The Democrat Primary Race Is Filling Up

[Kutnupe14]

It means you buy into the narrative that hes racist. And when you believe that detail, then you can create a situation where those things might matter.

Has he passed any anti-black, pro-white policy?

No, I don’t have enough information to say he’s racist, but I do have enough to say that he’s wary of offending them. The lack of an anti-Black/pro-White policy isn’t indicative of him not being such given his stance towards other groups. In other words, I questioning why you believe I must view one as racist only when they target the specific group I identify. That doesn’t make any sense.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

It's hard to determine what Trump really "is". He generally believes he's much better than anyone else.....ubermensch. That isn't racist. It's ridiculous.

Oh... kind of like when Kut and other democrats refer to Trump supporters as ignorant or deplorable or imply that they're just too stupid to understand "nuance". Got it.

 

[Ingomike]

Nothing better on a rainy day than to make posts so good Kut and Alpo ignore them...

 

[jamil]

Yes. I understand. Your world of substituted reality.

No. The reality is accurate. Or at least as accurate as the information I have available to interpret it. I can’t help it that Democrats think group rights are more important than individual rights.

 

[jamil]

No, I don’t have enough information to say he’s racist, but I do have enough to say that he’s wary of offending them. The lack of an anti-Black/pro-White policy isn’t indicative of him not being such given his stance towards other groups. In other words, I questioning why you believe I must view one as racist only when they target the specific group I identify. That doesn’t make any sense.

Or that you’ve inferred enough to make you think so.

 

[Alpo]

So when will you be leaving the Democrat then?

I've already left. A few months back, I think. M4A, reparations, apologies and 3%ers acting as if the world should give them special privileges....that was enough.

 

[Alpo]

No. The reality is accurate. Or at least as accurate as the information I have available to interpret it. I can’t help it that Democrats think group rights are more important than individual rights.

Well, that's pretty general. In certain specifics, I would agree. However, the right of an individual to interfere with or harm the community (groundwater contamination, for example) doesn't work. And I don't believe corporations should ever be given the status afforded them under Citizens United. Worst piece of legislation in recent memory. Patriot Act is a close second.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

It’s an issue more of perception. For example, Trump calls Warren Pocahontas, and the perception of some is that it’s racist. That’s a wrong interpretation, because it doesn’t disparage native Americans. It disparages Warren for claiming an identity for which she has no standing.

Trump’s comments concerning Mexico, the misperception is understandable because those remarks were reported without the context which explains it. But after hearing the full context it’s less forgivable for people to continue insisting it meant what was alleged. At that point, I suspect that the source of righteous indignation is hard to relinquish.

I still don’t see where calling her Pocahontas effects the black community by Hispanics being deported? Did I miss something? I was told he answered it, but the only discussion was about an Asian being in fear because Hispanics being deported.

 

[printcraft]

Trump’s comments concerning Mexico, the misperception is understandable because those remarks were reported without the context which explains it. But after hearing the full context it’s less forgivable for people to continue insisting it meant what was alleged. At that point, I suspect that the source of righteous indignation is hard to relinquish.

The SAME exact thing happened with another one of Kut’s “Trump bad list”. The “good people on both sides” bull**** that he has apparently swallowed hook line and sinker. It has been explained multiple times in full context right here on INGO but he is clearly sticking to it. Sad.

 

[Ingomike]

Well, that's pretty general. In certain specifics, I would agree. However, the right of an individual to interfere with or harm the community (groundwater contamination, for example) doesn't work. And I don't believe corporations should ever be given the status afforded them under Citizens United. Worst piece of legislation in recent memory. Patriot Act is a close second.

We agree on the badly named Patriot act.

As for Citizens United, I believe it was properly decided but if you wish I will go along with your way as long as corporations like NYT, WaPo, ABC, CBS, NBC, are not allowed to speak their or any opinion under the same terms as any other corporation. Why do you think the Chamber, Realtors, AMA, and other association corporations including pro life, pro religion, and pro business corporations should have their collective political speech curtailed by politicians they may have an opinion on?

Most folks that say they do not like the Citizens United decision usually do not even know what it was about:

The case arose after Citizens United, a conservative non-profit organization, sought to air and advertise a film critical of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary elections. This violated the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which prohibited any corporation or labor union from making an "electioneering communication" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election, or making any expenditure advocating the election or defeat of a candidate at any time.
In a majority opinion joined by four other justices, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy held that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech.


What on earth do you find objectionable in that?

 

[VulpesForge]

Nothing better on a rainy day than to make posts so good Kut and Alpo ignore them...

Did you make one I missed or are you talking about mine from 5 pages back?

 

[Alpo]

We agree on the badly named Patriot act.

As for Citizens United, I believe it was properly decided but if you wish I will go along with your way as long as corporations like NYT, WaPo, ABC, CBS, NBC, are not allowed to speak their or any opinion under the same terms as any other corporation. Why do you think the Chamber, Realtors, AMA, and other association corporations including pro life, pro religion, and pro business corporations should have their collective political speech curtailed by politicians they may have an opinion on?

Most folks that say they do not like the Citizens United decision usually do not even know what it was about:

The case arose after Citizens United, a conservative non-profit organization, sought to air and advertise a film critical of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary elections. This violated the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which prohibited any corporation or labor union from making an "electioneering communication" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election, or making any expenditure advocating the election or defeat of a candidate at any time.
In a majority opinion joined by four other justices, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy held that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech.


What on earth do you find objectionable in that?

PAC's and SuperPAC's are my primary objection. Corporate money in campaigns. And please don't tell me a PAC is a voluntary association of individuals.

 

[Dead Duck]

PAC's and SuperPAC's are my primary objection. Corporate money in campaigns. And please don't tell me a PAC is a voluntary association of individuals.

But PAC is a voluntary association of individuals.




Sometimes I just can't help myself.

 

[Ingomike]

PAC's and SuperPAC's are my primary objection. Corporate money in campaigns. And please don't tell me a PAC is a voluntary association of individuals.

How can it be anything but?

In the United States, a political action committee (PAC) is a 527 organization that pools campaign contributions from members and donates those funds to campaigns for or against candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation.


Super PACs, officially known as "independent-expenditure only committees", may not make contributions to candidate campaigns or parties, but may engage in unlimited political spending independently of the campaigns. Unlike traditional PACs, they can raise funds from individuals, corporations, unions, and other groups.

And just why did all these hated PAC's and SPAC's come to be in the first place. Idiots that don't understand free speech and association (think John McCain) limited the contributions to the candidates themselves, who were supposed to be held accountable for what they did. The money then started flowing to PAC's.

McCain's zealotry for campaign finance restrictions was a reaction to the quilt he felt being involved in the Keating scandal...

 

[Alpo]

The PAC's I've known never operated independent of the CEO of the enterprise, or his assistant in charge of political affairs.

Granted, it's not a large sample other than what the assistant inferred was the method used by many corporations to direct contribution dollars. I've never known a CEO (and, again, small sample) that didn't take credit for their PAC's activities when "working" with politicians.

 

[jamil]

Well, that's pretty general. In certain specifics, I would agree. However, the right of an individual to interfere with or harm the community (groundwater contamination, for example) doesn't work. And I don't believe corporations should ever be given the status afforded them under Citizens United. Worst piece of legislation in recent memory. Patriot Act is a close second.

Of course there are collective protections required in every society. And I agree. Corporations are not persons. I’d put the Patriot Act in front of citizens united by at least a little.

 

[jamil]

The SAME exact thing happened with another one of Kut’s “Trump bad list”. The “good people on both sides” bull**** that he has apparently swallowed hook line and sinker. It has been explained multiple times in full context right here on INGO but he is clearly sticking to it. Sad.

Not only that, Kut and a few others argued that there weren’t any “good” people on that side, that they all knew what they were doing. I don’t think that’s the case. I thinking lot of people went there to stave off the attacks on conservative values. I watched many live streams of people on the right, including non-whites. They weren’t making it an issue of race, and they didn’t seem to realize that some of the organizers were white nationalists.

Apparently they learned the hard way what that rally was really about. But they learned. The second annual unite the right rally had 25 people show up.

 

[Ingomike]

Of course there are collective protections required in every society. And I agree. Corporations are not persons. I’d put the Patriot Act in front of citizens united by at least a little.

Never understood the corporations are not persons argument.

The first amendment does not mention persons.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"

Did congress make a law abridging the freedom of speech of Citizens United to put out a movie about Hillary Clinton? Seems simple to me. Now if you guys want to discuss whether or not government should sanction corporations in the first place, we can start that conversation but that is far different than abridging the speech of an association called a corporation...

 

[Alpo]

Never understood the corporations are not persons argument.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/...ome/we-the-people/we-the-people-corporations/

skip to the last few paragraphs if it is too long to read

 

[Ingomike]

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/...ome/we-the-people/we-the-people-corporations/

skip to the last few paragraphs if it is too long to read

Good read. Actually some very good points brought up in the article.

At the founding, the owners of a corporation would typically be a small circle of people. As such, a small group of investors could easily keep an eye on how their investments were being managed. But with the modern publicly traded corporation, millions of people may own stock in a single firm.

As corporations themselves grew, simultaneously the diffusion of stock ownership grew dramatically. At the founding, the owners of a corporation would typically be a small circle of people. As such, a small group of investors could easily keep an eye on how their investments were being managed. But with the modern publicly traded corporation, millions of people may own stock in a single firm.


All people mentioned in these paragraphs, big or small corporations are persons, associating together financially owning a firm together. Just can't see where they lose their collective right to speech, particularly political speech. I see no points in these paragraphs that support taking first amendment rights away from the association of people that own the corporation to speak collectively through their corporation...

The troublesome conclusions of Citizens United recognizing political rights for corporations were extended in 2014 in Hobby Lobby, which recognized statutory religious rights for corporations too.


By my take the association of people that own Hobby Lobby corporation also have freedom of religion just as a sole proprietor would have.