Persons v. Citizens

[89Hen]

Good Lord Andrew, that bait was sitting out there for days.

Im not sure you guys understand freedom.

Freedom is universally great, so I'm in favor of it.

[JohnStOnge]

I think you underestimate the impact of White Evangelical Christians. White Evangelical Christians, who were 26 percent of voters, voted for Trump by 80% to 16%. The other 74% of the population voted for Clinton by 60% to 34%.

White Evangelical Christians didn't vote that way because of the economy. They voted that way because of stuff like abortion and homosexual marriage.

So now an atheist or agnostic depending on the day, is now an expert on Evangelical voting trends.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well, the numbers are what they are according to the exit polls. Do YOU think White Evangelical Christians voted by 80% to 16% for Trump because of the economy?

[kalm]

Im not sure you guys understand freedom.

Freedom is universally great, so I'm in favor of it.

Nah...freedom is subjective and changes over time.

[kalm]

I think Thom Hartmann was the first to uncover this history and now The Atlantic does a solid follow up.

Corporations as people is a legal fiction. Always has been. Why would the lead attorney, CONKling be so deceitful? The answer might be in the name...



http://theatln.tc/2FURRY5

Interesting read, but not exactly historically correct. Corporate personhood had been bandied about at least a century before Conkling and the Southern Pacific case (the article is at least correct that that case was the first to bring in the 14th amendment - of course, it was the first case of its kind since the 14th amendment was passed so that's more likely). Articles like this love to bring up colorful historical characters like Conkling since the Gilded Age was such a fun time of ethic-less (as compared to today) behavior that it makes for great reading. Accuracy and the foundation of their point being less of a concern.

There was already corporate personhood being developed in British Common Law prior to the Revolution, and then the Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1818 developed it further. Granted, every case expands it further and further, but this idea that corporations would be treated under the law like people didn't pop into existence in 1886, it was just one more step in defining it as we know it today. But like I said, why worry about details when we live in the era of Trump and everyone starts lying to a certain extent?

Interesting stuff Ganny. Off the top of your head or do you have some links I can read?

[houndawg]

You paid attention!

Truisms that send conks into a tizzy:

Americans poll significantly more progressive than how they are represented.

Political outcomes are almost exclusively about money rather than ideas and what constituents want.

The U.S. is a mixed economy.

Order of what is important:

1. Economy/Jobs
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. Anything else starts here.

Free dope is at least in the top five.

[css75]

So now an atheist or agnostic depending on the day, is now an expert on Evangelical voting trends.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well, the numbers are what they are according to the exit polls. Do YOU think White Evangelical Christians voted by 80% to 16% for Trump because of the economy?

I do not think those were the main issues. Things like the economy, defense and immigration were higher priorities with the people I know.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

Well, the numbers are what they are according to the exit polls. Do YOU think White Evangelical Christians voted by 80% to 16% for Trump because of the economy?

I do not think those were the main issues. Things like the economy, defense and immigration were higher priorities with the people I know.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You know, its funny - there are billionaires all over trumps admin, why don't they just build the Wall privately and send Mexico a bill with a tidy profit attached?

[Ibanez]

So now an atheist or agnostic depending on the day, is now an expert on Evangelical voting trends.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well, the numbers are what they are according to the exit polls. Do YOU think White Evangelical Christians voted by 80% to 16% for Trump because of the economy?

That’s one group of people. Look at the population as a whole. It was the economy and security.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[andy7171]

Good Lord Andrew, that bait was sitting out there for days.

Im not sure you guys understand freedom.

Im pretty sure I do, but grace us with your version.

[kalm]

Im not sure you guys understand freedom.

Im pretty sure I do, but grace us with your version.

So "telling everyone what to eat, drink, say, and buy' imposes on their freedom?

I thought I was just being an opinionated asshole like Bandl.

My apologies....

[UNI88]

Good Lord Andrew, that bait was sitting out there for days.

Im not sure you guys understand freedom.

Please explain your idea of what freedom is.

[kalm]

Im not sure you guys understand freedom.

Please explain your idea of what freedom is.

"Freedom is the right to tell people what they don't want to hear."

- Orwell

[css75]

Freedom is just another word for nothing left to do.

-Bobby Magee.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Now she puts the kid away,
and she's gone to get a hit
She hates her life,
and what she's done to it
There's one more kid
that will never go to school
Never get to fall in love,
never get to be cool.

[JoltinJoe]

What charade?

I’m a post partisan liberal (as defined) who voted for Johnson the last two elections and hasn’t voted for a candidate from either major party for national office in quite some time. I’m socially libertarian and find myself warming to fiscal libertarianism with each passing year.

I am America, stripped of political tribalism...

You’re obviously confused.

I'm a faithful follower of of Brother John Birch And I belong to the Antioch Baptist Church. And I ain't even got a garage, you can call home and ask my wife!

[CAA Flagship]

Now she puts the kid away,
and she's gone to get a hit
She hates her life,
and what she's done to it
There's one more kid
that will never go to school
Never get to fall in love,
never get to be cool.

There she stood in the street
Smiling from her head to her feet
I said hey, what is this
Now baby, maybe she's in need of a kiss
I said hey, what's your name baby
Maybe we can see things the same
Now don't you wait or hesitate
Let's move before they raise the parking rate

[GannonFan]

Interesting read, but not exactly historically correct. Corporate personhood had been bandied about at least a century before Conkling and the Southern Pacific case (the article is at least correct that that case was the first to bring in the 14th amendment - of course, it was the first case of its kind since the 14th amendment was passed so that's more likely). Articles like this love to bring up colorful historical characters like Conkling since the Gilded Age was such a fun time of ethic-less (as compared to today) behavior that it makes for great reading. Accuracy and the foundation of their point being less of a concern.

There was already corporate personhood being developed in British Common Law prior to the Revolution, and then the Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1818 developed it further. Granted, every case expands it further and further, but this idea that corporations would be treated under the law like people didn't pop into existence in 1886, it was just one more step in defining it as we know it today. But like I said, why worry about details when we live in the era of Trump and everyone starts lying to a certain extent?

Interesting stuff Ganny. Off the top of your head or do you have some links I can read?

Just off the top of my head - although I'm sure you can read up on the Dartmouth College v Woodward case anywhere there's a SCOTUS writeup. A lot of the early stuff that laid the groundwork for corporations being treated as persons under the law were about contracts and how corporations could enter in them and benefit and be restricted by those contracts. And suing a corporation in a court of law had to be established some level of personhood as well or what are you suing? No one's going to disagree that Citizens United was a relatively sizeable step in terms of the extent of corporate personhood, but it's also disingenuous to throw out 200+ years of legal precedence and say that corporations haven't, to an extent, been treated as persons prior to that case.

[JohnStOnge]

Well, the numbers are what they are according to the exit polls. Do YOU think White Evangelical Christians voted by 80% to 16% for Trump because of the economy?

I do not think those were the main issues. Things like the economy, defense and immigration were higher priorities with the people I know.

One thing that happened this last time is that exit polls did not include questions that would allow us to get a full appreciation of the role social/cultural issues played. For instance, there was no question about abortion.

There WAS a question that allowed an estimate of how important the economy was. There was a "multiple choice" question that asked people to choose which was the most important issue among Foreign Policy, Immigration, Economy, and Terrorism. And Economy was the winner as most important issue hands down. 52% said the economy was the most important issue and second place, Terrorism, was way back at 18%.

The only problem with using that fact to argue that the economy is why Trump won is that Clinton won among people who thought the economy was the most important issue by 52% to 41%.

Also, Clinton won among people who thought the economy was the most important issue in Pennsylvania (50% to 46%), Michigan (51% to 43%), Wisconsin (53% to 42%) and Ohio (49% to 46%). So the idea that it was the economy that got Trump elected is pretty suspect. Especially since the Republican DID win among those who thought the economy was the most important issue during the previous Presidential Election (Romney 51%, Obama 47% among those who thought the economy was the most important issue).

Meanwhile, in the absence of direct polling on the role of cultural issues like abortion and homosexual marriage, we have White Evangelical Christians voting for Trump by a greater margin then they voted for Romney, McCain, or George W. Bush. And they voted so strongly for Trump that Trump was able to win in spite of losing by nearly a 2:1 margin (60% to 34%) among the other 74% of the people who voted.

[BDKJMU]

I do not think those were the main issues. Things like the economy, defense and immigration were higher priorities with the people I know.

One thing that happened this last time is that exit polls did not include questions that would allow us to get a full appreciation of the role social/cultural issues played. For instance, there was no question about abortion.

There WAS a question that allowed an estimate of how important the economy was. There was a "multiple choice" question that asked people to choose which was the most important issue among Foreign Policy, Immigration, Economy, and Terrorism. And Economy was the winner as most important issue hands down. 52% said the economy was the most important issue and second place, Terrorism, was way back at 18%.

The only problem with using that fact to argue that the economy is why Trump won is that Clinton won among people who thought the economy was the most important issue by 52% to 41%.

Also, Clinton won among people who thought the economy was the most important issue in Pennsylvania (50% to 46%), Michigan (51% to 43%), Wisconsin (53% to 42%) and Ohio (49% to 46%). So the idea that it was the economy that got Trump elected is pretty suspect. Especially since the Republican DID win among those who thought the economy was the most important issue during the previous Presidential Election (Romney 51%, Obama 47% among those who thought the economy was the most important issue).

Meanwhile, in the absence of direct polling on the role of cultural issues like abortion and homosexual marriage, we have White Evangelical Christians voting for Trump by a greater margin then they voted for Romney, McCain, or George W. Bush. And they voted so strongly for Trump that Trump was able to win in spite of losing by nearly a 2:1 margin (60% to 34%) among the other 74% of the people who voted.

And how accurate are these exit polls? People who vote early aren't being included in exit polls. People who vote by mail aren't being included in exit polls. People who ignore the exit pollsters aren't being included in exit polls, wherether because they are in a hurry or don't feel like dealing with them. I've never been in an exit poll, and never will be. And I'm sure I have lots of company in that regard. Heck, if I recall right, the exit polls showed Trump losing a bunch of the states that he won..