Yes, The Real The New Awesome Primary Thread

This is pretty mindblowing. In order to volunteer for the Donald, you have to sign an agreement which says, among other things: Got that? Not only are you forever barred from criticizing any aspect of Trump's business empire, but you must also prevent any of your present or future employees from doing so. Presumably by threats of termination, since following them around and holding their mouths shut would be illegal.You are also obliged to prevent your employees from working for another campaign:

Interesting fact, polls show that either of the Democrats would beat Trump in Utah. I guess Mormons still take Christianity seriously, unlike the lumpen mass of white evangelicals who regard Jesus merely as a sort of mascot for the Republican Party.

Though those who feared it didn't fear that it would happen like this. You know, any traditional analysis of the Republicans would have investigated the uneasy alliance between the neocons, the libertarians, the evangelicals, the moderates, and the billionaires who decide what the actual legislative program of the party will be; and would have noted in passing that a lot of Republican voters are morons. What Trump has done is to turn the morons into a new faction of their own.

Not at all. The owners are the shareholders. Any money the CEO of corporation doesn't spend on supporting Trump For President or whatever cause he personally favors can instead be paid as dividends to the shareholders, who can then choose for themselves whether or not to donate their money to a political cause, and if so to which. This gives them a freer exercise of their right to spend their own money than if the board of directors makes that decision for them.Could we not at least have a little consistency on this issue? Usually when a corporation does something evil, we are told that the sole legal and moral imperative of the executives is to make as much money for the shareholders as possible, and that if the law allowed them to sell their grandmothers for glue, they should do it. But this imperative magically disappears when the evil thing they want to do is supporting their pet political cause with money that they could otherwise pay out to the shareholders, in which case they should be able to do what they like with the money, because FREEDOM!!!

Perhaps they can in principle; I'm not convinced that they do in practice. In any case you must concede that if they just got the money for themselves, they would have an even finer degree of control over how it was spent, so it's hard to argue that that would be "putting limits on the rights of the owners to use their money as they see fit".And if any shareholders wanted to spend their dividends in conformity with the wishes of the CEO, they would be free to ask him what those wishes were, and he would be free to tell them. Potentially, but that isn't the argument we hear. Instead, we hear a whole lot about FREEDOM!!! Whereas in fact according to the dogma of shareholder value, freedom doesn't come into it: a corporation is obliged to spend money on some things and obliged not to spend it on others. If (for example) the CEO, the board, and indeed all the shareholders were homophobes, and yet statistics showed that homophobia was bad for business, then the legal and moral obligation of the corporation is to fight for gay rights, thus sayeth the Gospel of Shareholder Value. Freedom implies choice; shareholder value imposes obligations.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I never suggested that the government should stop them from speaking. Or from spending their money. I merely suggested that it might be even easier for them to spend their money if they had it and could choose how to disburse it. This seems fairly unarguable. I said "the obligation of the corporation".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

https://twitter.com/RealBenCarson/status/713031146578128896

My point argues that it would not deprive the shareholders of their freedom to spend their own money if they were in fact free to spend it. Which does somewhat speak to Citizens United --- a law can't infringe our freedoms if no particular person's freedom is being infringed. If they vote on it at an AGM. Otherwise it seems that the dogma of shareholder value requires the board to ignore their mere sentiments.

Ted Cruz says that he has no desire to copulate with Donald Trump.Finally an issue on which all Americans can unite.

I question the word "esteemed".

Well, good for you. Many people have taken against him just because he happens to be the Devil, and it's nice to see that you can rise above such prejudices.

Well, basically two things.(1) He looks like the Devil.
(2) He's the Devil.I don't mind that so much, but he's also a Republican.