j44 Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 I wonder if that will have effect when the guy who is owned and paid for by GM runs against the guy who is bought by Ford? It will be an interesting thing to see when this happens in the future. Thanks Citizens United. Does anyone know and can succinctly explain the argument for the winning side in the C. United case? I mean other than corporations are people. Seriously, it was as simple at that right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 Does anyone know and can succinctly explain the argument for the winning side in the C. United case? I mean other than corporations are people. Seriously, it was as simple at that right? Unfortunately, yes it's that simple. My own view is that corporations are legislatively created entities and should have only those rights that their creators endow them with. This is an excerpt of the Supreme Court decision: The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations. (citations omitted) [14] This protection has been extended by explicit holdings to the context of political speech. (citations omitted) Under the rationale of these precedents, political speech does not lose First Amendment protection “simply because its source is a corporation.” (citations omitted) (“The identity of the speaker is not decisive in determining whether speech is protected. Corporations and other associations, like individuals, contribute to the ‘discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas’ that the First Amendment seeks to foster” (citations omitted). The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not “natural persons.” (citations omitted). Citizens United v. Federal Election Com’n, 130 S.Ct. 876, 899 (2010). I disagree strongly with this decision. However, it was unanimous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 Does anyone know and can succinctly explain the argument for the winning side in the C. United case? I mean other than corporations are people. Seriously, it was as simple at that right? Well, it had to do with the campaign finance reform of McCain-Feingold in 2002. Part of which was found to be unconstitutional. That decision didn't say you can't pass limits to contributions, it didn't say that you can't pass full disclosure of contributions, and spending. What it said is that you can't deny completely, the constitutional rights to free speech to any particular group. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 Well, what really happened is that the "American people" bought GM but not Ford. And they bought 'American Cars'. Parts made in mexico, electronics made in China or Japan, assembled in the USA. Globalism is good right?? Hey where did all those manufacturing jobs go? Hmmm, why is the economy not doing well.... hmmmm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 And they bought 'American Cars'. Parts made in mexico, electronics made in China or Japan, assembled in the USA. Globalism is good right?? Hey where did all those manufacturing jobs go? Hmmm, why is the economy not doing well.... hmmmm Because of poor economic policies put in place by the current administration. Which has led to the slowest recovery from any past recession. They've also put in place policies that have increased the cost of energy, and continue to turn a blind eye to China's currency manipulation and other trade infractions. If they'd address those things properly, you'd see a very significant improvement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 Because of poor economic policies put in place by the current administration. And cumulative from past administrations .... Which has led to the slowest recovery from any past recession. And a steady decline of the USA for some time now.....(even before Obama) They've also put in place policies that have increased the cost of energy, and continue to turn a blind eye to China's currency manipulation and other trade infractions. Actually it was encouraged by the US corporations to offshore their work to places like China. Someone's been turning a blind eye for at least two decades now. If they'd address those things properly, you'd see a very significant improvement. The corporations in conjunction with the government allowed all this to happen. ... for years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) I wonder if that will have effect when the guy who is owned and paid for by GM runs against the guy who is bought by Ford? It will be an interesting thing to see when this happens in the future. Thanks Citizens United. It doesn't really matter, just as long as competing interests can garner financial support and spend as they please to win political advantage. What matters is the very notion of competition itself, regardless of the political venue. WRT to GM or Ford, the United States remains the largest manufacturing nation in the world, and has been thus since at least WW2. Measured alone, the US manufacturing sector would still be the eighth largest economy in the world. Bickering about the export of US jobs or campaign spending amounts to the same anti-competitive whining. Of course, exporting US jobs to Canada is/was OK, eh? Edited March 13, 2012 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 Bickering about the export of US jobs or campaign spending amounts to the same anti-competitive whining. Of course, exporting US jobs to Canada is/was OK, eh? Ask that question to the American companies that outsourced to places like Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 And cumulative from past administrations .... No. They're new, and not cumulative from past administrations. And a steady decline of the USA for some time now.....(even before Obama) I somewhat agree, but easily correctable. Actually it was encouraged by the US corporations to offshore their work to places like China. Someone's been turning a blind eye for at least two decades now. No, the blind eye has been for 5, maybe 10 years, but not much more than that. It's a somewhat recent phenomenon. Especially China's trade cheating and currency manipulation. The corporations in conjunction with the government allowed all this to happen. ... for years. Politicians have, but again, easily correctable. Anyways, I'm calling Alabama and Mississippi for Mitt Romney, at 7:04 pm. My political organization has examined polling data, and I'm comfortable making the call, beating all of the major news networks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 Anyways, I'm calling Alabama and Mississippi for Mitt Romney, at 7:04 pm. My political organization has examined polling data, and I'm comfortable making the call, beating all of the major news networks.It is not playing out that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j44 Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 It is not playing out that way. Yeah. I've been back and forth to CNN and just saw the numbers for what i think was Alabama. It looked like 300,000 total. Is it just me or is that really low fr the GOP in a state like that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j44 Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 Yeah. I've been back and forth to CNN and just saw the numbers for what i think was Alabama. It looked like 300,000 total. Is it just me or is that really low fr the GOP in a state like that? Correction: I think that was Miss. numbers. But still. Low? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 Unfortunately, yes it's that simple. My own view is that corporations are legislatively created entities and should have only those rights that their creators endow them with. This is an excerpt of the Supreme Court decision: The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations. (citations omitted) [14] This protection has been extended by explicit holdings to the context of political speech. (citations omitted) Under the rationale of these precedents, political speech does not lose First Amendment protection “simply because its source is a corporation.” (citations omitted) (“The identity of the speaker is not decisive in determining whether speech is protected. Corporations and other associations, like individuals, contribute to the ‘discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas’ that the First Amendment seeks to foster” (citations omitted). The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not “natural persons.” (citations omitted). Citizens United v. Federal Election Com’n, 130 S.Ct. 876, 899 (2010). I disagree strongly with this decision. However, it was unanimous. It was 5-4 not unanimous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 It was 5-4 not unanimous. I will have to re-read but there were five joining the majority opinion and a bunch of other concurrences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j44 Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 I will have to re-read but there were five joining the majority opinion and a bunch of other concurrences. Thanks I was probably too lazy to look that up myself. Mostly because I didn't think the decision was going to be that straight forward. I dont follow these ruling or the process really but what are the chances this will get looked at again? Is it possible? I don't know if the Justices (at least not the ones in the majority) would have thought their ruling would have resulted in such drastic consequences so quickly? Or would that not play into their decision since that isn't really a legal argument? On a separate note, how does Newt stay in this now? And not to be the conspiracy guy but what are the chances the Romney camp are promising Newt something to stay in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 No. They're new, and not cumulative from past administrations. Which administration left the USA in the state when Obama took over? Before that and before that? I somewhat agree, but easily correctable. It's not going to be corrected. No, the blind eye has been for 5, maybe 10 years, but not much more than that. It's a somewhat recent phenomenon. Especially China's trade cheating and currency manipulation. Wow so, 5-10 years that puts us back to the Bush Regime. Are you blaming your guy Bush again? Have you seen the currency manipulation all over the planet? The US dollar is on the decline and is being devalued. Part of the reason gold and silver are such hot items right now to acquire. Want more currency manipulation, check out the Eurozone. Globally the markets are being manipulated. Anyways, I'm calling Alabama and Mississippi for Mitt Romney, at 7:04 pm. My political organization has examined polling data, and I'm comfortable making the call, beating all of the major news networks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 Even when Romney loses he still wins. When all is said and done from last night, he still ends up winning the most delegates! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 Even when Romney loses he still wins. When all is said and done from last night, he still ends up winning the most delegates! Thats the spirit, lose all the way to the convention then have Super delegates and back room deals hand it to him. That will really get the base going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 Thats the spirit, lose all the way to the convention Actually, he's won twice as much as any of the others. So I'm not sure what you're talking about. Not like Obama losing 6 of the last 9 primaries in '08. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 Actually, he's won twice as much as any of the others. So I'm not sure what you're talking about. Not like Obama losing 6 of the last 9 primaries in '08. the prevailing math, not Romney math, seems to suggest Romney just can't get the required delegate total count going into the convention. Just what is Romney prepared to offer Santorum... maybe the Newt? VP Newt? Secretary of State Newt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 the prevailing math, not Romney math, seems to suggest Romney just can't get the required delegate total count going into the convention. You mean like Obama? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j44 Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 You mean like Obama? I'm not so sure the delegate count will be the biggest issue going forward. There might be a split convention and backroom deals to get him to hit 1144 and I'm sure that won't help him at all but even if he hits 1144 cleanly before the convention he still has the problem of having a passionless base. When Obama was fighting Hilary-like her or not-she was a very strong campaigner, had establishment support and was a power player in the Democratic Party for years (not to mention being married to a very popular-at least within the party-former President). Romney with all his money and support can't put away Santorum and Gingrich. And he can't connect with anyone. I don't even dislike him and I'm an Obama supporter but I see how awkward and unskilled he can be at times. I could be wrong and maybe the base gets behind him but I don't know how passionate they will be about it. And you need those people to volunteer, sell you to others etc. I'm not saying he still isn't the front runner and isn't going to end up being the nominee but the two situations are different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 the prevailing math, not Romney math, seems to suggest Romney just can't get the required delegate total count going into the convention. Just what is Romney prepared to offer Santorum... maybe the Newt? VP Newt? Secretary of State Newt? You're just dead wrong on that. New York and California, large states and both winner-take-all, are sure to go to Romney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 14, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 Further to that, I think he will give Obama a good run and I'm hopeful that we'll have a good debate on issues this time around... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted March 14, 2012 Report Share Posted March 14, 2012 Intrade has Romney at almost 87% to be the nominee. There's no way Santorum is beating those odds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.