Current Events > Hillary Clinton . . .

(+) Yeah! (+)

Secretary of state during a possibly botched response to an attack on one of our embassies.
Took Saudi money.
Hosted a private email server for federal business, maybe.
Worked with Debbie Wasserman Schultz to "rig" the primaries as much as possible, and receive debate questions.
Holds inconsistent and fair weather political positions.
Also hold public and private political positions.
Also has to steal her progressive positions from better candidates.
Ran an unfair campaign against a grass roots leftist that had a ton of genuine ground level support, leaving them bitter.
Wife of the philanderer that got rid of glass steagall, resulting in a huge financial disaster.
Pro-TPP, a widely hated proposed trade pact.
And 10 dozen other real and fake, small and large scandals that alienated many.
still won the populate vote by 2.8 million.

Elizabeth Warren . . .
Maybe checked the wrong box on a form 45 years ago.

Good luck Republicans.
---

Both as crooked

Implying Warren would ever make it to primaries

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Maybe checked the wrong box on a form 45 years ago.

Maybe claimed she was a minority and that "her people" history was being destroyed. Only 1% Native American.

God I hope Trump gets a DNA test showing he's 1% African so he can claim to be the second black president xD

This is the correct analysis. The worse a candidate you believe Hillary Clinton to have been, the less confident you should be in Trump's re-election chances.
---

You forgot that Warren also wants every corporation to sign a manifesto with the government that will require a new federal oversight group to ensure they are compliant with whatever standards the government sets, which includes but is not limited to doing what is best for "the community" as opposed to just shareholders.
---

Warren literally got trolled by Trump into taking and revealing the results of a DNA test, which btw backfired horribly when it revealed she has less Native American blood than the average US citizen.
---

s0nicfan posted...

You forgot that Warren also wants every corporation to sign a manifesto with the government that will require a new federal oversight group to ensure they are compliant with whatever standards the government sets, which includes but is not limited to doing what is best for "the community" as opposed to just shareholders.

that is the price of personhood.
---

Darkman124 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

You forgot that Warren also wants every corporation to sign a manifesto with the government that will require a new federal oversight group to ensure they are compliant with whatever standards the government sets, which includes but is not limited to doing what is best for "the community" as opposed to just shareholders.

that is the price of personhood.

I didn't realize you and I signed charters that require federal oversight that mandate we, under penalty of law, the do what is best for the people around us.
---

voldothegr8 posted...

Warren literally got trolled

Oh no, she got trolled by the meme president, internet internet internet!
Shut the fuck up no one cares.

s0nicfan posted...

You forgot that Warren . . .

. . . wants companies to behave ethically and responsibly, on noes! But the loaded words like manifesto!
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Maybe checked the wrong box on a form 45 years ago.

and maybe she did it to get favorable admissions
---

s0nicfan posted...

Darkman124 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

You forgot that Warren also wants every corporation to sign a manifesto with the government that will require a new federal oversight group to ensure they are compliant with whatever standards the government sets, which includes but is not limited to doing what is best for "the community" as opposed to just shareholders.

that is the price of personhood.

I didn't realize you and I signed charters that require federal oversight that mandate we, under penalty of law, the do what is best for the people around us.

We did, though, whether you realize it or not. As adult men, we had to sign up for the draft in order to vote, as one example. We are governed by laws that can restrict our freedom permanently if we violate them. Corporations are subject to a different set of laws on the basis that they're not people.

Now that they're people from a legal standpoint, new rules have to be put in place so that their new freedoms are not abused.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

. . . wants companies to behave ethically and responsibly, on noes! But the loaded words like manifesto!

You can want companies to behave ethically and responsibly without forcing every single one to sign a federal charter (there, is that a less triggering word for you?).
---

s0nicfan posted...

You can want companies to behave ethically and responsibly without forcing every single one to sign a federal charter (there, is that a less triggering word for you?).

If you don't force them to sign something, you can want it a lot and get nothing at all.
---

Darkman124 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Darkman124 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

You forgot that Warren also wants every corporation to sign a manifesto with the government that will require a new federal oversight group to ensure they are compliant with whatever standards the government sets, which includes but is not limited to doing what is best for "the community" as opposed to just shareholders.

that is the price of personhood.

I didn't realize you and I signed charters that require federal oversight that mandate we, under penalty of law, the do what is best for the people around us.

We did, though, whether you realize it or not. As adult men, we had to sign up for the draft in order to vote, as one example.

Then sign Microsoft up for a draft. If you're going to argue that corporate personhood requires they are bound by the same things as regular people, then fine. I can buy that argument. What Warren proposed, though, is objectively NOT what people are bound to. It was an excuse to justify additional federal oversight.

EDIT:

If you don't force them to sign something, you can want it a lot and get nothing at all.

Then target the individual problems with laws to fix those problems. Don't throw a giant net over everyone.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

. . . wants companies to behave ethically and responsibly, on noes! But the loaded words like manifesto!

You can want companies to behave ethically and responsibly without forcing every single one to sign a federal charter (there, is that a less triggering word for you?).

They can sign a charter or Congress can sign some laws . . . shit needs signed, companies need to act better.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Then sign Microsoft up for a draft. If you're going to argue that corporate personhood requires they are bound by the same things as regular people, then fine. I can buy that argument. What Warren proposed, though, is objectively NOT what people are bound to. It was an excuse to justify additional federal oversight.

Obviously we can't sign microsoft up for the draft. But we CAN require that if Microsoft knowingly commits murder as an action approved by the board and functionally as a deliberate act by the corporation, that all their assets can be seized as restitution.
---

I'm Bill Clinton
Fuckin' all these women
I'm Bill Clinton
Fuckin' all these women
White House
White House
White House (Swag)
White House (Swag)
White House (Swag)
---

Darkman124 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Then sign Microsoft up for a draft. If you're going to argue that corporate personhood requires they are bound by the same things as regular people, then fine. I can buy that argument. What Warren proposed, though, is objectively NOT what people are bound to. It was an excuse to justify additional federal oversight.

Obviously we can't sign microsoft up for the draft. But we CAN require that if Microsoft knowingly commits murder as an action approved by the board and functionally as a deliberate act by the corporation, that all their assets can be seized as restitution.

And how do you define Microsoft "knowingly committing murder"? Can you provide an example that wouldn't already be covered by holding the decision makers accountable for the actual results? What does that look like in execution? "Oh, sorry all hundred thousand employees and billions of dollars in service contracts, but GE knowingly cut corners on brake safety, so you're all out of jobs because the company is in company jail."
---

She was the most qualified person ever to run for President

A lifetime of public service and almost two decades of experience in both the legislative & executive branch -as the most important diplomat to represent the U.S. after the President (Vice Pres. not so much)

But also the most corrupt & married to a rapist/sexual abuser.

Thank god we went with Donald Trump instead.
---

iPhone_7 posted...

She was the most qualified person ever to run for President

A lifetime of public service and almost two decades of experience in both the legislative & executive branch -as the most important diplomat to represent the U.S. after the President (Vice Pres. not so much)

But also the most corrupt & married to a rapist/sexual abuser.

Yea, but this was after she already ran and lost against the (at the time) possibly LEAST qualified person ever to run for President (Obama). A significant part of her campaign strategy was basically "he doesn't know what he's doing because he just started working for government".

"Most qualified" kind of stopped mattering as a selling point after she lost to Obama, ESPECIALLY to people who thought Obama did a good job.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Oh, sorry all hundred thousand employees and billions of dollars in service contracts, but GE knowingly cut corners on brake safety, so you're all out of jobs because the company is in company jail.

First thing to note: a total asset seizure is a nationalization, not an end to operations.

s0nicfan posted...

And how do you define Microsoft "knowingly committing murder"?

Same way as you would with private citizens.

s0nicfan posted...

Can you provide an example that wouldn't already be covered by holding the decision makers accountable for the actual results

Anytime a single decision maker or group of decision makers is not unilaterally responsible for the choice. Same reasoning that underpins Citizens United, really. That's the basic concept of a corporation: exoneration of personal liability for choices you're not individually responsible for.

Oil spills due to deliberate corporate violations of regulations in ship routes/size/protection that produce multiple human deaths would potentially be viable examples. I think Deepwater Horizon would qualify as well.
---

Also you may want to judge her bill by its text

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3348/text
---

Darkman124 posted...

First thing to note: a total asset seizure is a nationalization, not an end to operations.

But you're still pretending like it wouldn't have catastrophic effects on people who did nothing wrong. We don't punish murderers by tagging the entire block they live on as "murderer territory"

Darkman124 posted...

Same way as you would with private citizens.

Anytime a single decision maker or group of decision makers is not unilaterally responsible for the choice. Same reasoning that underpins Citizens United, really.

Oil spills due to deliberate corporate violations of regulations in ship routes/size/protection that produce multiple human deaths would potentially be viable examples. I think Deepwater Horizon would qualify as well.

But the decision makers in the Deepwater example COULD have been brought up on charges but weren't. Two BP employees were hit with manslaughter charges, for example, but those were later dropped. Your issue seems to be more with existing enforcement, which doesn't require a massive new government process to fix.
---

iClockwork posted...

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Maybe checked the wrong box on a form 45 years ago.

Maybe claimed she was a minority and that "her people" history was being destroyed. Only 1% Native American.

God I hope Trump gets a DNA test showing he's 1% African so he can claim to be the second black president xD

Trump has been interviewed bragging about his superior genes and German blood. Im pretty sure the reveal youre hoping for would go over the opposite way you think it would
---

s0nicfan posted...

But the decision makers in the Deepwater example COULD have been brought up on charges but weren't. Two BP employees were hit with manslaughter charges, for example, but those were later dropped. Your issue seems to be more with existing enforcement, which doesn't require a massive new government process to fix.

it does, actually, because the basic concept of a corporation shields them. it limits liability for corporate actions from the board, and places that liability on the corporation itself. that means that the most we can do is fine the company.

s0nicfan posted...

But you're still pretending like it wouldn't have catastrophic effects on people who did nothing wrong. We don't punish murderers by tagging the entire block they live on as "murderer territory"

the cause of the catastrophic effect would be the board breaking the law. the net effect would be the board not breaking laws.

also, employees of a corporation are not comparable to people who live in the same neighborhood. they are employees.

punishment still has to fit the crime. and a nationalization would almost certainly be followed shortly by an auction sale of the asset to raise money to fix the problem caused by the corporation.
---

Darkman124 posted...

Also you may want to judge her bill by its text

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3348/text

We can get into the details if you want, but it doesn't change my opinion. Let's start with this: the president gets to appoint the director of this new federal agency. Ignoring the panic this would cause when someone like Trump appoints someone he wants, how do corporations deal with the fact that, potentially every 4 years, the rules they're expected to follow can be arbitrarily adjusted by a single person's whims? How about the fact that said person has the ability to reject charters, effectively blocking businesses from even competing?

There's also the issue that critical definitions like "material positive impact on society" is completely undefined. Or the fact that the board must consider the "local and GLOBAL government". It also says no less than 40% of the board needs to be elected by the company, which seems like its just federal unionization by a different name.

There's also the fact that it caps executive pay, which has NOTHING to do with the whole "companies are people" argument.
---

s0nicfan posted...

It also says no less than 40% of the board needs to be elected by the company, which seems like its just federal unionization by a different name.

You may be unfamiliar with how board elections work, but shareholders vote for their board members, and typically 1 share = 1 vote.

I'll need to read the subsection she references for the employee-election more closely to verify relevance of the rule and whether this would actually supersede shareholder voting.

s0nicfan posted...

Let's start with this: the president gets to appoint the director of this new federal agency. Ignoring the panic this would cause when someone like Trump appoints someone he wants, how do corporations deal with the fact that, potentially every 4 years, the rules they're expected to follow can be arbitrarily adjusted by a single person's whims?

Same way they deal with literally every other federal agency out there: the agencies are required to be forthcoming with what rules they expect to roll out or remove, and companies are generally provided substantial lead time (often > 1 year) to adjust for the new regulations.

s0nicfan posted...

How about the fact that said person has the ability to reject charters, effectively blocking businesses from even competing?

Lead/rollout times are likely to make this a non-issue.

The vagueness of the 'materially positive impact' portion makes it a weak bill, further undermining the risk from this. Vague rules like this lead to court rulings that state that 'materially positive' allows for much more flexibility on the corporation's side, not much more stringency from the regulator's side.

It's a weak bill, rather than an unreasonably strong bill.
---

Darkman124 posted...

You may be unfamiliar with how board elections work, but shareholders vote for their board members, and typically 1 share = 1 vote.

I'm aware of that. Not every employee is a shareholder. Forcing almost half the board representation to be elected by the employees is effectively unionizing the board.

EDIT: The exact language used

Not less than 25 of the directors of a United States corporation shall be elected by the employees of the United States corporation using an election process that complies with the requirements of the rules issued under subsection

---

s0nicfan posted...

But you're still pretending like it wouldn't have catastrophic effects on people who did nothing wrong.

Did the employees of GM suffer when the government bailed them out/took primary ownership . . .?
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

s0nicfan posted...

But you're still pretending like it wouldn't have catastrophic effects on people who did nothing wrong.

Did the employees of GM suffer when the government bailed them out/took primary ownership . . .?

Are you really trying to compare "the government giving a company a lot of money" with "the government seizing/freezing assets" as if they would have the same impact?
---

s0nicfan posted...

Are you really trying to compare "the government giving a company a lot of money" with "the government seizing/freezing assets" as if they would have the same impact?

The government literally took ownership of GM during their bailout, as part of the terms of a loan/exchange of cash for common stock.

s0nicfan posted...

Forcing almost half the board representation to be elected by the employees is effectively unionizing the board.

EDIT: The exact language used

I think we'll need to examine the referenced subsection (a) to verify it'd actually be superseding shareholder elections. I'm doing that now. I actually think forcing employee representation on the board is a good idea, although 2/5 is much too high.
---

Darkman124 posted...

I think we'll need to examine the referenced subsection (a) to verify it'd actually be superseding shareholder elections. I'm doing that now. I actually think forcing employee representation on the board is a good idea, although 2/5 is much too high.

Right. I don't think employee representation is necessarily a bad thing, but what does that look like at a Wal-Mart, or a place where the vast, VAST majority of employees have no idea what a good board candidate would actually look like? How does that work when a significant number of your employees are overseas?

EDIT:
Darkman124 posted...

The government literally took ownership of GM during their bailout, as part of the terms of a loan/exchange of cash for common stock.

Right, but they were GIVING GM money. That's still materially different than what you suggested earlier about asset seizure in response to violation of the law.
---