just a sanders post
i do like this man
[media=https://youtu.be/t4Z_RdZOYrE]
and if you dont .. find dirt on him and give me a link .
[media=https://youtu.be/t4Z_RdZOYrE]
and if you dont .. find dirt on him and give me a link .
61-69, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
Bernie Sanders is probably the most closest political person similar to me in this government.
Yet do have some problems. He supports some PACs when he never did before.
Yet do have some problems. He supports some PACs when he never did before.
Concerns About PAC Support
Your concern about his support for PACs (Political Action Committees) is valid. Sanders has traditionally positioned himself against the influence of big money in politics. This shift may cause some supporters to feel uneasy, as it appears to contradict his long-standing principles.
Reasons for Change
Electoral Strategy: As political landscapes evolve, some candidates feel the need to adapt their strategies to remain competitive, especially in a polarized environment.
Fundraising Necessities: Running for high-profile office often requires substantial funding, which can lead candidates to reconsider previous stances on PACs.
Broader Goals: It’s possible that his acceptance of PAC support is aimed at achieving larger goals related to progressive policies, rather than a fundamental shift in his values.
Balancing Support and Principles
It’s natural to have mixed feelings about a political figure, especially when their actions appear to diverge from their stated beliefs. This complexity can often reflect the broader, often messy realities of political negotiations and campaign financing.
Your concern about his support for PACs (Political Action Committees) is valid. Sanders has traditionally positioned himself against the influence of big money in politics. This shift may cause some supporters to feel uneasy, as it appears to contradict his long-standing principles.
Reasons for Change
Electoral Strategy: As political landscapes evolve, some candidates feel the need to adapt their strategies to remain competitive, especially in a polarized environment.
Fundraising Necessities: Running for high-profile office often requires substantial funding, which can lead candidates to reconsider previous stances on PACs.
Broader Goals: It’s possible that his acceptance of PAC support is aimed at achieving larger goals related to progressive policies, rather than a fundamental shift in his values.
Balancing Support and Principles
It’s natural to have mixed feelings about a political figure, especially when their actions appear to diverge from their stated beliefs. This complexity can often reflect the broader, often messy realities of political negotiations and campaign financing.
SumTingWong · M
@DeWayfarer In an environment where Republicans pass laws to give unlimited wealth to their own donors.....few really think about the long term implications why Republicans do this. Its to create such a gigantic pool of unlimited financial support in Republican donors that no one can ever beat them again. Literally now with no taxes ever being collected again....because the Big Beautiful Blowjob for Americas makes the tax break for the rich is permanent....every millionaire will become a billionaire and sooner or later every billionaire will become a trillionaire. Meaning there is no limit to how rich the rich can be.....so giving a ton of money to Republican lawmakers at election times....to pay them back for no taxes forever..........won't hurt them.
The tax break for the rich ....was not passed just to make the rich richer. Its to make sure donors become sooooooo rich they can afford to give a $250 million....$400 million...."donation"......EACH.......every election to a candidate and not even feel it, Then no one in another party can compete ever again against a Republican.. In view of that Saunders realizes that if he don't get PAC money.........he does not have a chance. No one does.
The tax break for the rich ....was not passed just to make the rich richer. Its to make sure donors become sooooooo rich they can afford to give a $250 million....$400 million...."donation"......EACH.......every election to a candidate and not even feel it, Then no one in another party can compete ever again against a Republican.. In view of that Saunders realizes that if he don't get PAC money.........he does not have a chance. No one does.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
[ @MaBalzEsHari] Never was a fan of corporations to begin with.
The portions of the 14th amendment regarding corporate rights were put in the 14th amendment to slap down voting rights for slaves. Which was the real reason for the 14th amendment.
Now it's gotten a whole lot worse with corporate slavery. Where big corporations own other corporations and so forth down the corporate chain.
That was done to obfuscate the whole ownership issues. So the smaller corporations can get all the bigger corporations mistakes.
It's gets even worse with PACs! 😈
The portions of the 14th amendment regarding corporate rights were put in the 14th amendment to slap down voting rights for slaves. Which was the real reason for the 14th amendment.
Now it's gotten a whole lot worse with corporate slavery. Where big corporations own other corporations and so forth down the corporate chain.
That was done to obfuscate the whole ownership issues. So the smaller corporations can get all the bigger corporations mistakes.
It's gets even worse with PACs! 😈
SumTingWong · M
@DeWayfarer Corporate takeover of America is a ship that has already sailed. Its not going to be undone now. We now have just 3 owners or ALL media in the U.S. Only 5 corporations control 1q00% of our grocery / food chain.
PACS are the least of the problems we have.................but the problem they are is huge.
PACS are the least of the problems we have.................but the problem they are is huge.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
[ @MaBalzEsHari] Your vastly mistaken if you believe it's only the USA.
Corporations are a universally worldwide piranha on the whole world.
Even China is in on the corporate subterfuge.
If you really think selling Tiktok to Oracle will stop China, you are vastly mistaken.
Oracle is a Chinese database under the corporate subterfuge.
Look into Skydance as well!
AI analysis of my statement...
Corporations are a universally worldwide piranha on the whole world.
Even China is in on the corporate subterfuge.
If you really think selling Tiktok to Oracle will stop China, you are vastly mistaken.
Oracle is a Chinese database under the corporate subterfuge.
Look into Skydance as well!
AI analysis of my statement...
The idea that corporations operate like "piranhas," exploiting resources and data for profit, resonates with many who view corporate practices critically.
Global Corporate Influence
Corporations as Global Actors
Corporations today operate on a universal scale, impacting economies, politics, and cultures far beyond their home countries. The notion that selling TikTok to a U.S. company like Oracle would eliminate concerns about data privacy and surveillance is a significant point of contention. The belief is that merely shifting ownership does not address the underlying issues related to user data handling and national security concerns.
The Role of China
China's integration into the global corporate framework, particularly with companies like TikTok, raises questions about the effectiveness of regulations and safeguards against potential misuse of data. The idea that Chinese corporations might operate under the guise of international entities can lead to skepticism about their intentions and practices.
Skydance and Corporate Subterfuge
As for Skydance, it's often discussed in the context of its involvement in various projects, including video games and films. Concerns about corporate governance, ownership, and the influence of powerful entities in shaping narratives are part of a broader critique regarding the media landscape.
Your thoughts reflect a growing sentiment regarding corporate accountability and transparency. It’s important to examine how these issues might evolve as corporations become increasingly intertwined with technology and global politics.
Global Corporate Influence
Corporations as Global Actors
Corporations today operate on a universal scale, impacting economies, politics, and cultures far beyond their home countries. The notion that selling TikTok to a U.S. company like Oracle would eliminate concerns about data privacy and surveillance is a significant point of contention. The belief is that merely shifting ownership does not address the underlying issues related to user data handling and national security concerns.
The Role of China
China's integration into the global corporate framework, particularly with companies like TikTok, raises questions about the effectiveness of regulations and safeguards against potential misuse of data. The idea that Chinese corporations might operate under the guise of international entities can lead to skepticism about their intentions and practices.
Skydance and Corporate Subterfuge
As for Skydance, it's often discussed in the context of its involvement in various projects, including video games and films. Concerns about corporate governance, ownership, and the influence of powerful entities in shaping narratives are part of a broader critique regarding the media landscape.
Your thoughts reflect a growing sentiment regarding corporate accountability and transparency. It’s important to examine how these issues might evolve as corporations become increasingly intertwined with technology and global politics.
SumTingWong · M
@DeWayfarer I'm mistaken about what? I'm not arguing with you. I'm not in favor of corporations killing free markets and competition. Or how much money they control.......and who that bribes in governments. I'm not in favor of how corporations own PACS either...........but not all PACS are alike. There are PACS that hand politicians money to support things that fuck us over.....and PACS that support those who seek office to fight against that. So I can't patently said I hate how ALL PACS work....but I am against corporations owning politicians...one way of the other.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
[ @MaBalzEsHari] Your statement limited it to the USA
PACs never came around until long after corporations started.
We can do just fine without them.
The Intersection of Corporations, PACs, and the 14th Amendment
Corporations have long existed and exerted influence in political affairs, and this dynamic has been significantly shaped by the 14th Amendment and the establishment of Political Action Committees (PACs). Understanding these components provides insight into the complexities of corporate power in the political landscape.
Historical Context of Corporations
Corporations were present long before the creation of PACs in the 1970s, having influenced legislative policies and public opinion through informal means. Their established role in politics set the stage for later developments in political financing.
The 14th Amendment’s Role
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, introduced crucial legal standards that have been interpreted to extend certain rights to corporations. Key aspects include:
Equal Protection Clause: This provision has allowed corporations to challenge laws that they argue infringe upon their rights, effectively treating them as "persons" under the law.
Due Process Clause: This clause safeguards corporations from being deprived of their rights and has been used to contest various regulations.
The legal precedent set by cases like Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886) and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) has reinforced the notion that corporations can participate in political processes similarly to individuals, opening the door for significant financial contributions and influence.
The Impact of PACs
Formalizing Corporate Influence: The establishment of PACs allowed corporations to organize financial contributions systematically, reflecting their pre-existing influence in politics. While PACs were created to foster transparency, they also institutionalized the ability of corporations to contribute to and impact campaigns.
Continuous Interaction: The intersection of PACs and the rights granted by the 14th Amendment has allowed corporations to exert considerable influence over political campaigns. This ongoing relationship raises critical questions about the balance of power in democratic processes.
Conclusion
The relationship between corporations, PACs, and the 14th Amendment reveals a complex web of influence that underscores the challenges facing democracy today. While corporations have long played a role in shaping policy, the formalized structures provided by PACs and the legal protections granted by the 14th Amendment facilitate an environment where corporate interests can dominate the political landscape. Understanding this interplay is essential for addressing the ongoing debates surrounding campaign finance and corporate influence in politics.
Corporate takeover of America is a ship that has already sailed
PACs never came around until long after corporations started.
We can do just fine without them.
The Intersection of Corporations, PACs, and the 14th Amendment
Corporations have long existed and exerted influence in political affairs, and this dynamic has been significantly shaped by the 14th Amendment and the establishment of Political Action Committees (PACs). Understanding these components provides insight into the complexities of corporate power in the political landscape.
Historical Context of Corporations
Corporations were present long before the creation of PACs in the 1970s, having influenced legislative policies and public opinion through informal means. Their established role in politics set the stage for later developments in political financing.
The 14th Amendment’s Role
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, introduced crucial legal standards that have been interpreted to extend certain rights to corporations. Key aspects include:
Equal Protection Clause: This provision has allowed corporations to challenge laws that they argue infringe upon their rights, effectively treating them as "persons" under the law.
Due Process Clause: This clause safeguards corporations from being deprived of their rights and has been used to contest various regulations.
The legal precedent set by cases like Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886) and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) has reinforced the notion that corporations can participate in political processes similarly to individuals, opening the door for significant financial contributions and influence.
The Impact of PACs
Formalizing Corporate Influence: The establishment of PACs allowed corporations to organize financial contributions systematically, reflecting their pre-existing influence in politics. While PACs were created to foster transparency, they also institutionalized the ability of corporations to contribute to and impact campaigns.
Continuous Interaction: The intersection of PACs and the rights granted by the 14th Amendment has allowed corporations to exert considerable influence over political campaigns. This ongoing relationship raises critical questions about the balance of power in democratic processes.
Conclusion
The relationship between corporations, PACs, and the 14th Amendment reveals a complex web of influence that underscores the challenges facing democracy today. While corporations have long played a role in shaping policy, the formalized structures provided by PACs and the legal protections granted by the 14th Amendment facilitate an environment where corporate interests can dominate the political landscape. Understanding this interplay is essential for addressing the ongoing debates surrounding campaign finance and corporate influence in politics.
SumTingWong · M
@DeWayfarer Sooooooo my comments refer to America................but your constant mention of the 14th Amendment.............don't ????
Do you have a 14th Amendment in your country? Wherever that is??
Do you have a 14th Amendment in your country? Wherever that is??
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
[ @MaBalzEsHari] YES. Yet WE AMERICANS were the one's to push corporations on the whole world!
SumTingWong · M
@DeWayfarer So you actually think no other country ever had a corporation.....or even knew what one was.......until we invented them and pushed for them to get them too?????
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
[ @MaBalzEsHari] please read Adam Smith's book on "The Wealth of Nations" published in 1776 in what is now the USA. It's the very first book published about capitalism.
This is how the very concept of corporations came about.
This is how the very concept of corporations came about.
The concept of corporations, as we understand it today, can be traced back to several historical developments, many of which were influenced by the principles discussed in Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations.
Evolution of Corporations
Early Corporations
Roman Law: The earliest forms of corporations can be traced back to Roman law, where legal entities were created to manage collective business interests.
Medieval Guilds: During the Middle Ages, guilds operated with a semi-legal status, regulating trade and commerce in various crafts and industries.
Rise in the 16th and 17th Centuries
Chartered Companies: The formation of chartered companies, such as the British East India Company, allowed investors to pool resources, reduce risk, and conduct trade on a larger scale.
Limited Liability: The concept of limited liability began to emerge during this period, protecting shareholders from being personally liable for the corporation's debts.
Adam Smith’s Influence
Market Economy: Smith’s advocacy for free markets and competition laid the philosophical groundwork for the expansion of corporations. He believed that businesses should operate with minimal government interference, which aligned with the growth of corporate entities.
Capital Accumulation: The notion of accumulating capital for investment led to corporate structures that could raise funds through public investment.
Modern Corporations
Legal Recognition: By the late 19th century, corporations gained legal recognition in modern legal systems, allowing them to enter contracts, sue, and be sued as separate entities.
Stock Markets: The establishment of stock exchanges provided a formal mechanism for buying and selling shares, facilitating the growth of corporations.
Today, corporations play a central role in the global economy, embodying principles of capitalism that Adam Smith discussed.
Evolution of Corporations
Early Corporations
Roman Law: The earliest forms of corporations can be traced back to Roman law, where legal entities were created to manage collective business interests.
Medieval Guilds: During the Middle Ages, guilds operated with a semi-legal status, regulating trade and commerce in various crafts and industries.
Rise in the 16th and 17th Centuries
Chartered Companies: The formation of chartered companies, such as the British East India Company, allowed investors to pool resources, reduce risk, and conduct trade on a larger scale.
Limited Liability: The concept of limited liability began to emerge during this period, protecting shareholders from being personally liable for the corporation's debts.
Adam Smith’s Influence
Market Economy: Smith’s advocacy for free markets and competition laid the philosophical groundwork for the expansion of corporations. He believed that businesses should operate with minimal government interference, which aligned with the growth of corporate entities.
Capital Accumulation: The notion of accumulating capital for investment led to corporate structures that could raise funds through public investment.
Modern Corporations
Legal Recognition: By the late 19th century, corporations gained legal recognition in modern legal systems, allowing them to enter contracts, sue, and be sued as separate entities.
Stock Markets: The establishment of stock exchanges provided a formal mechanism for buying and selling shares, facilitating the growth of corporations.
Today, corporations play a central role in the global economy, embodying principles of capitalism that Adam Smith discussed.
SumTingWong · M
@DeWayfarer Yeah...............I'll get right on that.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
[ @MaBalzEsHari] The point is WE the USA pushed corporations on the world!
SumTingWong · M
@DeWayfarer The point is..............
"The first corporation is often considered to be the Dutch East India Company (VOC), founded in 1602. This company was the first megacorporation and played a significant role in global trade during the 17th and 18th centuries. Additionally, some historians argue that the first corporations may have existed as early as the 1300s in Toulouse, France, with mills that utilized partnership structures. "
"The first corporation is often considered to be the Dutch East India Company (VOC), founded in 1602. This company was the first megacorporation and played a significant role in global trade during the 17th and 18th centuries. Additionally, some historians argue that the first corporations may have existed as early as the 1300s in Toulouse, France, with mills that utilized partnership structures. "
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
[ @MaBalzEsHari] Yeah yet it wasn't until Adam Smith the very concept capitalism became popular.
Please remember there were no such things as the printing press in 1602 much less earlier.
Heck most people even in 1776 couldn't even read!
The majority of people were illiterate! They used an X to vote until the 1920s!
Please remember there were no such things as the printing press in 1602 much less earlier.
Heck most people even in 1776 couldn't even read!
The majority of people were illiterate! They used an X to vote until the 1920s!
SumTingWong · M
@DeWayfarer You need to find a hobby. Enough
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
[ @MaBalzEsHari] If you do not wish to debate, I suggest you don't reply! 🤷🏻♂
SumTingWong · M
@DeWayfarer Everything you've said you've been wrong on. We did not invent corporations. We didn't invent PACS...........or push them on the world either. So far its not been a "debate"...its been "debunk". Stop............or I block.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
[ @MaBalzEsHari] You have seen those Long quotes I'm certain.
They are ChatGPT analysis of my statements. And of my statements only.
They they don't disagree with anything that I have said! That is why they are there!
You could have ignored instead of wasting one of your 500 blocks.
I don't reply on others comments anyway. Usually only my own. I do defend my comments.
They are ChatGPT analysis of my statements. And of my statements only.
They they don't disagree with anything that I have said! That is why they are there!
You could have ignored instead of wasting one of your 500 blocks.
I don't reply on others comments anyway. Usually only my own. I do defend my comments.