https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-monbiot-misinformation?CMP=oth_b-aplnews_d-1
But maybe it's just Hillary that has corporate connections?
But maybe it's just Hillary that has corporate connections?
Treachery abound???
- Thread starter Boomboom521
- Start date
I agree, CU was probably the worst ruling by SCOTUS which will have the worst consequences to ever been handed down.
That was another issue I had with Clinton. She railed against CU and getting money out of politics yet she was the biggest and will likely be the biggest beneficiary of the CU decision.
I don't usually disagree with you but I have to this time. First of all, I am a very strong supporter of the First Amendment, even those idiots burning the flag. SCOTUS has ruled this is a First Amendment issues. Secondly, the big money by and large hated Trump. He saw some support from Adelson and a few others, but the vast majority of his donations were small in nature. Hillary, on the other hand, had huge money from Wall Street, Radical Environmentalists (Tom Steyer), Hollywood, Silicone Valley, Green Energy, etc. I could go on and one, her money was so vast.
I think everyone has a right to participate in the political process with both words and actions. JMO.
Respectfully disagree with you on this one. The ruling by the supreme court on Obamacare were the worst rulings ever, outside of giving women the right to vote([winking]). Everybody has the right to free speech and so do corporations have a right to make their interest known. By the way, how many corporations get to vote?
Obamacare was truly extra Constitutional. SCOTUS making law yet again. But Kelo was truly a horrible SCOTUS decision. The taking of private property by the state to give to another private property for development is so UNCONSTITUTIONAL. What an absolute travesty.
If you read my post, I stated she was, is, and likely will always be, the biggest beneficiary of this decision. I acknowledge it completely.
This decision was bad for the people. It allows an individual to sidestep campaign finance laws completely and allows businesses to pour more money than what a collection of individual contributors could. It's just bad in my opinion.
I did not see that post on Hillary at the time. I only responded to your post on CU. I respectfully disagree. The First Amendment is sacrosanct, imo. Corporations, like with Hobby Lobby, have rights according to SCOTUS. They have interests for their employees and their shareholders and they can't be excluded from exercising free speech or donating money to causes that support those employees and stockholders.
Unions have been pouring huge sums of money into campaigns for ever in the form of human capital. It was not a level playing field.
Union interests AND corporate interests are represented by the votes of those involved. Executives vote for corporate interests, so do union members. Allowing money from the corporation to flow at a much heavier rate than the non corporate public is problematic.
First of all, not all corporations are unionized. In fact, unions are diminishing in both numbers and importance. Secondly, even corporations with union members have non union employees that now have a voice as well. Corporations also have owners, called shareholders. Corporations are speaking for them as well. Unions have been allowed to get away with sending out huge numbers of union members to work on Dem campaigns. The playing field is much more level today.
The First Amendment is here to stay, like it or not.
Hillary got much more money from corporations and heavy donors than did Trump. Yet she lost.
SCOTUS says differently. Did unions engage in speech when they sent out their members by the thousands to support Dem activities? My guess is that you think that is speech but don't think corporations have that same right to engage in the process on behalf of their shareholders and employees. BTW, Citizen's United did not stand alone. Hobby Lobby was also given rights in a later decision.
Shareholders have a vote don't they? They can donate personally. Corporations can have employee rallies innwhich they let employees know issues.
What makes you think I'm for unions? But yes, I do think if unions want to rally their members to support candidates, that literally is speech. For citizens to have louder political voices than others due to organizing, or because of artistic talent, or talented articulation, or working harder than others...that's fine by me. For a citizen, or worse a corporation, to have a louder voice than others due to having more money.....again, extremely problematic and should be limited.
LOL. You're a hypocrite. Unions can spend whatever they wish of the dues they receive. If you were being intellectually honest, you would admit that union members can donate individually, just like shareholders. Unions can send out millions of workers to elect Dems. How much value is that worth? Yet corporations can't participate? Wow. Staggering hypocrisy.
Trump just won without corporate money. Hillary just lost with corporate money. Your thesis that corporate money elects those they want elected was just proven wrong.
I love this notion of intellectual honesty and dishonesty some of you think you adhere to in your arguments. A union is exactly that....a UNION of artisans or workers from a certain trade joining together to protect their interests. A corporation is exactly that....a corporation that employees men and women and provides a service or produces/sells a product. One exists for the purpose of providing a collective voice, one exists for profit. How can you not see a difference?
Do you believe that corporate interests have not permeated through our congress for decades and decades? Oh, and if you really think Trump doesn't have corporate interests high on his agenda....wake the $@"# up brother. Sounds like you work for a corporation?
Corporations participate.....their executives have votes, their employees have votes....by default, their interests are protected. And wait......CORPORATIONS ARE NOT CITIZENS!
When it comes to free speech there is ZERO difference. You want the Dems to benefit from all the money and time unions contribute to Dems but you don't want shareholders and employees to have that same benefit. It makes zero difference what the purpose of the organization is. The First Amendment works for everyone.
Union members have votes. Union leaders have votes. Their interests are protected. Unions are not citizens.
I don't want Dems benefitting. I don't want corporate money corrupting policy. I'm not a big fan of unions either, but I think there is something about the right to assemble in the constitution. What corp do you work for?
A union of citizens in an effort to protect their interests. They can demonstrate and volunteer all they want. Financially I don't think they should have any more power than what each member can contribute individually.
A corporation of citizens. Your point makes zero sense. Either organizations can donate (e.g. corporations, partnerships, individual proprietorships, unions, etc.) or they can't. SCOTUS said they can. Hobby Lobby reaffirmed that principle.
You want unions to participate because they help your favorite cause, liberalism. That's intellectually dishonest.
Unions = aren't for profit. Corporations = for profit. (corruption aside) There's a difference. Corporations can span different nations and encompass the interests of more than US citizens. Sounds like someone is for corporations cause he's for corporations. I'm not union
And I said (you giant judgemental d-bag) that I don't think unions should be able to contribute any more than each individual member can donate personally! But they can VOLUNTEER AND PROTEST AND ACT ON WHATEVER LEVEL THEY CHOOSE
And you are a hypocrite. You make a distinction without a difference. You make a distinction without a difference. You clean corporations are motivated by profit, fair enough. Unions likewise have a motivations of their own. How does their selfish motivation differ from the corporations selfish motivation?
So you unions can direct their members to work for Democrats, even if they are opposed, worth millions upon millions of dollars. You're OK with that. But you don't afford corporations that same opportunity to contribute millions and millions of dollars. Fact that one comes from labor and the other comes from capital makes zero difference.
Well much smarter people than you. SCOTUS disagrees. and with Trump likely to appoint at least two or more justices, prepare for even smarter people on the Supreme Court
I said to ME. Ginsburg is leaps and bounds smarter than I could ever pose to be no doubt. But honestly, any of you fools that base your being and existence in organized religion....than expect everyone else to do the same.....I guess you guys are smartest of all.
To be honest with you your logic is so illogical, I can't follow it. You go from citizens United to religion? And if God for bid something happens to Trump, Pence is a lot more conservative than Trump. You better pray that does not happen. Maybe I should not have used the word praise since you seem to be non religious.
You, like many of your fellow travelers, seem like a very angry group of liberals. As I suggested to some of your fellow comrades, I believe you should seek counseling. It can only help. I suggest group counseling, it may be more therapeutic for you.
I think it's funny that you would expect me to get angry at a discussion board d-bag. If you've ever actually gotten angry at a post on here....counseling might not even help brother. We were discussing CU, and you wouldn't shut the $&@# up about unions. So we debated...my point, your point (of course my points were illogicalandvintellectually dishonest)....and then you seek to belittle me because I think differently. Then I call you a religious fool (cause you want me to believe what you believe)....and I'm the one who's angry? Sure brother, sure.
Your arguments were simply illogical. You support the unions right to spend all the money they want including forcing labor to go into the streets and do the bidding of the Democrats. You oppose corporations from being able to spend money on campaigns.
So unions can spend money and corporations can't all because corporations have a profit motive. Incredibly illogical.
Then you start calling names and bring religion into the debate.
I really do recommend group therapy with some of your fellow liberals on this board. It could really help you guys.
The big difference for me is that the union leaders take dues money or special collections to support Democrats. The membership has no say either in dues or special fund raisers assessed. Members vote Republican in privacy, but their financial , non-voluntary, contributions were used to support the opposition in 99% of history.
The company can only take voluntary contributions from their employees. Hopefully you can see the problem with union generated collections from members.
Once again...I said that I believe everyone has the right to volunteer time and effort to whatever level they choose. Money be it from unions or corporations should be limited. If a corporation wants to rally workers to help a political cause...nothing wrong with that....if they start firing over it, that's another story. If unions want to exclude membership because members aren't following a certain political adherence....I thinks that sucks, but totally well within their right as a non profit union organization.
And if you are doing backflips over the type of judges Trump SAID he would appoint....than your more Christian than American I'd bet.
I am most certainly more Christian than American, I can promise you. Again completely irrelevant to this debate.
Not when you bring up SCOTUS. But it also makes it clear why you insist others believe what you do. America is for ALL of us
You can denigrate religion all you want, but that says a lot more about you than about me or anyone else. And of course SCOTUS has to follow the Constitution not the Bible. How this relates to Citizens United, I have no clue in you're completely illogical debate.