Yes, The Real The New Awesome Primary Thread

I think the distinction is relevant. It wasn't strictly voter ire that led to the riot. A lot has to do with how protests are handled. I think it is also important to note that in the end, Nixon, who was no anti-war candidate, won by a comfortable majority over two other candidates. I'm not sure any democrat could have won, but it is true that the convention riot did not help.Imagine the following scenario. Trump goes into the convention with just short of half of the delegates and does not get the nomination. Trump then elects to run as a third party candidate. In the general election, nobody gets over 50 percent of the electoral vote, but Sanders or Clinton gets the largest percentage. Guess who gets to be president?

I understand the desire to limit corporate speech, but I don't really understand this particular argument. There is absolutely nothing about a corporation that is democratic. Corporations, in general, pay employees for their work, without giving them any say in the corporations objectives. The corporations objectives are determined by the corporation owners who owe a fiduciary duty to their stockholders. The corporation simply does not represent the employees. In that way corporations are completely distinct from unions which owe duties to their members.Putting limits on the speech of corporations is essentially putting limits on the rights of the owners to use their money as they see fit. I'd surely like to find a constitutional way of applying those limits, because the result of not having limits is a distorted political process. But IMO, it is pointless to complain about the fact that employees of a union have no say in what the corporation does politically. Unless the corporation is using unwilling corporate assets and forcing them to do its political bidding, there is nothing inherently unfair in that situation.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That's right. But the owners/shareholders have adequate recourse to control what the CEO does. If I understand you correctly, would it not be up to the shareholders to object to what the corporation does? What if the shareholders did, in fact, authorize speech on behalf of the corporation? Why isn't it their constitutional right to delegate that authority to speak to the officers of the corporation? Doesn't your supposed inconsistency result from taking a rather short sighted view? Why isn't a little (or a lot of) money spent on creating a better political landscape for business not a potentially rewarding investment for the shareholders? When a company takes the position that discrimination against gay people in their state is bad for shareholders because it makes attracting talent for hire more difficult thus making costs higher, isn't that a logical conclusion? Such a corporation might not like the idea of Ted Cruz being president for purely financial reasons related to delivering profit to shareholders. On the other hand, an insurance company might feel similarly about the result of Sanders becoming president; i.e. single payer health system is bad for business and the shareholders. Why wouldn't it be appropriately selfish for a corporation to spend some money to make sure Bernie was not elected.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I still don't see the inconsistency. Once someone has elected to speak, for whatever reason, if the government intervenes to stop them, why isn't it appropriate to complain about a lack of freedom. Not quite. The shareholders can forfeit whatever profits they chose to forfeit. It is the company officers that has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders and not vice versa. Perhaps your remarks should be limited to just the board and CEO.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Sure seems that way. Here is one endorsers explanation. I think it justifies a theory that for at least some voters, that Trump's best plan is to stand pat and not cave under the heat of negative press.

quote:

---

Actor Scott Baio told Fox News host Jeanine Pirro that he's joined the Trump train because he likes Donald Trump's message and toughness. "It's very simple, because when he speaks I understand him," Baio explained. "He speaks like I speak. He communicates with people very well."

---

Of course Baio is also famous for this gem.

quote:

---

"Taxes are DONE...That should feed, house & provide medical for a few lazy non working people at my expense. Have a great Monday!"

---

I'd be willing to make a trade. Here in NC we've got a governor and legislature that are on the same page with respect to an aggressively, southern republican doctrine. I wish we did have some legislative push back. Last week, the state legislature held a special session to pass legislation making it illegal for local and city governments to set a minimum wage higher than that of the state or to pass any anti-discrimination legislation. Of course it was immediately signed by the governor.You states with ineffectual not get along legislatures may not know how good you really have things.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I suggest that having the corporation speak for them has been shown to be a very effective vehicle. In any event, the objection you are arguing is one for the shareholders to make and not the government. I don't see how your point argues for either an inconsistency or for overruling Citizen's United. Yes, you said that even if the shareholders were homophobes, the corporation was obligated not to indulge them. That's simply not correct. The fiduciary duty of officers in a corporation is strictly to the shareholders. If the shareholders want to forgo some profits for the purpose of some agenda, they can do so, and they may be able to get the corporation to do so.

Maybe.I understand what you are getting at. But the rules are a lot more flexible than you allow. The hypothesis is that the corporation officers are behaving according to the interest of the corporation when they lobby and curry favor, particularly if such things improve the bottom line. Accordingly, the shareholders need not be immediately consulted. After all, the CEO does not check in with the shareholders when he elects to spend similar sums of money on a bunch of new engineers, or when buying a fleet of company automobiles for the sales force. The officers run all of the day to day business answering to the shareholders. They cannot be involved in self dealing, but their business decisions are subject only to a basic rationality test as long as they are not illegal.Would the shareholders be more free if they got the money that was going to politicians? Maybe, but theoretically they've left some of the decisions about where the money goes, and what is a profitable expenditure to the company officers.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

If the republicans in NC are any indication, then yes. The state legislature here has shown no interest in any kind of balance when it comes to fracking. They have essentially given the industry everything they have asked for no regard for any environmental concerns, and certainly no regards for the effect of methane as a green house gas. Under current processing, so much methane leaks into the atmosphere that erg for erg, mining and using shell gas is worse than burning coal, at least for its immediate effect on greenhouse warming.That said, I would not reduce the importance of Vermont's ban on fracking given the path North Carolina has taken. We don't have fracking yet, but we are going to have it. As you indicated, maybe a complete ban is not the answer, but I suspect that Vermont's law was a reaction to companies indicating that they wanted to start fracking there. And of course there is always New York as an example of a state with sizeable reserves that has also banned fracking.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

removed after reading AZPaul3's request. SorryEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Trump himself is showing an ability to screw up cornflakes. His remarks regarding punishing women for getting an abortion did not seem to pander to any particular segment of the population; at least not in the way that some of his other off kilter positions did. His claims to be his own foreign policy advisor when he clearly knows diddly squat did not seem to work either. In both cases he has had to back off completely. In both cases the appearance is that Trump is a buffoon. And accomplishing that when your opponent is Cruz takes some doing.

That was back when his stupid stuff actually reflected what a big segment actually believed. I don't think much of anyone is in favor of throwing women in jail. They want to punish doctors, with the most extreme element willing to even kill doctors. I think only about 4 people want to imprison woman who have had an abortion.

To be fair, Big Al did not say that Sachs bought the delegates, he said that Cruz himself was Sachs funded.And perhaps even more controversially, I do think the delegate selection process in Colorado was a bit funky. Obviously it was not designed to favor Cruz, but it does appear that Trump had no chance of gaining any delegates in Colorado regardless of how much campaigning he did. The outcome was pretty much determined by the GOP machine.This is one of the few times I find myself siding with BA in principle. It probably helps that I despise Cruz even more than Trump.ABE: Yeah, that's right. I sometimes do fail to keep that in mind.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That's a bit harsh, I think. What does burning a flag or a draft card do? Or burning an effigy?Of course the act did not actually do anything. The burning was just symbolic. Is this symbolic act really any more silly than any other gesture? Or are all such gestures just ignorance?

Big Al, I am in agreement that some of the things the GOP has done are questionable, and that complaining about lack of grass roots campaigning really is not a response to what went on in Colorado and Wyoming.However, I do have to question this: What kind of claim is that? Is that some kind of popular appeal to unpopular media? Why would anyone find that persuasive?And as if that were not silly enough: Are you and LamarkianNewAge having some kind of contest that the rest of us don't know about?