Elizabeth Warren is ready – in more ways than one

[iguanaman]

Well the concept isn't hard to understand.
Corporations are not people, but corporations are formed by groups of people.
If individuals have rights and groups of individuals still have the same rights, why would an incorporated group of people, not have the same rights?

So it is your determination that all people in a corporation are a monolithic entity with no individual rights so the corporation speaks for all of them? I did'nt realize that when I work for somebody I give up my political rights. Should Corporations vote instead of their employees too?

 

[BitterPill]

Yes we've already established that.
But if anything, all the "corporations as people" argument implies is that individuals don't lose their rights when they're in groups.

That's how I see it.

People carry their rights with them whether they are in groups or discrete individuals. No one is denying that fact.

Why can't corporations vote (yet)?

 

[Surrealistik]

Context is important. Nobody who knows anything about Warren believes she would effectively betray an entire career of consumer rights activism by being on Clinton's ticket. The worst case scenario in such a situation is that Clinton is President for the whole four years and Warren's agendas are permanently shelved for that duration.

If she would backstab Bernie for VP, and sit out the nomination process for Hillary to win it, I think such a betrayal is certainly possible; what you're describing is the best case scenario, where she ineffectually attempts to use her ornamental post of VP to steer Hillary to the left.

Personally I would much rather have her in the Senate where she has actual power and influence, and doesn't create, if nothing else, the implication of selling out her principles for the sake of a political appointment.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

So it is your determination that all people in a corporation are a monolithic entity with no individual rights so the corporation speaks for all of them? I did'nt realize that when I work for somebody I give up my political rights. Should Corporations vote instead of their employees too?

No that's not what I said.
Being employed by a corporation, does not mean being a member of said corporation, nor does it imply that you give your full and unfettered consent to speak for a person on any or every issue.

The world is more than black and white.

 

[Cardinal]

If she would backstab Bernie for VP, and sit out the nomination process for Hillary to win it, I think such a betrayal is certainly possible; what you're describing is the best case scenario, where she ineffectually attempts to use her ornamental post of VP to steer Hillary to the left.

Personally I would much rather have her in the Senate where she has actual power and influence, and doesn't create, if nothing else, the implication of selling out her principles for the sake of a political appointment.

As I said in the OP, I've always been under the impression that she wielded greater and more long-term power as Senator.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

People carry their rights with them whether they are in groups or discrete individuals. No one is denying that fact.

Why can't corporations vote (yet)?

Because the individuals vote.
That doesn't mean that a group can't pool their money together to amplify it, via a corporation.

 

[iguanaman]

Context is important. Nobody who knows anything about Warren believes she would effectively betray an entire career of consumer rights activism by being on Clinton's ticket. The worst case scenario in such a situation is that Clinton is President for the whole four years and Warren's agendas are permanently shelved for that duration.

When Warren was on Maddow she stated that she is looking forward to staying in the Senate so she can fight for what she believes in. Shr also was very clear that she believes that Hillary will be her strong ally in those endeavors. I have no reason to think she was lying.

 

[BitterPill]

Because the individuals vote.
That doesn't mean that a group can't pool their money together to amplify it, via a corporation.

Ahhh... the money.

I know many consider money free speech, particularly the corporate class. That means someone like, for example, Trump has much more free speech than you or I.

I will never buy that.

 

[jimbo]

And yet you're nevertheless whining about liars.

No whining. A statement of fact. Liz and Hillary are both proven liars.

But it's still not my job nor the subject of this thread.

 

[Howler63]

The Atlantic did an in-depth report on this topic and found that her profile listed her as a Native American, that Harvard touted her as Native American, that research could not be found to validate her "family story" and that (and this part is important) there is no evidence that she benefited professionally from this claim.

Is Elizabeth Warren Native American or What? - The Atlantic

On a related note, do you believe that Donald Trump is a liar?

Trump is a MASSIVE liar. As is Warren. As is Clinton.

We are, as a nation, ****ed.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Ahhh... the money.

I know many consider money free speech, particularly the corporate class. That means someone like, for example, Trump has much more free speech than you or I.

I will never buy that.

So we should stop people from being able to use money to support things they want?

 

[iguanaman]

No that's not what I said.
Being employed by a corporation, does not mean being a member of said corporation, nor does it imply that you give your full and unfettered consent to speak for a person on any or every issue.

The world is more than black and white.

When the fruits of your labor are being used for political effect without your consent does that not mean you are giving up your rights? This is what right wingers have been saying for years about Unions where there is a much more compelling reason that members would have a common cause that a union could support. Suddenly that is all forgotten, was that meme a lie?

 

[BitterPill]

So we should stop people from being able to use money to support things they want?

We should definitely limit the amount that people can spend -- people mind you -- to support their political causes, and that limit should be rather low so that even the poor can compete.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

When the fruits of your labor are being used for political effect without your consent does that not mean you are giving up your rights? This is what right wingers have been saying for years about Unions where there is a much more compelling reason that members would have a common cause that is supported. Suddenly that is all forgotten, was that meme a lie?

I don't know.
I don't support union membership as a requirement for being employed with someone, but a union can spend it on who they wish.
If someone doesn't like it, they can not be apart of the union.

 

[VanceMack]

Yeah, attacking the rich and business is a great platform for a politician. :roll: Yeah, I oppose this whole group of people, so vote for me.

That will be one of the many conflicts Hillary would face in choosing Warren. Kinda tough to attack the rich and bankers when your Pres nominee is covered head to toe in their spunk.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

We should definitely limit the amount that people can spend -- people mind you -- to support their political causes, and that limit should be rather low so that even the poor can compete.

Crazy thing is that, money is irrelevant when people are intelligent.

 

[Surrealistik]

Crazy thing is that, money is irrelevant when people are intelligent.

Unfortunately in practice it turns out that money does have an immensely distorting influence on politics and policy. This experiment has already been played out, and the results are not good: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

You can have (effectively) unlimited money in politics, or you can have a representative democracy; you cannot have both.

 

[Henrin]

People carry their rights with them whether they are in groups or discrete individuals. No one is denying that fact.

Why can't corporations vote (yet)?

Corporations are groups and not individuals. The last time I checked people vote as individuals, not as groups.

 

[BitterPill]

Crazy thing is that, money is irrelevant when people are intelligent.

Possibly.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Unfortunately in practice it turns out that money does have an immensely distorting influence on politics and policy. This experiment has already been played out, and the results are not good: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

You can have (effectively) unlimited money in politics, or you can have a representative democracy; you cannot have both.

I don't really care anymore.
If anything has been proven, that you can fool a sheer majority of people with simplistic beliefs and slogans.
Regardless of how unethical you are.

 

[BitterPill]

Corporations are groups and not individuals. The last time I checked people vote as individuals, not as groups.

If a corporation is a person, why can't it vote (yet)?

 

[American]

If you think she's a liar then odds are the only ammunition you have is the American Indian thing, a dead position you can't defend. And if that is in fact your position, then you were so far gone to the polar right end of the political spectrum that a thousand blowjobs by the Swedish Bikini Team couldn't have convinced you to vote for her.

Elizabeth Warren Accused Of Lying - Business Insider

 

[Henrin]

Ahhh... the money.

I know many consider money free speech, particularly the corporate class.

Money is one means in which people get their opinion heard.

That means someone like, for example, Trump has much more free speech than you or I.

And some people can't even speak at all, and yet they have first amendment rights all the same. The inequality in peoples abilities to practice their rights doesn't negate the rights existence.

 

[Surrealistik]

I don't really care anymore.
If anything has been proven, that you can fool a sheer majority of people with simplistic beliefs and slogans.
Regardless of how unethical you are.

You can certainly fool the Republicans; much less certain is whether the same is true for the population at large.

Beyond that though, yes, bottom line: money in politics needs to be curtailed if the integrity of democracy is valued.

 

[BitterPill]

Money is one means in which people get their opinion heard.

How does that work?

And some people can't even speak at all, and yet they have first amendment rights all the same. The inequality in peoples abilities to practice their rights doesn't negate the rights existence.

OK.

If a corporation is a person, why can't a corporation get drafted into the military and come home in a body bag?