Trump's first year

[n david]

Originally Posted by Originalist

So, in light of this information, was the intervention unjust? Do you think the guy's sentence was just? I personally do not care either way. But the information above does seem to neutralize your oversimplification of the matter.

Trump commuted the sentence, he didn't pardon him. The conviction will remain on his record.

He served 8 years of a 27 year sentence for fraud. I agree the sentence was far too harsh for the crime committed.

You have people killing and raping people who get less time than that!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Originalist

You are till confusing "corporate charters" with "incorporation". Incorporation laws need to remain a state matter. People incorporate their businesses to protect themselves and it is a smart move. But incorporation is not some "right to exist" as you keep claiming. People can start businesses without incorporating. True, in early America some states actually required people to acquire "charters" to even exist, but it was not the case in every state.

I'm talking about overturning corporate personhood and limiting corporate power in politics. I'm not "against" corporate charters or incorporation.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Bill actually raped women. Trump did not.

Also Hillary was an enabler who helped Bill cover it up and attacked the victims who tried to speak out against Bill.

Again, Hillary Rodham Clinton helped enable a rapist.

And yet Aquila couldn't refute the false "logic" of his 11 year old daughter.

"...she spoke with more clarity than I did."

How embarrassing and shameful.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm talking about overturning corporate personhood and limiting corporate power in politics. I'm not "against" corporate charters or incorporation.

Should the people who own corporations have rights as business owners?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Bill actually raped women. Trump did not. As a celebrity, some of Trump's filthy talk was caught on tape. Yet, politicians from both parties use their positions of authority to jump from one orgy to another where plenty of power hungry broads anxiously await their turn. That, sadly, is Washington.

I agree that Bill Clinton was a dog, and that he used his power to seduce and coerce women into sexual exploits. In fact, I find myself essentially agreeing with the point you make here.

Anymore, I almost expect those in power to have some kind of "freaky" skeletons in their closets. Call it human nature, sin nature, or whatever. I'm more concerned with how their policies effect my family.

Personally, I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries. I wasn't all that big on Hillary. In the general election, I held my nose and voted Hillary for two reasons. One, Bernie Sanders requested that us Berniecrats support the Democratic candidate. Two, SCHIP (which Hillary was instrumental in creating) really helped my step-daughter with her medical care back when she and her mother didn't have medical insurance.

But honestly, Hillary isn't as progressive as I'd prefer.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I agree that Bill Clinton was a dog, and that he used his power to seduce and coerce women into sexual exploits. In fact, I find myself essentially agreeing with the point you make here.

Anymore, I almost expect those in power to have some kind of "freaky" skeletons in their closets. Call it human nature, sin nature, or whatever. I'm more concerned with how their policies effect my family.

Personally, I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries. I wasn't all that big on Hillary. In the general election, I held my nose and voted Hillary for two reasons. One, Bernie Sanders requested that us Berniecrats support the Democratic candidate. Two, SCHIP (which Hillary was instrumental in creating) really helped my step-daughter with her medical care back when she and her mother didn't have medical insurance.

But honestly, Hillary isn't as progressive as I'd prefer.

Neither progressivism or conservatism should be forced on the whole nation by agency of the Federal Government. This will only lead to the rupturing of the Union. It's time to get back to the Constitution and let the States choose for themselves in all these matters.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

1) Of course you don't want any kind of credit given to Trump by anyone. However, had anyone said this about Obama, the claim would be made that they're racist and don't want to give credit because he's black.

I was only moderately impressed with Obama.

2)I hope the term you used above was something your daughter heard on her own and not something her father told her about.

She heard it on the radio.

3) Instead of being honest and giving an important lesson to your daughter of the real reason Hillary wasn't elected (scandals, etc) you reinforced a terrible lie which will only hurt her later in life. It's an absolute and disgusting lie that she lost the race because she was a woman.

Oh, I told her about the scandals and how nobody ever could prove criminal wrong doing. Like it or not, agree or not, that's the truth. Yes, I believe the scandals hurt her. But, I also don't think the American public is entirely ready to elect a female President. Especially when our moral majority giggles at Trump's sexual assaults and perverted bragging.

Shame on you.

Thanks, shame on you too!

Bernie Sanders is not going to win anything. His wife is under investigation and likely to be indicted and going to prison. He's far too socialist and radical for anyone to seriously consider - especially after the next few years of economic and job growth.

Blah, blah, blah. It's all just more static from the right. She'll be exonerated and Bernie Sanders will still be fighting for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and... something I think will be a sleeper issue... Net Neutrality. When people start realizing that they are being gouged to access was previously freely accessible under Net Neutrality laws, there will be an uproar. Now, the American people might be stupid enough to roll over and say, "Sure charge me more!!!", to access their favorite social media, YouTube, news, entertainment, porn, and music (after all, there are a lot of Trump supporters out there). But I think there just could be a massive backlash. Because this will effect nearly every household in America. It will effect small businesses, private schools, public schools, colleges, artists, musicians, you name it. When these telecom companies start squeezing our wallets every time we want to watch a funny video about screaming goats... I think the American people will be rather united in overturning the FCC's repeal of Net Neutrality. And so far, it's primarily Democrats who are united in their conviction that Net Neutrality must be fought for and defended. Sometimes it's the little issues like these that sway the public. Especially when every household will experience the telecom companies squeeze their wallets.

The real reason the radical left (including you) and the media don't want to acknowledge or give any credit to Trump is because they know it will ensure a landslide for GOP in 2018 and 2020 - including another term in office for Trump. The radical left and media desperately need Trump to fail in order for Democrats to win again.

Of course! Any idiot knows that. LOL

I think when the GOP moves to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; the McJobs stop popping up everywhere to boost numbers for the election; the kids are all upset because they can't watch YouTube FNAF videos, and dad can't sneak a peek at the new Playmate of the Year on a sleepless night without it showing up on the bill... the GOP will be rather unpopular.

But hey, maybe everyone will be thrilled to death to lose everything they've paid into, love their McJobs, and just be ecstatic to pay more every time they click a link (especially on their cell phones). Yay! Goooooo Republicans!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Should the people who own corporations have rights as business owners?

Nope. They should have rights as "citizens". If the owner of a corporation wishes to vote, and contribute so much out of his own salary... that's one thing. But to lobby as Omnicorp Inc. and spend millions to buy a politician and essentially campaign for that politician with all the money at the corporation's disposal... nope.

Ben is a person.
Jerry is a person.

Ben & Jerry's Inc. is not a person. And should have never been legally permitted to be treated like one.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Nope. They should have rights as "citizens". If the owner of a corporation wishes to vote, and contribute so much out of his own salary... that's one thing. But to lobby as Omnicorp Inc. and spend millions to buy a politician and essentially campaign for that politician with all the money at the corporation's disposal... nope.

Ben is a person.
Jerry is a person.

Ben & Jerry's Inc. is not a person. And should have never been legally permitted to be treated like one.

You are actually teaching discrimination and inequality. I should not have to lose my home and livelihood because someone sues my business, possibly unjustly.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Originalist

You are actually teaching discrimination and inequality. I should not have to lose my home and livelihood because someone sues my business, possibly unjustly.

I'm not against incorporation. I'm against the entitlements that have been granted to those who are incorporated. A corporation should NOT be treated as though it is a person. As I said, Ben is a person. Jerry is a person. But Ben & Jerry's Inc. is NOT a person. Therefore, it shouldn't be entitled to every right and protection that Mr. Ben and Mr. Jerry might enjoy.

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:

◾Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
◾Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
◾Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
◾Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
◾Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
◾Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company’s accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.

That being said, I'm not against incorporation or corporations. I'm not against the legal protection that incorporation can bring as it relates to lawsuits. I'm against the raw POWER that has been increasingly granted to corporations since 1978 (First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti) and became totally unchained in 2010 (Citizens United). Corporations need to be regulated again as it relates to political contributions and money spent to influence law making.

Why, you might ask?

Because it is poisoning the entire democratic process in our republic. The corporations now essentially own Congress and most of both political parties. You have corporations even writing their own legislation and handing it to politicians to push into law. You have outlandish financial contributions and money given to support campaigns, so much in fact, the average politician could care less about what the people think or what the people want... they only care about how they can please their corporate masters. With corporate personhood... we've become the greatest democracy corporate money can buy.

The government should defend the people and regulate corporations. Not regulate the people and defend corporations. This was the vision of our founders. Not this shattered dream of a corporatist state that we live in today.