fictions and when people argue for corporations having rights, what they are arguing is that groups of people do not lose their rights just because they join together in a formal organization.  I dont' know that that's particularly progressive or regressive.  Joining together in corporations does grant certain protectiosn from liability that are granted by statute, so I don't know that it's out of bounds to say in exchange for those protections, you also give up some rights, and the alternative is to join together in a partnership.  But I think the general rule has been that people don't lose rights just because they organize in a corporation rather than as a partnership.  So I guess ruling that that they ahve to give rights up to incorporate is regressive?
This is incorrect. Nothing about working for, being on the boards of directors, or other relations to a corporation influence the rights of those individuals beyond the scope of the corporate relationship. having to give up rights to incorporate is not only false, it is misleading about the scope. The question is what rights are afforded to the incorporated entity itself. The human people can (and are) plugged in an out of that structure at will. What rights are afforded to the corporation itself, independent of the names on doors? A corporation is typically allowed only to seek profit. Allowing an organization that is legally bound to achieve that goal unlimited money as speech rights (which, to be clear, is separate from the rights of the individual humans who participate in that corporation) will have a rather predicatable effect that does not necessarily have a social good. This flavor of definition is a relatively new thing legally. Many of the framers of the constitution, such as Jefferson, actually seriously considered having a constitution-level rule against the corporation as a business entity because of the possibility that it could allow the corporation to amass too much influence and possibly destabilize gov't or yield undue influence. This point of view was heavily informed by interactions with the East India Company, which was the corporation that wanted to dump its excess tea on the Colonies spawning a little thing called the Boston Tea Party.

Nicholas Carter

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 106
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2479 on: June 29, 2018, 09:26:39 AM »
What pisses me off about the Dems is that they've largely ignored and taken for granted these demographics.  If they tried a bit harder they could have a potent and expanding base for generations, but instead htey're spending most of their time trying to chip at the same affluent white voters the GOP also woos.
Something to remember is that the people who work for, are, and give most of the money to Democratic politicians are more white and less liberal than the actual average Democratic voter. So, from the jump, they are less aware and connected to the issues affecting other communities, and a lot less financially motivated to become aware. NPR's coverage of the primary in New York's 12th district discussed the issue in depth.
thisamericanlife.org/649/its-my-party-and-ill-try-if-i-want-to
TLDL: White wealthy Democrat administrators don't have any interest in Democrat politicians that take positions critical of white wealthy people.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8625
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2480 on: June 29, 2018, 09:33:21 AM »
What pisses me off about the Dems is that they've largely ignored and taken for granted these demographics.  If they tried a bit harder they could have a potent and expanding base for generations, but instead htey're spending most of their time trying to chip at the same affluent white voters the GOP also woos.
Something to remember is that the people who work for, are, and give most of the money to Democratic politicians are more white and less liberal than the actual average Democratic voter. So, from the jump, they are less aware and connected to the issues affecting other communities, and a lot less financially motivated to become aware. [snip]
TLDL: White wealthy Democrat administrators don't have any interest in Democrat politicians that take positions critical of white wealthy people.
[note: edited by nereo - see below]

I think this is true regardless of party - in other words, strike out the words "Democratic/Democrat" in your statement above and it still holds true.

toganet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 213
  • Location: Buffalo, NY
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2481 on: June 29, 2018, 09:48:36 AM »
What pisses me off about the Dems is that they've largely ignored and taken for granted these demographics.  If they tried a bit harder they could have a potent and expanding base for generations, but instead htey're spending most of their time trying to chip at the same affluent white voters the GOP also woos.
Something to remember is that the people who work for, are, and give most of the money to Democratic politicians are more white and less liberal than the actual average Democratic voter. So, from the jump, they are less aware and connected to the issues affecting other communities, and a lot less financially motivated to become aware. [snip]
TLDL: White wealthy Democrat administrators don't have any interest in Democrat politicians that take positions critical of white wealthy people.
[note: edited by nereo - see below]

I think this is true regardless of party - in other words, strike out the words "Democratic/Democrat" in your statement above and it still holds true.

To wit, donors aren't voters.  Candidates have to follow the money in order to fund campaigns; that biases their in favor of the monied.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8625
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2482 on: June 29, 2018, 09:59:21 AM »
Further evidence that the truth and facts matters not to this administraiton.
Larry Kudlow, director of the White House's National Economic Council, just went on Fox to proclaim against all evidence that the deficit is "coming down rapidly".
This flies in the face of all nonpartisan estimates and the congressional budgetary scorekeeper, which universally have shown the deficit to be expanding, both in absolute and relative terms.

It's hard to know where Kudlow is getting his numbers from. The deficit from January through April was $161 billion, according to Treasury, up from $135 billion at the same point last year. And it will deteriorate further from here, since the Treasury collects a large amount of tax revenue during April when taxes are due for most Americans.

Generally economists are loathe to refute hard numbers. Sure they'll put their own spin and interpretation on what direction polices are taking us, but at least they don't take glaring red numbers and try to say they are in the black.

link to WaPo article.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2483 on: June 29, 2018, 10:21:03 AM »
Further evidence that the truth and facts matters not to this administraiton.
Larry Kudlow, director of the White House's National Economic Council, just went on Fox to proclaim against all evidence that the deficit is "coming down rapidly".
This flies in the face of all nonpartisan estimates and the congressional budgetary scorekeeper, which universally have shown the deficit to be expanding, both in absolute and relative terms.

It's hard to know where Kudlow is getting his numbers from. The deficit from January through April was $161 billion, according to Treasury, up from $135 billion at the same point last year. And it will deteriorate further from here, since the Treasury collects a large amount of tax revenue during April when taxes are due for most Americans.

Generally economists are loathe to refute hard numbers. Sure they'll put their own spin and interpretation on what direction polices are taking us, but at least they don't take glaring red numbers and try to say they are in the black.

link to WaPo article.

I think you forgot to translate Kudlow's words out of Newspeak.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2484 on: June 29, 2018, 10:30:05 AM »
Can we just stop saying conservative? Nothing is conservative about what they're doing.


Regressives versus progressives is a better description at the moment.

Regressives want to slam on the brakes and turn around, the ideal society was somewhere back there in the past.
Progressives say there is still work to be done, and the ideal society is out in front of us.

You can see both progressive and regressive strains in both parties (it's pretty damn progressive to claim corporations are people...it's wrong, but....and anti-GMO/industrial-farming is definitely regressive), but Republicans have grown increasingly regressive since WW2, and Democrats vice versa.

I don't know whether you are using short hand that you understand or not, but since other people are confused by it, it's worth clarifying:

nobody thinks corporations are literally people.  Corporations are legal fictions and when people argue for corporations having rights, what they are arguing is that groups of people do not lose their rights just because they join together in a formal organization.  I dont' know that that's particularly progressive or regressive.  Joining together in corporations does grant certain protectiosn from liability that are granted by statute, so I don't know that it's out of bounds to say in exchange for those protections, you also give up some rights, and the alternative is to join together in a partnership.  But I think the general rule has been that people don't lose rights just because they organize in a corporation rather than as a partnership.  So I guess ruling that that they ahve to give rights up to incorporate is regressive?
This is incorrect. Nothing about working for, being on the boards of directors, or other relations to a corporation influence the rights of those individuals beyond the scope of the corporate relationship. having to give up rights to incorporate is not only false, it is misleading about the scope. The question is what rights are afforded to the incorporated entity itself. The human people can (and are) plugged in an out of that structure at will. What rights are afforded to the corporation itself, independent of the names on doors? A corporation is typically allowed only to seek profit. Allowing an organization that is legally bound to achieve that goal unlimited money as speech rights (which, to be clear, is separate from the rights of the individual humans who participate in that corporation) will have a rather predicatable effect that does not necessarily have a social good. This flavor of definition is a relatively new thing legally. Many of the framers of the constitution, such as Jefferson, actually seriously considered having a constitution-level rule against the corporation as a business entity because of the possibility that it could allow the corporation to amass too much influence and possibly destabilize gov't or yield undue influence. This point of view was heavily informed by interactions with the East India Company, which was the corporation that wanted to dump its excess tea on the Colonies spawning a little thing called the Boston Tea Party.
  The people's whose rights aren't negated by forming a corporation are the owners of the corporation.  If one person wants to buy an ad to push a particular issue, I think it's pretty noncontroversial that it's unconstitutional for the government to say, "you can only push that issue if you don't spend any money on it".  If ten people get together and want to pool their money to by and ad, or give it to one person to buy an ad, I think it's also pretty noncontroversial that it's unconstitutional for the government to say, "you group of people can only push taht issue if you don't spend any money on it."  If those ten people get together and say, "I want to make sure there is some structure to how our money is spent and that it's spent the way we intend, so lets form a corporation with governing documents", it is apparently controversial to say that it's unconstitutional for the government to say "you can only push that issue if you don't spend any money on  it."  So yes, it is the rights of the individuals being affected by the formation of the corporation.  Michael Bloomberg can spend a $1M on ads to push out particular speech, and the government can't constitutionally stop him from doing it.  But if 100,000 people want to contribute $10 each to form an entity to push out particular speech arguing against Bloomberg's position, then all the sudden it's constitutional for the government to stop them? 

Also, have you considered what it would mean for the news industry?  Do you really think the government should be able to restrict issue advocacy by news organizations if they are organized as a corporation?

doggyfizzle

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2485 on: June 29, 2018, 11:23:12 AM »
Further evidence that the truth and facts matters not to this administraiton.
Larry Kudlow, director of the White House's National Economic Council, just went on Fox to proclaim against all evidence that the deficit is "coming down rapidly".
This flies in the face of all nonpartisan estimates and the congressional budgetary scorekeeper, which universally have shown the deficit to be expanding, both in absolute and relative terms.

It's hard to know where Kudlow is getting his numbers from. The deficit from January through April was $161 billion, according to Treasury, up from $135 billion at the same point last year. And it will deteriorate further from here, since the Treasury collects a large amount of tax revenue during April when taxes are due for most Americans.

Generally economists are loathe to refute hard numbers. Sure they'll put their own spin and interpretation on what direction polices are taking us, but at least they don't take glaring red numbers and try to say they are in the black.

link to WaPo article.


Of all the people appointed so far in the DJT Administration besides Rick Perry at DoE and perhaps DeVos at Ed, I find Larry Kudlow to be the most offensive choice of person to fill such an important Executive branch position.  And he is pretty much always wrong http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2016/12/larry-kudlow-is-usually-wrong.html.

I still remember where I was in December 2007 (watching CNBC getting dressed for work) when he proclaimed the "Bush Boom is alive and well." Ugh.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8625
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2486 on: June 29, 2018, 11:37:18 AM »

I think you forgot to translate Kudlow's words out of Newspeak.

I'm not sure I follow your meaning.  Kudlow claimed that the deficit is coming down rapidly.  All evidence points to it rapidly increasing. He's literally saying the exact opposite of what is actually happening.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2487 on: June 29, 2018, 11:54:47 AM »

I think you forgot to translate Kudlow's words out of Newspeak.

I'm not sure I follow your meaning.  Kudlow claimed that the deficit is coming down rapidly.  All evidence points to it rapidly increasing. He's literally saying the exact opposite of what is actually happening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8625
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2488 on: June 29, 2018, 12:28:18 PM »

I think you forgot to translate Kudlow's words out of Newspeak.

I'm not sure I follow your meaning.  Kudlow claimed that the deficit is coming down rapidly.  All evidence points to it rapidly increasing. He's literally saying the exact opposite of what is actually happening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
Ah - thanks.  Odd thing is that was one of my favorite books in highschool, but I haven't read it in well over a decade.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2489 on: June 29, 2018, 12:32:34 PM »
Also, have you considered what it would mean for the news industry?  Do you really think the government should be able to restrict issue advocacy by news organizations if they are organized as a corporation?

Of course not. Except that the press is specifically called out and protected in the first amendment.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2490 on: June 29, 2018, 12:48:10 PM »
Also, have you considered what it would mean for the news industry?  Do you really think the government should be able to restrict issue advocacy by news organizations if they are organized as a corporation?

Of course not. Except that the press is specifically called out and protected in the first amendment.

So you are going to have the government making the call between what is issue advocacy and what is legitimate press?

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2491 on: June 29, 2018, 01:11:26 PM »
Also, have you considered what it would mean for the news industry?  Do you really think the government should be able to restrict issue advocacy by news organizations if they are organized as a corporation?

Of course not. Except that the press is specifically called out and protected in the first amendment.

So you are going to have the government making the call between what is issue advocacy and what is legitimate press?

I think it is possible you are reading more into what I am saying than I am.
1. A corporation as a person is a legal fiction and convenience. Corporations are not currently fully fledged people as constitutional entities, but that is the direction that the legal precedent is moving.
2. There are many ways for people to organize politically. Form a political party, a PAC, etc. Campaign finance allows all of these things. A corporation is a legal grouping to facilitate a business goal. Granting a corporation personhood rights is not about the rights of the members of the corporation, but about the corporation itself to have speech rights. Restricting corporate speech rights does not impact the free speech rights of the individuals at all.

You may feel that a corporation, as a stand alone entity, should have rights. We will disagree, but that's fine. We are all adults and can disagree. However, saying that restricting a corporation's rights somehow restricts the rights of an individual, flesh and blood person is not correct. They are separate. If people choose to form a corporation simply to express political views (buy a bill board), then that seems like a poor choice for achieving that end and not really why corporations exist in the first place.

This is an interesting read for context on the historical points (one of many on the topic):
https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/hobby-lobby-argument

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2492 on: June 29, 2018, 01:47:44 PM »
Also, have you considered what it would mean for the news industry?  Do you really think the government should be able to restrict issue advocacy by news organizations if they are organized as a corporation?

Of course not. Except that the press is specifically called out and protected in the first amendment.

So you are going to have the government making the call between what is issue advocacy and what is legitimate press?

I think it is possible you are reading more into what I am saying than I am.
1. A corporation as a person is a legal fiction and convenience. Corporations are not currently fully fledged people as constitutional entities, but that is the direction that the legal precedent is moving.
  The corporation as an "entity" is a legal fiction.  Corporations are just groups of people.  The purpose of corporations was traditionally to allow people to invest in ventures without having to risk their entire net worth.  Limited liability is still generally the reason for why people organize together as corporations, but for certain types of nonprofits, it also opens up access to preferential tax treatment too. 

2. There are many ways for people to organize politically. Form a political party, a PAC, etc. Campaign finance allows all of these things. A corporation is a legal grouping to facilitate a business goal.
  That is not the only purpose of a corporation.  There are plenty of corporations that specifically do not have a business goal. 

Granting a corporation personhood rights is not about the rights of the members of the corporation, but about the corporation itself to have speech rights. Restricting corporate speech rights does not impact the free speech rights of the individuals at all.

You may feel that a corporation, as a stand alone entity, should have rights. We will disagree, but that's fine. We are all adults and can disagree. However, saying that restricting a corporation's rights somehow restricts the rights of an individual, flesh and blood person is not correct. They are separate. If people choose to form a corporation simply to express political views (buy a bill board), then that seems like a poor choice for achieving that end and not really why corporations exist in the first place.
    Corporations are just groups of people (or I guess sometimes just one person).  So if the government comes in takes all the assets of say Walmart and doesn't pay for them, it can claim, hey, we just took the assets of the corporation, so we didn't violate any person's rights.  And the response (aside from that being contrary to settled law), is that a corporation is just a legal fiction; when you took those assets, you took the assets of people without compensation in violation of the 5th amendment. 

If a corporation wants to plead the fifth on its behalf, the response is a corporation is just a legal fiction; if none of the members are having to incriminate themselves and will not be subject to criminal liability, then there is no self incrimination, and the 5th doesn't apply.  . 

Now if you want to condition the grant of limited liability on the forfeiture of certain rights by individuals, I don't know that there is anything unconsitutional about that.  But it wouldn't be correct to say you aren't impacting individuals rights.  They will be agreeing to limit their rights, with respect to how they are exercised in conjunction with other owners of the corporation or members of the LLC. 

This is an interesting read for context on the historical points (one of many on the topic):
https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/hobby-lobby-argument
 

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2493 on: June 29, 2018, 02:05:24 PM »
Corporations are just groups of people (or I guess sometimes just one person).  So if the government comes in takes all the assets of say Walmart and doesn't pay for them, it can claim, hey, we just took the assets of the corporation, so we didn't violate any person's rights.  And the response (aside from that being contrary to settled law), is that a corporation is just a legal fiction; when you took those assets, you took the assets of people without compensation in violation of the 5th amendment. 

This makes no sense. People own shares of the corporation, and thus they have property rights. A corporation has a specific legal meaning, and is thus not just a group of people. The rules that a specific corporation must follow are laid down in a charter (which can be revoked by the state government it is granted under).

This is also a big tangent from the point of this thread. I suggest, since clearly neither of us is a legal scholar, we just drop this.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2494 on: June 29, 2018, 02:29:39 PM »
Corporations are just groups of people (or I guess sometimes just one person).  So if the government comes in takes all the assets of say Walmart and doesn't pay for them, it can claim, hey, we just took the assets of the corporation, so we didn't violate any person's rights.  And the response (aside from that being contrary to settled law), is that a corporation is just a legal fiction; when you took those assets, you took the assets of people without compensation in violation of the 5th amendment. 

This makes no sense. People own shares of the corporation, and thus they have property rights. A corporation has a specific legal meaning, and is thus not just a group of people. The rules that a specific corporation must follow are laid down in a charter (which can be revoked by the state government it is granted under).

This is also a big tangent from the point of this thread. I suggest, since clearly neither of us is a legal scholar, we just drop this.

That was imprecise.  It's not that they are "just" groups of people.  Obviously there is a lot of law that applies to how those groups of people can pool their resources and/or efforts that don't apply to non-incorporated groups.  But the point is that they are groups of people. 

When people form a partnership and say we are going to buy and own this rental property together, the government can't just demolish it and put a road over it without due process or compensation because those individuals have property rights.  If those same people decide instead to form a corporation who owns the property, the government can't come in and demolish it and put a road over it and say the corporation is not a person and has no rights, and all the individuals own are stock certificates and we didn't do anything to those, so no due process or compensation is required. 

It's the same thing with free speech.  A group of people don't lose their free speech rights just because they incorporate.  Maybe the state could make forfeiting speech rights a condition of incorporation, but that's not a decision for the courts to make on their own.

snapperdude

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 109
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2495 on: June 29, 2018, 02:32:56 PM »
Further evidence that the truth and facts matters not to this administraiton.
Larry Kudlow, director of the White House's National Economic Council, just went on Fox to proclaim against all evidence that the deficit is "coming down rapidly".
This flies in the face of all nonpartisan estimates and the congressional budgetary scorekeeper, which universally have shown the deficit to be expanding, both in absolute and relative terms.

It's hard to know where Kudlow is getting his numbers from. The deficit from January through April was $161 billion, according to Treasury, up from $135 billion at the same point last year. And it will deteriorate further from here, since the Treasury collects a large amount of tax revenue during April when taxes are due for most Americans.

Generally economists are loathe to refute hard numbers. Sure they'll put their own spin and interpretation on what direction polices are taking us, but at least they don't take glaring red numbers and try to say they are in the black.

link to WaPo article.

Sounds like Larry is back on the blow.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2496 on: June 29, 2018, 02:41:27 PM »
Corporations are just groups of people (or I guess sometimes just one person).  So if the government comes in takes all the assets of say Walmart and doesn't pay for them, it can claim, hey, we just took the assets of the corporation, so we didn't violate any person's rights.  And the response (aside from that being contrary to settled law), is that a corporation is just a legal fiction; when you took those assets, you took the assets of people without compensation in violation of the 5th amendment. 

This makes no sense. People own shares of the corporation, and thus they have property rights. A corporation has a specific legal meaning, and is thus not just a group of people. The rules that a specific corporation must follow are laid down in a charter (which can be revoked by the state government it is granted under).

This is also a big tangent from the point of this thread. I suggest, since clearly neither of us is a legal scholar, we just drop this.

That was imprecise.  It's not that they are "just" groups of people.  Obviously there is a lot of law that applies to how those groups of people can pool their resources and/or efforts that don't apply to non-incorporated groups.  But the point is that they are groups of people. 

When people form a partnership and say we are going to buy and own this rental property together, the government can't just demolish it and put a road over it without due process or compensation because those individuals have property rights.  If those same people decide instead to form a corporation who owns the property, the government can't come in and demolish it and put a road over it and say the corporation is not a person and has no rights, and all the individuals own are stock certificates and we didn't do anything to those, so no due process or compensation is required. 

It's the same thing with free speech.  A group of people don't lose their free speech rights just because they incorporate.  Maybe the state could make forfeiting speech rights a condition of incorporation, but that's not a decision for the courts to make on their own.

Except they absolutely did do something to them, they directly impacted the value. Not to mention, there's no reason a corporation can't have some of the rights individuals have without having all of them.

You're certainly right about that second part though.

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1791
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2497 on: June 29, 2018, 10:03:52 PM »
Yeah! NO! Whut???  Even trying to make sense of this thread hurts.

Honestly, that is the place I'm in these days.  The historical meanings of things like conservative and Republican are completely ambiguous, our President holds meaningless expensive self-aggrandizing rallys at precious taxpayer expense and everyone is so busy with outrage or subservient rapture that apparently everyone accepts the status quo, as abnormal and perverted as it is.

The America I enjoyed under Obama is dying and people are too exhausted to do anything about it.  This is the threat that I fear most.  That people just start to roll over and see what outrage happens next, and lazily raise their arm and then give up. 

Seriously, families are torn apart inside the wealthiest, most technically capable and entrepreneurial and beacon of freedom place on Earth.  If we accept any of this, then we are giving up on ourselves.  We are watching Trump as reality TV and thinking that his reality is real.  It never was. 

I still hold out hope that there is some definitive collusion or at least sunlight on why Trump likes the Russians and Putin so much.  Maybe it's a grey area, but I feel like I'm missing something important about the financial obligations and ties of the guy who commands America's attention.

Ultimately, as a public servant, Trump should never have been confirmed.  He has never served the public's interest.  In my opinion, he has never faithfully defended the Constitution.  I only wish the Electoral College would've taken it's position seriously and not put us in a position of relentless public shootings (unanswered with any legislation), immigration fiasco (family separation and jails filling up with people that still see this as better than what they are leaving), trade wars (our allies wondering just wtf is wrong with this great life we are all enjoying), and helplessly watching us withdraw and become politically unstable.

Even the folks that voted for Trump did not want to lose their jobs, healthcare, and ability to send their kids to school without worrying about them getting shot.  Alas, that is where we are, since the powers that be put Trump in charge.  The next school year is going to start in a few months without anything new to protect students, Trump will surely be demonizing people places and things, or talking about a Space Force, which helps nothing but costs lots of money, and immigration will be a larger and more festering problem than ever. 

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 511
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2498 on: June 30, 2018, 02:36:21 AM »
I still hold out hope that there is some definitive collusion or at least sunlight on why Trump likes the Russians and Putin so much. 
I don't believe there was collusion. He had a constant stream of people joining and quitting his campaign and later Cabinet. And again, about 200 of the 600-something positions the Senate's supposed to confirm don't even have nominations. He can't even collude with people he's supposed to work with, it's simply not plausible that he could collude with a foreign power. He's too stupid.

Quote
Maybe it's a grey area, but I feel like I'm missing something important about the financial obligations and ties of the guy who commands America's attention.
When even a failed presidential campaign costs over $1 billion, you are only going to get rich people seriously try out for it. They don't have to be rich enough to supply all the funds themselves, but they do have to be rich enough for the people who are rich enough to take them seriously. Nobody gets that rich without buddying up to government, so there are endless conflicts of interest and regulatory capture and corruption and all that. Trump's not unique in that, it's just the inevitable result of the system the US has chosen - it's basically an elected version of an 18th century monarch.

Quote
I only wish the Electoral College would've taken it's position seriously and not put us in a position of relentless public shootings (unanswered with any legislation), immigration fiasco (family separation and jails filling up with people that still see this as better than what they are leaving), trade wars (our allies wondering just wtf is wrong with this great life we are all enjoying), and helplessly watching us withdraw and become politically unstable.
That's the system you've chosen. The Electoral College votes the way the general public told them to vote. Their doing otherwise would be grounds for legal challenges, and probably lead to all sorts of civil unrest. And of course, if they'd binned Trump then they could as easily bin some later candidate you actually like. So I don't think you really want to set that precedent.

Trump is not personally responsible for all the shootings, nor their being unanswered by legislation. It's not like he's vetoed legislation, nothing's passed US Congress. You overestimate the power of the US President, and this overestimation of their powers is what leads to rich, corrupt and ambitious men like Trump seeking office. So in saying, "but it's all his fault!" you're reinforcing the ideas and system that brings men like him to power. And the shootings are reflective of deeper problems in US society which cannot be fixed by a piece of legislation or two.

There was an immigration fiasco before Trump, and there will be one after.

Now, trade wars are something he's desperately tried to start. But that's because, "therefore be it thy course, dear Harry, to busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels" - Henry V. Anyone who is poor at running their country and doesn't want to just resign needs to distract the people, preferably with something outside the country. Previous Presidents did it by bombing and invading countries, he's doing it with a little bombing but mostly tariffs. I'll take tariffs over bombs.

Your country is less stable, but it's been on that track for a long time. He's speeding up the process, but he didn't start it. It wasn't Trump who removed banking regulations, who dropped trade barriers and mismanaged US companies to send jobs overseas and halve the size of Detroit, or brought drugs into US cities to fund covert foreign conflicts. Your country has had its leaders - of all parties - desperately try to fuck it up thoroughly for generations now. Trump is just the turd ketchup on the shit sandwich that American leadership has slapped together over many decades. Eat up.

the_fixer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
  • Location: Colorado
  • mind on my money money on my mind
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #2499 on: June 30, 2018, 06:46:08 AM »
Well said Kyle.

Maybe someday we will get some actual leaders that care about doing what is best for the country and not what is best for their party and their career path.

Doubtful that will happen for a long time since neither party is being held accountable by their base of voters because everyone is so damn angry and busy pointing the finger at the other party.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk