RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Mon Nov 12, 2018 10:30 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 5:05 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 14303
Are all corporations bad?

I thought we liked CostCo. That's a corporation.

Is it bad to take donations from CostCo? They support a lot of Democratic candidates.

I'm so confused.

It wont ever get thru to them.

It is a simple math situation and if they cant see it, then forget it.

The party with ONE MORE seat even if that seat is occupied by MANCHIN decides everything

everything including even if something is voted on AT ALL

AMAZING they still dont see this

_________________
"Corporate Democrat" phrase created at the same place "Angry Mob" was...People keep falling for rightwing talking points. How sad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 5:44 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12241
Location: Sunny South Florida
Symbolism over substance. Sorry to pee in peoples' cornflakes.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... cs/568267/

But while the pledge might help attract voters, it isn’t otherwise consequential—at least not yet. Corporate-pac donations don’t constitute a significant amount of any Democratic candidate’s funding, and nothing precludes candidates from accepting individual donations from corporate executives. But progressives say the symbolism still matters, and that it’s a step in the right direction for reforming America’s campaign-finance system.

[snip]

One important distinction to make is what kind of money the candidates are actually rejecting. Many have cited the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which paved the way for the creation of super pacs, as their motivation for ditching corporate contributions. But not accepting corporate-pac money has little to do with super pacs.

Here’s how it works: pacs are typically broken down into three categories—labor, ideological, and corporate. These groups can donate $5,000 per candidate per race. Corporate pacs are composed of funds gathered from individuals who work for a company and are given directly to a candidate in the name of that company. These three pac categories are not to be confused with super pacs, which can spend unlimited amounts of money but cannot give directly to candidates. Instead, super pacs (think Club for Growth Action or NextGen Climate Action) typically make ads for or against certain candidates or issues.

When candidates reject corporate pacs specifically, they aren’t actually rejecting corporations’ resources: The money isn’t coming from company bank accounts—it’s coming from employees. For this reason, critics of the no-corporate-pac pledge see it as more of a political maneuver than anything else. “Every dime that goes into a pac is an individual dime, it’s just pooled resources,” said Cleta Mitchell, a conservative campaign-finance and election-law attorney. “Why is their money tainted just because they work for a company?”

Candidates can still accept donations from individual employees or owners of corporations, and those contributions can add up. A corporate pac can only give $5,000 to an individual candidate an election, but two of the same company’s executives could individually donate a total of $5,400 an election. Ocasio-Cortez wouldn’t accept money from a pac associated with J. P. Morgan, but a J. P. Morgan employee recently maxed out an individual contribution to her, giving her campaign $2,700. (*)

[snip]

Out of the 3,059 nonincumbent candidates running this cycle, only 397 have raised any money from business-related pacs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), a nonpartisan research group that tracks money in politics. Incumbents typically receive more corporate-pac donations, but they’re usually a small percentage of their total funds. For example, Gillibrand has received $4,955,153 from business-related pacs over her political career, amounting to 9 percent of her total contributions, according to the CRP. Harris has received roughly $353,265 from business-related pacs—slightly less than 2 percent of her total contributions. For Booker, business-related-pac donations made up almost 8 percent. (According to CRP, “business related” pacs count as corporate pacs, corporate-affiliated pacs, and trade associations.)

With such relatively small figures, the pledge is “an easy, cheap thing to do,” said Brad Smith, a former FEC commissioner and the current chairman of the Institute for Free Speech, a nonprofit that advocates for loosening campaign-finance regulations. “If you’re not getting that much, you’re not really giving much up.”

[snip][end]

So - again - a pledge not to take money from "X-Mart" means you are not taking money from employees of X-Mart giving through their X-Mart PAC. Don't we want donations from their employees?

Secondly, how virtuous is someone like Ocasio-Cortez who won't take money from JPMorgan's corporate PAC, but DID take individual donations from one of JPMorgan's CORPORATE EXECUTIVES?

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:35 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:27 pm
Posts: 8429
Location: miles from nowhere
Public Financing.

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus

The new motto of the USA: Unum de multis. Out of one, many.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 9:44 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:01 pm
Posts: 6436
Location: Maine U.S.A
I understand how PACs work. I also understand that when a corporation makes a donation to a candidate, it's expected that said candidate will vote accordingly. That's the problem.

And yes, we can't be choosy. ALL corporate donations must go. When I donate to a candidate, it's because I share their values and policies. If I work for a company that's CEO is a right wing asshat and gives to republicans, I"m not a part of that. The CEO expects tax breaks, loose labor and environmental laws and pays the candidate for that.

It's the same idea that if we limit how much of an influence the Koran has on our laws, so must the bible have limitations. You may be a Christian that resents not being able to buy influence for your religion, but at least Muslims can't take control of legislation either.

_________________
Lest we forget
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 10:09 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12241
Location: Sunny South Florida
And if the corporation doesn't favor weaker environmental laws, and looser labor laws?

So our "choosiness" means we still can't take donations from corporations that ARE on our side?

What if, like Ben & Jerry, they agree with our views of campaign finance reform and support them?

Image

There are male feminists, white anti-racists, and corporations that oppose corporatocratic control of our politics. They can be our allies.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 10:14 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6497
I understand how PACs work. I also understand that when a corporation makes a donation to a candidate, it's expected that said candidate will vote accordingly. That's the problem.

And yes, we can't be choosy. ALL corporate donations must go. When I donate to a candidate, it's because I share their values and policies. If I work for a company that's CEO is a right wing asshat and gives to republicans, I"m not a part of that. The CEO expects tax breaks, loose labor and environmental laws and pays the candidate for that.

It's the same idea that if we limit how much of an influence the Koran has on our laws, so must the bible have limitations. You may be a Christian that resents not being able to buy influence for your religion, but at least Muslims can't take control of legislation either.

Are you speaking only of "corporate donations" but of all donations coming from sources other than individuals?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 10:28 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:01 pm
Posts: 6436
Location: Maine U.S.A
And if the corporation doesn't favor weaker environmental laws, and looser labor laws?

So our "choosiness" means we still can't take donations from corporations that ARE on our side?

What if, like Ben & Jerry, they agree with our views of campaign finance reform and support them?

Image

There are male feminists, white anti-racists, and corporations that oppose corporatocratic control of our politics. They can be our allies.


I suppose candidates can take from whomever they choose NOW, but if we eliminate corporate cash and its influence on our laws, then YES, all campaign donations will cease. Same thing when republicans claim this is a Christian nation and pass laws banning Muslim laws. You can't pick one religion over the other. See what I'm saying?

_________________
Lest we forget
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 11:11 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6497

I suppose candidates can take from whomever they choose NOW, but if we eliminate corporate cash and its influence on our laws, then YES, all campaign donations will cease. Same thing when republicans claim this is a Christian nation and pass laws banning Muslim laws. You can't pick one religion over the other. See what I'm saying?

I would agree that you can have only one standard. I think that it gets difficult when you get into the details. Everyone agrees that individuals can donate. It's part of free speech. What then of a group of like minded individuals? Do they have free speech rights and so on? Most organizations, profit, not for profit, unions, partnerships, professional organizations, civic organizations, charities, etc, etc, etc, are nothing but groups of like minded people. I recognize that the influence of money is corrupting. When elected representatives spend huge amounts of time raising money for their next election, they are taking time and attention away from other more pressing matters. It is only natural for them to feel some sort of obligation to some donors. I can't imagine that it's possible to put it totally out of mind. However, the question of how to address the speech consideration is a tough nut to crack. I don't have an answer.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:07 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12241
Location: Sunny South Florida
So ... is ending all corporate donations in politics in the Democratic platform? I don't think so. Never has been. Candidate personal pledges not to take money from corporate PACs are individual choices.

AFAIK, the Democratic party is pledged to support campaign finance reform and the overturning of Citizens United and restore LIMITS on corporate campaign spending. (BTW, there are still limits, it's just that today's post-CU "dark money"/SuperPAC world gives corporations all kinds of ways around them).

As to Joe's question ... does the Democratic party want to end labor union's spending on campaigns? You would hope not ... that would be deadly suicide. I think GoU previously agreed with me that the real goal should be that there be fair, equal rules for both labor union and corporate giving in politics. Not silly "corporate personhood" that gives them some bizarre leg up over the other side.

Some people say they want to get all PACs out of politics. Really? Why have that goal? I don't. I want pro-LGBT rights PACs able to support politicians who support their cause. Pro-human rights PACs, pro-separation of church and state PACs, pro-immigration reform PACs ... I like them, why shouldn't they be able to support politicians?

Now I get what that means. It also means PACs that support stuff I don't are also allowed to give money. Well, that rule of law thing. In a fair system, they get to do their thing too.

I don't think you can ban all corporate giving to candidates as long as you allow other organizations and institutions to do it. Either we have a system where only individuals can give, or we have what we had long before campaign finance laws existed, but then were put under new rules in post-Watergate reforms. Limits and rules on individual AND organizational giving. I mean, seriously, have you fixed the problem if you say only individuals can give, but there are no campaign finance rules and limits? Great. Sure, your granny in Walla Walla can give $100 to Bernie, but Sheldon Adelson as an individual can give $12 million to the GOP.

I say allow corporate donations in politics and labor union donations in politics. Liberal PAC donations and conservative PAC donations. And fair campaign finance rules and limits for all. That's the American way.

In the meantime, "money out of politics"? Money's been IN politics for too long a time and if you asked me do candidates waste way too much of their time trying to campaign fundraise, I would say yes. Perhaps another way to tackle this is to make campaigns less expensive. Most of that money gets spent on TV airtime. Public financing: great idea. Who's running on it?

One more thing: I do not agree with Buckley vs. Valeo's ruling that money=speech, or that limiting what individuals can give to candidates and parties is an infringement on freedom of speech. Buckley vs. Valeo facilitates plutocracy. I do not agree with it. As long as we say money is speech, then we say the wealthiest people should be heard the most. That's plutocracy, and I do not agree with it. You are allowed to advocate what you want as loudly as you want to, but that doesn't equal a right to spend unlimited amounts of political funds on it.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:00 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12241
Location: Sunny South Florida
I guess I would boil my position down to, what do we want?

Corporations having no say in our politics? Why? We allow them to exist, I think it's only fair they be allowed to participate. No, I do not think "all corporations are evil". And, since many liberals shop at CostCo, they don't think it's evil, either. That said, yes, I agree with the film The Corporation that the way we operate corporations today is often sociopathic, with no sense of social responsibility ... however, they don't have to operate that way (and didn't always), and I would argue some already choose not to ...

They are allowed to have a say. It's just that their say shouldn't over-ride the say of other people in society, maybe particularly their workers.

I think what I want is not having them dominate or have an unfairly outsized influence on our politics because of their wealth ... we achieve that through campaign finance reform. Not banning all corporate donations.

BTW, I also do not think everybody who agrees with me on this is some evil kind of "corporate Dem". And I'm sorry if Cenk Uygur doesn't agree with me on this ... wouldn't be the first thing we've disagreed about. :mrgreen: I think for myself.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:54 am 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 18479
I guess I would boil my position down to, what do we want?

Corporations having no say in our politics? Why? We allow them to exist, I think it's only fair they be allowed to participate. No, I do not think "all corporations are evil". And, since many liberals shop at CostCo, they don't think it's evil, either. That said, yes, I agree with the film The Corporation that the way we operate corporations today is often sociopathic, with no sense of social responsibility ... however, they don't have to operate that way (and didn't always), and I would argue some already choose not to ...

They are allowed to have a say. It's just that their say shouldn't over-ride the say of other people in society, maybe particularly their workers.

I think what I want is not having them dominate or have an unfairly outsized influence on our politics because of their wealth ... we achieve that through campaign finance reform. Not banning all corporate donations.

BTW, I also do not think everybody who agrees with me on this is some evil kind of "corporate Dem". And I'm sorry if Cenk Uygur doesn't agree with me on this ... wouldn't be the first thing we've disagreed about. :mrgreen: I think for myself.


Everyone here shops at corporations.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 4:48 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12241
Location: Sunny South Florida
Some we valorize, like CostCo.

Some we shop at even if they're not exactly virtuous, like Amazon-Whole Foods, but at least they're organic. :D

Dunno. Seems weird, if liberals hate corporations, why they still shop at them. (OK, I have met people who are so determined about this they will not patronize anything but the 1 or two Mom N Pop's still left in existence, but they are very rare.)

Usually, we pick out the bad ones from the good ones. Even invest in the good ones. Aren't there still these CREDO funds that only invest in socially responsible corporations?

Figure we can do the same thing in politics.

Oh and BTW, Ben and Jerry's had an ice cream truck on campus today, giving out free ice cream to every student who voted. Again, they seem to me to be the good guys.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 4:59 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6497
Some we valorize, like CostCo.

Some we shop at even if they're not exactly virtuous, like Amazon-Whole Foods, but at least they're organic. :D

Dunno. Seems weird, if liberals hate corporations, why they still shop at them. (OK, I have met people who are so determined about this they will not patronize anything but the 1 or two Mom N Pop's still left in existence, but they are very rare.)

Usually, we pick out the bad ones from the good ones. Even invest in the good ones. Aren't there still these CREDO funds that only invest in socially responsible corporations?

Figure we can do the same thing in politics.

Oh and BTW, Ben and Jerry's had an ice cream truck on campus today, giving out free ice cream to every student who voted. Again, they seem to me to be the good guys.


I don't care what they believe politically. I'm just buying ice cream. Cherry Garcia. If they are giving it away for voting, then that's a plus for those students. Some things never change - College students always turn out for food. And beer. Either will do.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:07 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 14303
Believe? Corporations dont believe, they act.

Everything a corp does is an action on the community and society around them, which is why most corporations charters by design are the problem. Profit is required above all else with MOST of them, there are some exceptions.

People who run them are shielded in various ways while allotting the corp rights they obviously dont deserve.

_________________
"Corporate Democrat" phrase created at the same place "Angry Mob" was...People keep falling for rightwing talking points. How sad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 6:46 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 18479
Some we valorize, like CostCo.

Some we shop at even if they're not exactly virtuous, like Amazon-Whole Foods, but at least they're organic. :D

Dunno. Seems weird, if liberals hate corporations, why they still shop at them. (OK, I have met people who are so determined about this they will not patronize anything but the 1 or two Mom N Pop's still left in existence, but they are very rare.)

Usually, we pick out the bad ones from the good ones. Even invest in the good ones. Aren't there still these CREDO funds that only invest in socially responsible corporations?

Figure we can do the same thing in politics.

Oh and BTW, Ben and Jerry's had an ice cream truck on campus today, giving out free ice cream to every student who voted. Again, they seem to me to be the good guys.


Well, you know...I hate to be THAT person. :idea:

All corporations are up for critique, incuding the once we consider better than others...I'm not saying they're not. But I don't get the blanket complaint about corporate dems or corporations or whatever. I know it's uncool to still be like this but come on. We're all here tapping away on devices made by corporations, accessing the internet via some corporation. Or two.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 6:50 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 14303
Even Costco who did have a change at the top and the new guy is not as cool as the old guy, still far better than most.

_________________
"Corporate Democrat" phrase created at the same place "Angry Mob" was...People keep falling for rightwing talking points. How sad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 6:57 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12241
Location: Sunny South Florida
It'd be interesting to access the Internet without anything made by corporations.

OK, you can build your PC. Still, it'd be hard to find every component from some source which is not a corp. esp. the motherboard.

(Are as many people building their own phones and tablets?)

Yes, run Linux on it. Fine.

Now, find an ISP that's not a corporation, oh and telecom equipment (cable modem etc.) not made by one. Haven't met too many folks who built their own.

DIY runs into its limits.

I agree with you that we should be critical of all corporations, that none of them should be trusted to "self police" in the absence of regulations, and also that "corporate Dem" is not a useful epithet, especially at this juncture in political history.

I also seriously think we are reaching a point where the multinationals are wealthier and more powerful than many nation states, thus also sadly beyond their control, and William Gibson's nightmares are edging closer to reality. But again, that isn't all of them.

But, and come on, why ask our parties to have nothing to do with them, when we ourselves are so dependent on them?

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:01 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 14303
I am the biggest critic I guess of corps, saying I would outlaw them if I could and there is sound reason for that.

Or I would create regulations that would vastly change the extent to which they can fuck over everything in their environment.

The wall streeter would argue that would stifle their ability to create or invent, etc. Maybe, to some extent. But overall and eventually as long as some reward is available, probably not.

_________________
"Corporate Democrat" phrase created at the same place "Angry Mob" was...People keep falling for rightwing talking points. How sad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:03 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1138
...
Some we shop at even if they're not exactly virtuous, like Amazon-Whole Foods, but at least they're organic. :D

Oh and BTW, Ben and Jerry's had an ice cream truck on campus today, giving out free ice cream to every student who voted. Again, they seem to me to be the good guys.

Bens & Jerry's has been owned and operated by Unilever since 2000. Free ice cream. Nice gesture. However given that it is a foreign based transnational firm playing a hand in voting, could that constitute foreign interference in US elections. (by doing this on a Miami campus, they are presumably more likely to promote Democratic voters :D )


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:04 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12241
Location: Sunny South Florida
Progressive media outlet The Young Turks has raised $20 million in venture-capital funding
https://www.businessinsider.com/young-t ... ism-2017-8

The firms 3L Capital, Greycroft, E.ventures, and WndrCo, which is led by the business executive and Democratic Party kingmaker Jeffrey Katzenberg, will invest $20 million in the progressive media company, which for a decade has live-streamed hours of video content with a progressive perspective.

[snip][end]

Now Cenk, question ... 3L Capital sure sounds like a capitalist corporation, now doesn't it?

And when people questioned you on this, you said it has nothing to do with money in politics and they were being "illogical". Well, perhaps, but don't you also talk about "corporate media"?

And can you say that when other networks get corporate funding, that's corrupting of their message ... but when you get it at TYT, of course, you remain pure and pristine?

I guess getting money from corporations is bad for some but not for all. Some animals are more equal than others.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:08 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 14303
Cenk works for Putin indirectly or directly, either way same result.

Very dangerous man. Like a few others I could name who work for Putin or might as well.

I remember telling him once bush saying invading iraq not about oil was like the guy who says he reads playboy for the articles - he of course couldnt let me be right he had to argue a little with that and I dont recall exactly how he slightly changed what I said but he had to make sure I knew he was the expert.

_________________
"Corporate Democrat" phrase created at the same place "Angry Mob" was...People keep falling for rightwing talking points. How sad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:09 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12241
Location: Sunny South Florida
I am the biggest critic I guess of corps, saying I would outlaw them if I could and there is sound reason for that.

Or I would create regulations that would vastly change the extent to which they can fuck over everything in their environment.

The wall streeter would argue that would stifle their ability to create or invent, etc. Maybe, to some extent. But overall and eventually as long as some reward is available, probably not.


Thom Hartmann often mentions on his show that in the 19th century, corporations were created and chartered at the state level, and that states could yank their charter for lack of social responsibility.

I like the idea, but it seems impossible to re-implement in the 21st century. Corporations are no longer state-based, they're not even national, they're multinational.

So who would charter them other than the UN? Although, it looks to me, maybe this needs to be done.

I just think they need to answer to more stakeholders than just their shareholders. Even more than consumers/customers and employees, too. Again, Milton Friedman's crappy ass theorizing on this, aside.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:11 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 14303

Thom Hartmann often mentions on his show that in the 19th century, corporations were created and chartered at the state level, and that states could yank their charter for lack of social responsibility.

I like the idea, but it seems impossible to re-implement in the 21st century. Corporations are no longer state-based, they're not even national, they're multinational.

So who would charter them other than the UN? Although, it looks to me, maybe this needs to be done.

I just think they need to answer to more stakeholders than just their shareholders. Even more than consumers/customers and employees, too. Again, Milton Friedman's crappy ass theorizing on this, aside.



You see that is what pisses me off, I learned SO much from him over the years, I was listening to him and him and Bernie LONG before most bernie fans knew who he was.

I dug Thom completely. I remember first time he was on Real Time how excited I was to see him, he didnt do well as it turned out, voice too quiet, not assertive, but that criticism has nothing to do with how I feel about him now.

NOW, he did criticize BERNIE when bernie kept bashing the party ....so I might give him a little leeway, that and the RT shit, but he is off RT now, right?

_________________
"Corporate Democrat" phrase created at the same place "Angry Mob" was...People keep falling for rightwing talking points. How sad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:13 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12241
Location: Sunny South Florida
Big Picture has been off RT for a while.

Ed Schultz was on there till he died.

But I said that. ;)

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:15 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 14303
Big Picture has been off RT for a while.

Ed Schultz was on there till he died.

But I said that. ;)

Was gonna bring up Ed but what is the point.

I know what he was long before RT came into the picture.

So did Randi Rhodes. Even though Randi has the biggest ego I have ever witnessed in my life, she was right about Ed and much more.

_________________
"Corporate Democrat" phrase created at the same place "Angry Mob" was...People keep falling for rightwing talking points. How sad.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: carmenjonze, Google [Bot], Ike Bana, Motor City, RoyPDX, Sam Lefthand and 29 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group