Have Republicans flip-flopped on "Trickle Down"?

[rdean]

Remember when Democrats brought up the fact that the top 1% weren't being taxed fairly? Republicans would say you are just jealous. That those are the "job CREATORS" and the "Producers"?

Their entire plan was that if you get enough money to the "job CREATORS" they will create jobs.

Well, now the corporations are making money hand over fist. The income gap is enormous.

And Republicans are now complaining about the income gap? But I thought that was the plan?

 

[sarahgop]

I dont think the GOP stands for anything except rape, cheap labor, and a few billionaires.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I dont think the GOP stands for anything except rape, cheap labor, and a few billionaires.

Are you ever embarrassed by the stupid shit you post?
Rape?

Seek medical attention

 

[sarahgop]

I dont think the GOP stands for anything except rape, cheap labor, and a few billionaires.

Are you ever embarrassed by the stupid shit you post?
Rape?

Seek medical attention

Sadly, women will be seeking medical attention just like the women of germany.

 

[Boss]

Remember when Democrats brought up the fact that the top 1% weren't being taxed fairly? Republicans would say you are just jealous. That those are the "job CREATORS" and the "Producers"?

Their entire plan was that if you get enough money to the "job CREATORS" they will create jobs.

Well, now the corporations are making money hand over fist. The income gap is enormous.

And Republicans are now complaining about the income gap? But I thought that was the plan?

Which GOP are you talking about? The Establishment GOP who are beholden to crony corporatists and Big Government? Or the Conservative base of the GOP?

And why do you continue to yammer about the "top 1%" in relation to income taxes? We don't tax wealth in America, we tax earned incomes. Those who are paying the taxes on the top 1% of earned income are not "the wealthiest 1%" Two different things.

Corporations don't pay income tax. They pay corporate taxes. You can raise the income tax rates to 100% and it doesn't bother corporations at all. The top income earners in America are mostly small business entrepreneurs. They create about 80% of the jobs in America and when you raise their taxes it hurts their ability to create new jobs. The ones who capitalize on this are the corporations who don't have to pay the income tax.

 

[Grandma]

Boss, they don't pay corporate taxes. There are so many fookin' loopholes and shelters that we the taxpayers are giving them refunds!

You wanna suck up to them, fine, but the rest of America's sick of it.

 

[Boss]

Boss, they don't pay corporate taxes. There are so many fookin' loopholes and shelters that we the taxpayers are giving them refunds!

You wanna suck up to them, fine, but the rest of America's sick of it.

No, we have the highest corporate tax rates in the world. There are some loopholes but most of them are creations of establishment politicians from both sides to repay their donors. I don't stick up for crony corporatists, they are killing American small business faster and more efficiently than liberal socialists. But none of this has anything to do with income tax rates or the "top 1%" of wealth in the country.

And I think what America is sick of is a bunch of rich liberals telling us we're poor because of other rich people.

 

[emilynghiem]

I dont think the GOP stands for anything except rape, cheap labor, and a few billionaires.

Are you ever embarrassed by the stupid shit you post?
Rape?

Seek medical attention

Sadly, women will be seeking medical attention just like the women of germany.

Hi sarahgop are you using sarcasm to rile up sympathy for the GOP
by making opposing criticisms look as mindless as possible?

ALL I see on here are rightwing posts screaming that liberals and feminists are silent on the rapes by ISIS and now asylum seekers.

Now you come in saying they support rape.
Can you explain where you got that, what you are referring to?

I only see the opposite on here, Republicans and Conservatives
that taunt Liberals and Democrats for not responding to the rapes in Europe and Africa, presumably because it's by Islamic men.

Can you explain your viewpoint? Here or in the Bullring?
If not, how about the Flame Zone or Rubber Room where I think your threads will end up soon. Thanks!

 

[BluesLegend]

Let the liberals speak, I love it when they tell us who they really are.

 

[emilynghiem]

Remember when Democrats brought up the fact that the top 1% weren't being taxed fairly? Republicans would say you are just jealous. That those are the "job CREATORS" and the "Producers"?

Their entire plan was that if you get enough money to the "job CREATORS" they will create jobs.

Well, now the corporations are making money hand over fist. The income gap is enormous.

And Republicans are now complaining about the income gap? But I thought that was the plan?

The GREENS have it right. The problem is that with corporations claiming personhood and individual rights, there is no check on these collective institutions with greater power, similar to govt, vs. individuals.
the Bill of Rights protecting individual rights from collective abuse of govt power and oppression
is bypassed by corporations claiming to be private, yet having collective influence similar to govt.

So the solution is either to add requirements to corporations tied to their licenses to operate per state.
And/or teach all citizens including those in corporations and in govt, to all follow the same Constitutional standards used to limit govt and prevent from violating the rights of individuals.

rdean the liberals tend to push for dependence on govt to police corporations, action by action, so it become micromanagement and regulation for every industry and instance of corporate power.

Why not make a general procedure that applies to ALL corporations regardless of function.
And require that there be a similar system of defense and due process allowing citizens
to bring grievances and complaints of abuses and violations to the CORPORATION to
be redressed, similar to OSHA complaints that have a process of issuing and resolving penalties
for code violations. Why not hold govt corporations and people equally accountable for
Constitutional and ethics violations, for the purpose of correction? If the people can petition
directly, then the govt can help manage the process, following steps prescribed in written laws,
but the actual corrections are decided case by case to answer the grievance. That way,
the govt is not expected to legislate and regulate every single case or company out there.

why not create a general process applying to all corporations to prevent abuse:
whether religious, political, educational, business, nonprofit or govt related corporate entity.
And base it on the standard Bill of Rights (and /or code of ethics for govt service)
ethics-commission.net

 

[NightFox]

Boss, they don't pay corporate taxes.

You're right, corporations don't pay corporate taxes they just collect them, their customers pay 'em in the form of higher prices and their employees pay 'em in the form of lower wages.

You want to raise corporate taxes then get ready to pay higher prices with lower wages.

TANSTAFL

 

[Boss]

The problem is that with corporations claiming personhood and individual rights, there is no check on these collective institutions with greater power, similar to govt, vs. individuals.

Corporations did not claim personhood. That is a liberal left-wing meme which you apparently bought into. Back during the 2008 elections, a company produced a video about then-candidate Hillary Clinton. The FEC declared the company had violated CFR laws which were new and unchallenged in court... the company sued and their case went before SCOTUS. The Supreme Court ruled the company was within it's 1st Amendment rights to free political speech to release and sell the video. This nullified that aspect of CFR as unconstitutional. Prior to CFR there wouldn't have been a case and it wouldn't have been an issue.

Corporations are comprised of people and people retain their constitutional rights without regard for the group they belong to. It's unconstitutional to deny them rights on the basis of their group. Corporations are not humanless lumbering entities operating of their own volition... they are groups of people who have the same constitutional rights as everyone else.

 

[Tehon]

The problem is that with corporations claiming personhood and individual rights, there is no check on these collective institutions with greater power, similar to govt, vs. individuals.

Corporations did not claim personhood. That is a liberal left-wing meme which you apparently bought into. Back during the 2008 elections, a company produced a video about then-candidate Hillary Clinton. The FEC declared the company had violated CFR laws which were new and unchallenged in court... the company sued and their case went before SCOTUS. The Supreme Court ruled the company was within it's 1st Amendment rights to free political speech to release and sell the video. This nullified that aspect of CFR as unconstitutional. Prior to CFR there wouldn't have been a case and it wouldn't have been an issue.

Corporations are comprised of people and people retain their constitutional rights without regard for the group they belong to. It's unconstitutional to deny them rights on the basis of their group. Corporations are not humanless lumbering entities operating of their own volition... they are groups of people who have the same constitutional rights as everyone else.

Corporations did not claim personhood.

Yeah they did, and it has nothing to do with Citizens United, which was just another court case in a long list of court cases going back to the early 1800's.

Corporations are comprised of people and people retain their constitutional rights without regard for the group they belong to. It's unconstitutional to deny them rights on the basis of their group.

And no one is trying to deny them their individual rights, on the basis of their group or otherwise.

Corporations are not humanless lumbering entities operating of their own volition.

They are legal entities granted charters by the State.

 

[Boss]

Yeah they did, and it has nothing to do with Citizens United, which was just another court case in a long list of court cases going back to the early 1800's.

No they didn't and this meme didn't start until the SCOTUS ruled on Citizens United. So let's stop with the rhetorical political pablum and act like grown people. Okay?

 

[Boss]

And no one is trying to deny them their individual rights, on the basis of their group or otherwise.

Damn straight they're not because it would violate their constitutional rights as decided in Citizens United by the Supreme Court.

Next?

 

[emilynghiem]

The problem is that with corporations claiming personhood and individual rights, there is no check on these collective institutions with greater power, similar to govt, vs. individuals.

Corporations did not claim personhood. That is a liberal left-wing meme which you apparently bought into. Back during the 2008 elections, a company produced a video about then-candidate Hillary Clinton. The FEC declared the company had violated CFR laws which were new and unchallenged in court... the company sued and their case went before SCOTUS. The Supreme Court ruled the company was within it's 1st Amendment rights to free political speech to release and sell the video. This nullified that aspect of CFR as unconstitutional. Prior to CFR there wouldn't have been a case and it wouldn't have been an issue.

Corporations are comprised of people and people retain their constitutional rights without regard for the group they belong to. It's unconstitutional to deny them rights on the basis of their group. Corporations are not humanless lumbering entities operating of their own volition... they are groups of people who have the same constitutional rights as everyone else.

Hi Boss I am talking about the LONGER history.
the way the GREENS teach it, you can even trace "corporate developers" to COLONIZATION
where monied interests from EUROPE funded the Explorers to claim land in America.
So those were the first global corporate interests to start paying to seize property for PROFITS.
Queen Isabella of Spain PAYING and INVESTING resources in sending Columbus, etc.

Is this any real big deal Boss?

Other earlier knowledge of this concept:
* JEFFERSON gave warnings of large corporate interests.
* CHARLES TAZE RUSSELL is credited for visionary warnings of corporate giants as dangerous "hybrids" mixing the wisdom of advanced civilization with the hearts of selfish men:
charles taze russell - official website

Boss how hard is it to see the 'age old wisdom' that power concentrated in the hands of the few at the top is going to be harder to check by the masses at the bottom separated by a hierarcy?

How Corporations Got The Same Rights As People (But Don't Ever Go To Jail)
^ Here, in 1819 ^ the Supreme Court is commonly cited for recognizing the rights of corporations as legal entities or persons.

Boss I'm not saying corporate protections are "evil in themselves" but that they need to be checked
for the same reasons we need the Bill of Rights to check collective govt!
Does that make Govt evil, just because Govt can be abused if it isn't checked?

I'm sure you understand that
* collective influence and authority of LARGE RELIGIOUS GROUPS can get corrupted and abuse
and thus need to be checked
* or large POLITICAL groups, like lobbies/PACS, parties, and political organizations need to be
checked from abuse
* GOVT wields collective power that affects the greater public, so that needs to be checked

So why not
* business corporations where collective influence and authority can be abused and needs to be checked

How is this NOT natural law and Common Sense?
Boss if you have a large school full of students, teachers and staff;
don't you think any large body of people needs rules and a system to address violations?

This is similar but with ANY large business or other organization.
Shouldn't we agree on a set procedure with equal access for the public to check against abuses?
=======================================================
Corporate Personhood

Introduction to Corporate Personhood

Our Bill of Rights was the result of tremendous efforts to institutionalize and protect the rights of human beings. It strengthened the premise of our Constitution: that the people are the root of all power and authority for government. This vision has made our Constitution and government a model emulated in many nations.
But corporate lawyers (acting as both attorneys and judges) subverted our Bill of Rights in the late 1800’s by establishing the doctrine of “corporate personhood” — the claim that corporations were intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings.
We believe that corporations are not persons and possess only the privileges we willfully grant them. Granting corporations the status of legal “persons” effectively rewrites the Constitution to serve corporate interests as though they were human interests. Ultimately, the doctrine of granting constitutional rights to corporations gives a thing illegitimate privilege and power that undermines our freedom and authority as citizens. While corporations are setting the agenda on issues in our Congress and courts, We the People are not; for we can never speak as loudly with our own voices as corporations can with the unlimited amplification of money.

 

[Boss]

The problem is that with corporations claiming personhood and individual rights, there is no check on these collective institutions with greater power, similar to govt, vs. individuals.

Corporations did not claim personhood. That is a liberal left-wing meme which you apparently bought into. Back during the 2008 elections, a company produced a video about then-candidate Hillary Clinton. The FEC declared the company had violated CFR laws which were new and unchallenged in court... the company sued and their case went before SCOTUS. The Supreme Court ruled the company was within it's 1st Amendment rights to free political speech to release and sell the video. This nullified that aspect of CFR as unconstitutional. Prior to CFR there wouldn't have been a case and it wouldn't have been an issue.

Corporations are comprised of people and people retain their constitutional rights without regard for the group they belong to. It's unconstitutional to deny them rights on the basis of their group. Corporations are not humanless lumbering entities operating of their own volition... they are groups of people who have the same constitutional rights as everyone else.

Hi Boss I am talking about the LONGER history.
the way the GREENS teach it, you can even trace "corporate developers" to COLONIZATION
where monied interests from EUROPE funded the Explorers to claim land in America.
So those were the first global corporate interests to start paying to seize property for PROFITS.
Queen Isabella of Spain PAYING and INVESTING resources in sending Columbus, etc.

Is this any real big deal Boss?

Other earlier knowledge of this concept:
* JEFFERSON gave warnings of large corporate interests.
* CHARLES TAZE RUSSELL is credited for visionary warnings of corporate giants as dangerous "hybrids" mixing the wisdom of advanced civilization with the hearts of selfish men:
charles taze russell - official website

Boss how hard is it to see the 'age old wisdom' that power concentrated in the hands of the few at the top is going to be harder to check by the masses at the bottom separated by a hierarcy?

How Corporations Got The Same Rights As People (But Don't Ever Go To Jail)
^ Here, in 1819 ^ the Supreme Court is commonly cited for recognizing the rights of corporations as legal entities or persons.

Boss I'm not saying corporate protections are "evil in themselves" but that they need to be checked
for the same reasons we need the Bill of Rights to check collective govt!
Does that make Govt evil, just because Govt can be abused if it isn't checked?

I'm sure you understand that
* collective influence and authority of LARGE RELIGIOUS GROUPS can get corrupted and abuse
and thus need to be checked
* or large POLITICAL groups, like lobbies/PACS, parties, and political organizations need to be
checked from abuse
* GOVT wields collective power that affects the greater public, so that needs to be checked

So why not
* business corporations where collective influence and authority can be abused and needs to be checked

How is this NOT natural law and Common Sense?
Boss if you have a large school full of students, teachers and staff;
don't you think any large body of people needs rules and a system to address violations?

This is similar but with ANY large business or other organization.
Shouldn't we agree on a set procedure with equal access for the public to check against abuses?
=======================================================
Corporate Personhood

Introduction to Corporate Personhood

Our Bill of Rights was the result of tremendous efforts to institutionalize and protect the rights of human beings. It strengthened the premise of our Constitution: that the people are the root of all power and authority for government. This vision has made our Constitution and government a model emulated in many nations.
But corporate lawyers (acting as both attorneys and judges) subverted our Bill of Rights in the late 1800’s by establishing the doctrine of “corporate personhood” — the claim that corporations were intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings.
We believe that corporations are not persons and possess only the privileges we willfully grant them. Granting corporations the status of legal “persons” effectively rewrites the Constitution to serve corporate interests as though they were human interests. Ultimately, the doctrine of granting constitutional rights to corporations gives a thing illegitimate privilege and power that undermines our freedom and authority as citizens. While corporations are setting the agenda on issues in our Congress and courts, We the People are not; for we can never speak as loudly with our own voices as corporations can with the unlimited amplification of money.

What you are doing is blowing the trumpet of Socialists who didn't like the Citizen's United ruling. No one wants to rewrite the Constitution and have it where Corporations get to go vote at the ballot box or draw Social Security benefits. We have a bunch of very smart and clever liberal politicos out there who are bringing up an argument made back in 1800 by corporate interests who felt they needed a representative voice in government the same as the people and states. The argument was settled then and hasn't been an issue until now. It was settled because the corporation already has a voice in government through the individual and their constitutional rights.

When CFR was passed by Congress, it restricted the rights of individuals belonging to a specific group... a corporation. Citizen's United was the case which challenged that new law and the SCOTUS ruled appropriately. SCOTUS did not grant rights or confer "personhood" on corporations or corporate entities. They upheld the constitutional rights of individuals belonging to a corporation, thus, the corporation itself.

 

[emilynghiem]

Corporations are comprised of people and people retain their constitutional rights without regard for the group they belong to. It's unconstitutional to deny them rights on the basis of their group. Corporations are not humanless lumbering entities operating of their own volition... they are groups of people who have the same constitutional rights as everyone else.

(A)
^ WHOA Boss ^ I didn't say anything about depriving people of their rights to do LEGAL things using Corporate structure.

I am saying to add into the licensing some protection against doing UNLAWFUL things,
like conspiring to violate civil rights in ways that aren't PREVENTED or CHECKED enough.

Currently, corporations can be abused to do wrongs WITHOUT CHECK, by overpowering the individuals because of UNEQUAL legal and political resources, and thus get away with "conflicts of interest".
So they can justify abusing power and resources, by getting in cahoots with courts and politicians.

There is nothing wrong with adding requirements into the licensing and registration to address this
(like how nonprofits have to follow rules on bylaws, boards, voting and quorums at meetings, etc.)

It CAN be done without individuals losing rights.
We can keep the good benefits and advantages that corporate structure offers.
I am not saying to abandon or undercut that.

But still add preventative measures -- such as requiring an agreed grievance/mediation process
instead of "corporations with more money" having better "legal defense than individuals who
can't compete"; if this imbalance in power is ABUSED to censor the democratic process,
then it is failing Constitutional standards.

Do you REALLY have objections to people learning to use their democratic processes ethically?

(B) Boss I can give you examples of corporations doing more damage than the individuals by themselves.
1. The hostile takeover of Pacific Lumber by MAXXAM corporation, abusing taxpaid S&L junk bonds
that failed and were bailed out by taxpayers, in order to GUT and DESTROY pristine redwood rainforest,river ecosystems, and endangered species.

2. ordinances and actions by the City of Houston, acting as a private Municipality or corporate interest ie "collective entity", that were unconstitutional and challenged by the people, but weren't corrected
until AFTER the damage was done and it cost taxpayers millions more to correct the problem legally.

3. More specifically the City of Houston has, either by neglect or active demolition,
DESTROYED national historic landmarks because there wasn't an agreed check on the city
that was directing funds elsewhere.

^ In all these cases, had corporations been required to respect Constitutional ethics and standards, then any conflicts can be resolved in advance. Boss with saving endangered redwood forest and species,
and with saving national history THERE IS NO RECOURSE AFTER THE DAMAGE IS DONE.
The key is prevention of abuse to begin with, by the boards redressing grievances instead of waiting.

You are missing my points of why corporations are abused beyond ability to check individuals.
The larger corporations have more political influence as well as economic resources; so when it comes to violating civil rights of individuals, corporations have an unfair advantage

 

[emilynghiem]

The problem is that with corporations claiming personhood and individual rights, there is no check on these collective institutions with greater power, similar to govt, vs. individuals.

Corporations did not claim personhood. That is a liberal left-wing meme which you apparently bought into. Back during the 2008 elections, a company produced a video about then-candidate Hillary Clinton. The FEC declared the company had violated CFR laws which were new and unchallenged in court... the company sued and their case went before SCOTUS. The Supreme Court ruled the company was within it's 1st Amendment rights to free political speech to release and sell the video. This nullified that aspect of CFR as unconstitutional. Prior to CFR there wouldn't have been a case and it wouldn't have been an issue.

Corporations are comprised of people and people retain their constitutional rights without regard for the group they belong to. It's unconstitutional to deny them rights on the basis of their group. Corporations are not humanless lumbering entities operating of their own volition... they are groups of people who have the same constitutional rights as everyone else.

Hi Boss I am talking about the LONGER history.
the way the GREENS teach it, you can even trace "corporate developers" to COLONIZATION
where monied interests from EUROPE funded the Explorers to claim land in America.
So those were the first global corporate interests to start paying to seize property for PROFITS.
Queen Isabella of Spain PAYING and INVESTING resources in sending Columbus, etc.

Is this any real big deal Boss?

Other earlier knowledge of this concept:
* JEFFERSON gave warnings of large corporate interests.
* CHARLES TAZE RUSSELL is credited for visionary warnings of corporate giants as dangerous "hybrids" mixing the wisdom of advanced civilization with the hearts of selfish men:
charles taze russell - official website

Boss how hard is it to see the 'age old wisdom' that power concentrated in the hands of the few at the top is going to be harder to check by the masses at the bottom separated by a hierarcy?

How Corporations Got The Same Rights As People (But Don't Ever Go To Jail)
^ Here, in 1819 ^ the Supreme Court is commonly cited for recognizing the rights of corporations as legal entities or persons.

Boss I'm not saying corporate protections are "evil in themselves" but that they need to be checked
for the same reasons we need the Bill of Rights to check collective govt!
Does that make Govt evil, just because Govt can be abused if it isn't checked?

I'm sure you understand that
* collective influence and authority of LARGE RELIGIOUS GROUPS can get corrupted and abuse
and thus need to be checked
* or large POLITICAL groups, like lobbies/PACS, parties, and political organizations need to be
checked from abuse
* GOVT wields collective power that affects the greater public, so that needs to be checked

So why not
* business corporations where collective influence and authority can be abused and needs to be checked

How is this NOT natural law and Common Sense?
Boss if you have a large school full of students, teachers and staff;
don't you think any large body of people needs rules and a system to address violations?

This is similar but with ANY large business or other organization.
Shouldn't we agree on a set procedure with equal access for the public to check against abuses?
=======================================================
Corporate Personhood

Introduction to Corporate Personhood

Our Bill of Rights was the result of tremendous efforts to institutionalize and protect the rights of human beings. It strengthened the premise of our Constitution: that the people are the root of all power and authority for government. This vision has made our Constitution and government a model emulated in many nations.
But corporate lawyers (acting as both attorneys and judges) subverted our Bill of Rights in the late 1800’s by establishing the doctrine of “corporate personhood” — the claim that corporations were intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings.
We believe that corporations are not persons and possess only the privileges we willfully grant them. Granting corporations the status of legal “persons” effectively rewrites the Constitution to serve corporate interests as though they were human interests. Ultimately, the doctrine of granting constitutional rights to corporations gives a thing illegitimate privilege and power that undermines our freedom and authority as citizens. While corporations are setting the agenda on issues in our Congress and courts, We the People are not; for we can never speak as loudly with our own voices as corporations can with the unlimited amplification of money.

What you are doing is blowing the trumpet of Socialists who didn't like the Citizen's United ruling. No one wants to rewrite the Constitution and have it where Corporations get to go vote at the ballot box or draw Social Security benefits. We have a bunch of very smart and clever liberal politicos out there who are bringing up an argument made back in 1800 by corporate interests who felt they needed a representative voice in government the same as the people and states. The argument was settled then and hasn't been an issue until now. It was settled because the corporation already has a voice in government through the individual and their constitutional rights.

When CFR was passed by Congress, it restricted the rights of individuals belonging to a specific group... a corporation. Citizen's United was the case which challenged that new law and the SCOTUS ruled appropriately. SCOTUS did not grant rights or confer "personhood" on corporations or corporate entities. They upheld the constitutional rights of individuals belonging to a corporation, thus, the corporation itself.

======================
WHAAATTT??? Boss I am not even talking about the
Citizens Ruling that came much later -- I have my OWN solution that doesn't involve fighting the campaign issue this way AT ALL -- it's called CONSENSUS on policy decisions so that nobody can buy the vote or ruling of ANY office holder. So corporations or whoever can give as much money as they want and it DOESN'T AFFECT the decisions requiring CONSENSUS with the citizens affected.

That bypasses the campaign worries altogether. by making CONSENSUS the standard.

==============
What I'm talking about is the natural law that once you get a collective number of people in a group to form a separate entity, there has to be "checks and balances" and some "due process" to balance the interests of the INDIVIDUALS with the interest of the greater entity. That's just natural law.

That's why we have a Constitution outlining the separation of powers and checks and balances.
That's why we have a Bill of Rights added on as a condition on the Constitution being adopted.

Corporations are another form of "collective institution" that can be abused beyond the scope of an individual.

Surely Boss you understand the concept the "whole is greater than the sum of the parts"

I think you are sidetracked because you are assuming I only start the discussion with the Citizens United issue. No, I actually finished my argument before that even came up and didn't really see that issue as helping address the real problem. So I haven't championed or taken sides with the CU issue.

To me the issue is preventing collective authority from being abused to suppress individuals
because of the unequal access to resources especially legal defense and political influence.

it is simple math to compare collective influence with individual and know to be careful
that the larger source of pressure doesn't bully over or exclude the individual interest.

Sorry if you can't get that CU argument out of your head, but that's not where I am at all.
I don't even worry about that, because the consensus process would prevent that abuse.

 

[rdean]

I dont think the GOP stands for anything except rape, cheap labor, and a few billionaires.

Are you ever embarrassed by the stupid shit you post?
Rape?

Seek medical attention

They were talking about "legitimate" rape. The GOP is experts on that.