Summations Only

Not people, corporations. And you stop them by making it illegal like it was in the last zillion elections.

So when the Republicans scream about how they want to abolish "Obamacare" ... if they'd had the whip hand, they'd have instituted it, yes?It may be a choice between the less conservative of two conservatives, but I think that given that choice we should exercise it, or we might get the more conservative of two conservatives, which would actually be worse.

From what I can tell this is going to be a scary situation for the United States. All of the GOP hopefuls freak me out. And President Obama remaining president is no better imo. It is almost as if our country has become so polarized over the last few decades.I understand we need a strong military, but being at war for ten years is ridiculous. I understand that conservatives believe deregulating business will lead to job growth, but it has not in the past in the face of abject greed. Our wants and needs are secondary to bueracrats and corporations. And those imo who see the king has no clothes on are left with no choices on election day.And the remainder of our propagandized brethren will find new scape goats to blame regardless of who is president. What has happened to America folks? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines.

I haven't been paying attention According to a coupla polls from a quick Google search, it looks like its gonna be either Romney or Cain. He's at the top of these two polls sites:realclearpolitics.com2012 - POLITICO.com Nah, a 1 ppm problem would be negligible. For one, corporations can be considered persons in some cases. But even if not in this case, couldn't Corp. A just give money to Bob, and then have Bob donate it? I find that hard to believe.

[gonzo]Hooah writes: WTF? Yeah - with some wormholes leaking over and opening up in the state of Massachusetts, not to mention his dad in Michigan. I cannot believe you think this is a serious issue when the Republicans are all about getting rid of what they would call the far greater of these 2 evils, which, as they would joke around with each other, cocktails in hand, is "the Nigger in the White House".Mitt Romney is the most dangerous candidate to the Obama administration and everyone that counts in that party knows it. That this silly little anti-mormonism even shows up in their virulent fascistic racism is just an indication of how moribund & dead the Republican Party is. Mark my words - they will nominate him. They aren't that dumb. Mitt is their best man. These computerized voting machines are all so much Unmitigated Shit. Diebold, for instance, is the rightwing steely fist of Dick Cheney's cronies. The management should all be imprisoned for life and the company (now that they are defined as people!) executed at dawn, along with the programmer who wrote the lying code in Ohio. This is the Highest of Treasonous Things that can be done by anyone so diseased in their heads and in power to implement their diseased concepts these days. Saddam Hussein, when alive, could only watch it unfold in absolute envy.The ONLY way computers should be allowed at the polls at all is to facilitate filling out the optical ovals on a ballot that you print out and get to hold in your hand, along with a receipt in case there is some later bizarre issue where you need to show how you voted in a recount. [/gonzo]Edited by xongsmith, : more gonzo

'twas said in jest, my friend.

I know they can, with the way certain things are written, but they are NOT, nor should they be. The day a "corporation" is executed is the day they attain personhood. I'm sure there are legal stipulations to this, but I am unsure of what they would be. More to the point, though, is the fact that politicians CAN be bought. The way our system currently works is such that, if you want policy enacted, you just need to pony up enough cash.

Hoooah writes: Mr. Dylan has long held the best legal army in the business, pal. This has been moved on to the stakeholders already.

How would you sue a corporation if they didn't have legal personhood? How could you have a corporation pay taxes if they didn't have legal personhood?

Why do both of those require personhood? Does our legal system or tax system not recognize corporations? If not, why not?

Because that's what legal personhood is. Just like how you can't sue a collection of encyclopedias or the color blue or a marriage, you can't just sue a combination of ideas, characteristics, and relationships. Only if that collection is recognized as a discreet legal entity can it appear in court; that's legal personhood.Similarly, how would a corporation be assessed taxes if it wasn't construed as a discreet legal identity and given a tax ID? That's legal personhood. Our legal system does recognize corporations; that's why they have personhood. Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Another question would be: if corporations didn't have legal personhood, how would you propose to charge them with crimes?

Ahh, so I see. Thanks for the clarification.Having said that, in your opinion, should legal personhood grant them the same privileges as actual people? Is there a way we can differentiate legal personhood from actual personhood in order to combat the issues we face now with corporations being able to donate vast sums of money, effectively buying congressmen/women? It's not hard to put two and two together: I, as a non-billionaire, will be far less effective swaying the congressperson to vote a certain way when I can only donate, say: $10. Whereas, a corporation (or even a single philanthropist) can donate millions/billions/hundreds of thousands and obviously get the sway. Does it actually step into first ammendment violation territory if we suggest not allowing corporations to donate? Or if we suggest limiting donation amounts?

The real question is, how would you propose to sentence them for crimes in which they are found guilty?If a corporation knowingly causes the deaths of innocent people, how do you put it in jail for the rest of its life?