Slashdot Mirror
Bernie Sanders Comes Out Against CISA
erier2003 writes: Sen. Bernie Sanders' opposition to the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act in its current form aligns him with privacy advocates and makes him the only presidential candidate to stake out that position, just as cybersecurity issues loom large over the 2016 election, from email server security to the foreign-policy implications of data breaches. The Senate is preparing to vote on CISA, a bill to address gaps in America's cyberdefenses by letting corporations share threat data with the government. But privacy advocates and security experts oppose the bill because customers' personal information could make it into the shared data.
You mean besides John McAfee. Who is also certifiably insane, but at least manages to be interesting while being so.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
Why do you demonRATS waste your time with this loon? I wish this hippy generation which has inflicted us for 25 years would just go away.
Another sensible and patriotic policy position by Bernie Sanders.
With 50 states, there could be variations about all these civil rights / privacy / security issues and people could just live wherever they feel comfortable instead of putting everything into two irrelevantly similar baskets (political parties) and swinging from one to the other every 8 years.
Looking at how candidates are responding to this Rand Paul has been pushing several amendments addressing the privacy concerns of CISA.
Since Clinton opted to share everything up to top secret emails with the Russians, Chinese, or simply anyone skilled and a little curious she obviously doesn't see why it would matter to anyone if they were sharing data with a government.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I can detect almost zero correlation between presidential candidates' campaign promises, and how they'll act once in office. The only difference between elected presidents seems to be the way in which they'll screw over law-abiding, non-1%-wealthy citizens.
CISA attempts to increase the amount of shared knowledge about ongoing threats by creating a federal government bureaucracy which is supposed to facilitate communication. It grants immunity from law suits to any information shared through the new system.
This isn't necessary in order to achieve the goal. A federal program like this would be used almost exclusively by large companies, mom-and-pop shops aren't going to do 800 pages of paperwork to become a participating entity. Currently, the large companies who care about security -already- engage the services of security companies like Alert Logic or Fire Eye, who are -already- monitoring for security threats across their many client networks, and already raising the alarm when there are widespread indications of a threat in the current threat landscape. They do this without any special legal protection, and compete to see who can do it best. because they aren't immune from privacy lawsuits, they have to actually follow privacy laws (or try to, mistakes happen).
I seriously doubt that a government agency, with no motivation to do excellent work (but plenty of politically based mandates), would do better than the companies full of experts doing it already.
Also, the most important thing for companies in this space is their reputation - that their brand name is trusted. They have ample motivation to do everything in their power to be sure they don't -cause- a breach and to secure their own systems. Many of us know how secure government systems tend to be - almost as if they didn't care. Perhaps that is because hardly ever does any government program lose funding or any govt employee get fired for shoddy security. A breach of Fire Eye's network, or Alert Logic's, would have immediate and significant consequences for the company and the people responsible.
I think you have mistaken one's opinion with Libel.
You should probably eat a bag of dicks now
to the surprise of the media & the establishment, I suspect that if sanders gets the Dem nomination, he will find many followers in the rural and suburban white majority that is usually not democrat. Sanders does not like the open borders policies that some democrats advocate; he said open borders is how the plutocrats drive down wages... Sanders is not all that friendly towards gun control. Sanders is an old time leftist...maybe what we need....I hope it is sanders vs trump in the general election
church of the better resurrection... https://betterresurrectionchurch.wordpress.com/
How do you rationalize saying both "government is not my daddy" and "implement single-payer"?
Oh noes! Not progressive taxation! Never mind that back in the prosperous '50s "good ol' days" taxes here were even more progressive than they are now...
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I'm just curious as to which candidate best fits your ideological stance...
You do realize that in order for "no more bailouts" to be effective in not dragging our economy down if they are required, large companies (banks) need to be broken up into smaller more competitive (i.e. less powerful) entities. Banks like power, and don't want to be broken up into smaller more competitive chunks.
..and don't even get me started on reigning in the NSA. That's probably a bigger feat than breaking up the banks!
How do you propose these be accomplished?
How about go back to 1890s when there were much less tax and government spent only 10% of GDP. That is the time US increasing really fast.
While the legislation would never pass due to entrenched interests, the method is actually pretty simple: Tax them. If big companies have to pay extra taxes then they'll shrink down to whatever size is just below the threshold.
https://randpaul.com/f/stop-ci...
"Therefore: I agree that the Bill of Rights, including the Fourth Amendment, is non-negotiable and I urge you to Stand With Rand and oppose CISA."
You might want to read up some more on that period and how it went for the average citizen.
The Dems actually have a hell of a candidate in Webb, but he can't get support within his own party because he neither has a vagina nor does he spout socialist nonsense.
The bailouts should have COME WITH Antitrust legislation and a breakup. Especially since the reason we bailed them out is that they are "Too big to fail".
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Socialist leaders are either rich or stupid.
Therefore, they (the rich ones) know or they (the stupid ones) don't understand that income tax, which is for salary income, doesn't affect the richest people since their income originates from business operations or investments, which are lower taxed and are never targeted by socialists, but not from salary. So, progessive taxation only hurts the most productive workers in society, who don't have such huge investments but have enough resources to be mobile.
Ah, the Glided Age, when all the money went to Robber Barons, who owned the whole town, and brutally crushed any competition, often violently.
Good times.
That much is certain..
Best he can hope for is that Hillary get's charged with a crime due to this E-mail thing and has to drop out leaving only Biden and him. However, being she's not been charged yet, it's very doubtful she ever will.... Bernie has a snowballs chance in Death Valley a in mid summer heat wave... Shame though, as a republican it sure would be fun to watch him as the democratic contender...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
And who is spending the most on the candidates this election cycle?
(Hint: it ends with "anks" and doesn't start with Tom.)
The problem with progressive taxation is that it "progresses". Some European nations pay almost 70% of their income in taxes when it's all said and done.
At which point, they'll throw lots of money at the critters in congress who are writing the tax laws so that they include a few nice, shiny & new loopholes to get their net income below whatever threshold you, or anyone else, proposes.
Filled with aspertame, you know the shit of the ecoli virus.?
I don't know if you remember about this time in 2007, but Republicans said the exact same thing about Obama. How "Americans would never vote for a guy with the middle name "Hussein"" and "America wasn't ready for a black president". The entire campaign season, through April of 2008, was "Hillary is the presumptive nominee". Remember how Fox News had the "Stop Hillary Express"? Just don't be surprised if a filthy pro-gun socialist hippie is gonna drink up your milkshake.
Be careful what you wish for, Republicans. You might want to look at the turd logs in your own eye before howling about the speck in someone else's.
You are welcome on my lawn.
"Sen. Bernie Sanders' opposition to the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act in its current form aligns him with privacy advocates and makes him the only presidential candidate to stake out that position [...]"
Last time I check Rand Paul is a presidential advocate and he is obviously opposed to CISA.
https://randpaul.com/f/stop-cisa?sr=807fbnp1
What a stupid platform. No one cares about privacy and no one cares about the problems with elections. The whole world is controlled by a handful of greedy assholes. We should take a line from hitchhikers guide and accept that the president is a celebrity comedian meant to dristract you from real problems.
Yanks? That makes sense...
Wow! Very creative!
Bernie is actually polling significantly better than Hillary's opponent 8 years ago, at this point in the race. (hint: that was Obama)
Of course, that doesn't really guarantee anything ... but should be a good precedent to not rule anyone out quite yet.
because customers' personal information could make it into the shared data.
because customers' personal information *WOULD* make up a majority of the shared data.
TFTFY
Hillary has a vagina?
At which point, they'll throw lots of money at the critters in congress who are writing the tax laws so that they include a few nice, shiny & new loopholes to get their net income below whatever threshold you, or anyone else, proposes.
This is why corporations should be taxed on gross income, just like individuals. I don't get to deduct all my customary living expenses before paying tax on the balance of my income - if corporations are people (spit) why should they get to do so?
> How about the fact that he's one of the Benghazi conspiracy nutters?
The commission that -Hilary Clinton- appointed to investigate Benghazi found that "senior leadership of the state department " was reckless, in the face of clear warnings, to the point that it "suggests the appearance of intentional neglect". That's Clinton's very own commission who came to that conclusion.
Rand Paul (along with anyone who has been paying attention) agrees.
....what's Charlie Manson's position on CISA? What do you mean, he's not running? We're stuck with losers like Biden, Clinton, Trump and Sanders? Sheeeeiiiiit!
Oh Bernie would be huge fun for the republican field (even Trump).
Oh and I don't discount the history of Hillary and Obama... Sanders' situation is different.... 1. He's an avowed leftist socialist with a long political history (despite his attempts to claim otherwise). There is LOADS of video and audio material to use so he'd be easy to paint with that brush and where this appeals to the left of the Democratic party, it's a turn off to the center. (Obama was little known, except to people from IL so he was a blank slate and could be anything necessary to win). 2. He's male. This whole "war on women" thing which as been under development in the democratic party for more than a decade is not going to play in his favor like it will for Hillary. 3. He's white. Like it or not, Obama got a significant number of votes because of his skin color. I know the democrats don't like to admit this and the republicans like to make more out of it than it is, but in 2008 this was a unique thing. Obama's campaign played that angle and angered the Clintons by doing so having "used the race card on us" according to Bill Clinton who wasn't happy about it.
So, I really don't expect Sanders to last once Hillary's campaign gets underway. It's nearly 4 months before ANYBODY will be voting in the primaries, it is WAY too soon. Right now it's about MONEY and having enough of it to sustain your campaign though a couple of primary votes where you place high enough to get more MONEY. Right now, Hillary has the cash and all she needs to do is keep the front runner within reach, which isn't a problem because SHE is easily the front runner without spending a boat load yet. Sanders is whacking away at the little money he has already trying to stay relevant to the base and get as many donations as he can so he can weather the storm coming once the Clinton Campaign machine roars to life sometime near the holidays. I'm guessing she times it to start on new years and hit full tilt the second week in January. She will be handily on top of the polling by the start of February, unless something unforeseen happens with the E-mail thing (which is pretty remote unless she really is as stupid as "You mean wipe it with a cloth?" sounds, which I don't believe for a second).
No, Bernie is but a side show in the democratic nomination process and he will be lucky to be in this thing money wise by February. He's unlikely to get a even a prime time speaking slot at the convention and will not be anybody's choice for VP. As much as she likes to play dumb, Hillary knows this game and knows how it's played and she will run circles around Sanders with her knowledge and money.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The bailouts should have COME WITH Antitrust legislation and a breakup. Especially since the reason we bailed them out is that they are "Too big to fail".
Actually the bailed out banks should have probably been nationalized (the US owning all/most of the shares), and then once things were settled you could break them up a lot more easily (since the public owns them). Few contracts / loopholes.
... at increasing marginal rates, just like individuals. Corporate apologists spend a lot of time saying how un-empowered corporations are, but corporations can spend and keep money in ways a breathing taxpayer can only dream of. This concession to the love of money is what makes corporations so dangerous. Doubly so since there's no advantage to giving a corporation more money. It creates another problem as the corporation becomes "too big to fail", removing competition (among suppliers) from the market.
In reality, tax havens and tax breaks in other countries force corporate tax rates lower. It is another spiral to the worst-case scenario caused by 2 supposed servants of capitalism: Money and corporations.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see anywhere that's being quoted as saying he is the only one, or the first one, and I doubt he wrote the article.
X
So did Mitt Romney and John McCain.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The reason they got that big in the first place was due to government favoritism in return for campaign financing. At that level, everyone knows everyone else. The other issue is deficit spending. The ruling class is borrowing on the backs of the middle and lower classes, driving up inflation as well as taxation (increasing it just enough to cover the inflation in many cases).
There are no candidates that cover exactly these issues. The problem is that I think sanders is the obama of 08. The neo-JFK to rally the left wing base. Eventually he'll step down and throw his support for hillary (or whoever the front runner ends up being). European style socialism isnt' really that different economically than the USSR. Look what the EU has done to greece...and thanks to all the propaganda over several generations, what did greece do when given another chance? They voted in a far left government. What do you think they will do? Pay off the debt? Hardly.
Or they'll pass the taxes on to customers in the form of fees.
So did Mitt Romney and John McCain.
Not nearly as many. Despite what gets said about racism in this country, the truth is there are far fewer actual racists than there used to be, especially among white Anglo Saxon population, even in the south. There is no way to really know exactly what the numbers would be had the color of the candidates been different, but I can assure you more voted for Obama because "he looks like me" than voted for Romney or McCain for the same reason.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders
Judaism + Socialism claims to be against fascism. (From the summary: "letting corporations share threat data with the government.")
Too many isms come from Judaism. No thanks. Take all the isms and shitcan them. Learn to think without pre-packaged isms.
We have had too much of the Jewish dream already.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
http://www.zerohedge.com/category/tags/otc-derivatives
http://investmentwatchblog.com/90-of-700-trillion-derivatives-market-contracts-held-by-jpmorgan-goldman-sachs-bofa-citigroup-and-wells-fargo/
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/02/16/who-owns-bank-of-america.aspx
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/02/20/who-owns-wells-fargo.aspx
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/02/19/who-owns-jpmorgan-chase.aspx
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/02/22/who-owns-goldman-sachs.aspx
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/02/21/who-owns-citigroup.aspx
http://ftmdaily.com/preparing-for-the-collapse-of-the-petrodollar-system/
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fiatmoney.asp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu_VqX6J93k
http://www.bis.org/statistics/derstats.htm
https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/
^^very concise breakdown of the TPP without miles of rigamarole legalese
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Froman
^^Jewish TPP (incumbent)
https://encrypted.google.com/#q=yellen+bernanke+greenspan+jewish
And so on.. and so on.. and so on.. No thanks. Never met the guy and I wouldn't take his microphone like #blacklivesmatter girls did either. It would be a fool's errand to increase USA Jewry. That is the opposite of solving the problems. 18 Trillion dollars in debt with anti-Christian chicken whirling baby penis sucking Jews running the money and the propaganda conduits.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhJSA9PUAJ0
The economy is dragged down by the bailouts, bailouts are always the wrong thing to do if you are looking for a sound economy in the long run and not for a repeat of the same problem down the road only bigger and worse.
You can't handle the truth.
So, you don't know, but you can "assure me..."?
Friend, your battle flag is showing.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The Clinton campaign machine hasn't even been started yet and Sanders has apparently struggled to match her in the polls. She's not worried, nor should she be. Hillary is out running his campaign's funding 3 to 1 and out spending him by the same margin. Hillary has twice the amount of cash on hand and is taking in 3 times as much. Sanders will make a show, but unless he has a winning streak in February and places first in the majority of the initial primary states, he's going to slowly be bled dry of cash and donations in states where his socialist populist play won't resonate very well with democratic voters.
Unless Sanders tops Hillary by at least 10 points in the polls moving into when the actual voting starts, don't fool yourself. His path to the Whitehouse involves some pretty improbable things happening along the way.
However, I do admit there are two wild cards which could help him. Hillary's difficulties with this E-mail server thing and Biden's entry into the race at some point. Depending on exactly how all that happens, he *might* be in contention. But things will have to play out almost exactly right for Sanders. Clearly this E-mail thing is hurting Clinton and Clearly Biden is waiting for something to throw his hat into the ring or not. If Hillary takes a dive on the E-mail thing, withdraws and Biden jumps in at the same time, Sanders is in the same place. But if Biden jumps in late (after the primaries start) and/or Hillary gets forced into withdrawing late there just might be enough daylight for Sanders to squeak in. Any other possible scenario kills him either by the Clinton campaign machine or the seasoned Biden who will have all the money at that point... Even if Hillary shrugs off the scandal (which I expect) and Biden jumps in before the primaries start in Feb 2016, Sanders will loose nearly all his funding and die quickly after the first set or primaries, with Hillary likely winning the nomination fight over Biden fairly late in the process.
If it plays out surprise free and it's not Hillary, it's going to be Biden and not Sanders.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I grew up in a poor part of a southern state as minority poor white trash though my family was not indigenous. I was from northern roots where color didn't mean anything, yet we ended up there where it did. The high school I went to was over 90% of one race, and it wasn't white. I don't consider myself an expert in race relations, but I survived and escaped from the very hell hole where the racial divide is very apparent and deep rooted on both sides. As an outsider, I observed both sides of this issue, at least as it existed where I lived. I can assure you that my former classmates, unless they have changed their perspectives over the last 30 years, would have been motivated by the common color to actually turn out to vote. That the Junior Senator from IL enjoyed exceptional turnout among those of common race at a much higher level than those voting for either McCain or Romney for the same reasons. Of this I'm totally sure, and the exit polling shows for BOTH of the last two elections.
Your mileage may vary... But IMHO you'd be wrong.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Sure, if you want to abolish the military, open the borders to accept anyone who's physically capable of reaching the US, abandon all regulation of environment, food and drugs, and hand over control of the cities to gangs - then that's totally doable.
On the other hand, if you actually want the government to do stuff, that costs money.
Never mind that back in the prosperous '50s "good ol' days" taxes here were even more progressive than they are now...
I prefer progressive taxation, but this is a myth.
Back in the 50s, there were so many loop-holes in the tax laws, that almost no one paid the full rate. To pay it, you basically had to get your entire income as salary (which is why some athletes were among those in the highest tax bracket). I'll bet you can think of ways to avoid that kind of tax, structuring your income to not be salary (or hourly).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
How do you propose these be accomplished?
Create the FBIC (Federal Bailout Insurance Corporation). Banks and other organizations that are too big to fail (and any organization that wants the insurance) - and any institution having the special privilege of being a primary dealer with the Federal Reserve - have to buy Federal Bailout Insurance. Anyone who buys it can't have any transactions held in secret from the FBIC, so that they can analyze the risk and set the insurance rate. Once too big to fail means "must buy bailout insurance," they'll break themselves up by spinning off divisions so that they can avoid the burden of having to buy the insurance. Then, they'll try to gain the benefits of size w/o being big by colluding, and the SEC can put people in jail (you know, if they ever actually did that to their buddies on the other side of the revolving door).
There are more racists in the north than the south ever dreamed of having - and yes, I'm not white. Well, not totally. They're just a little more subtle about it.
Don't take offense but the north reminds me of this "joke" which, while sort of funny, is still all too true...
Q: When does a black man become a nigger?
A: When he leaves the room.
Funny? Maybe a little, I guess - I'm part black. (I'm Native American, White, and have somewhere under 1/8 black in me. Not a whole lot but my hair shows it.) What it really is, is a sad statement of how it really is in the north. I've been all over this country - literally. There's no racism like the 'not racists.' The reason they're not racists is because there's nobody there but white people.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
You know you can incorporate and actually write a whole lot of shit off, right? Seriously - spend the money to hire a lawyer and get an accountant. I know that it costs you money but it actually saves you money in the long run. You need a president, a vice president, and a treasurer. They can't be the same people, obviously. They can be family. Then start a family business - do so, for real.
Go fix a computer or two for a few bucks on the weekends. Don't get fake receipts. Make investments. Operate as a business. Check with a lawyer and an accountant. You'd be amazed what you can write off. If you're daring you can start a contracting business and hire yourself to do the job you're currently doing. (Really, check with a lawyer.)
Just make sure you also do other business instead of just working that one job. (Did I mention checking with a lawyer?) And keep accurate records - now your vehicle is a company asset (also an accountant - check with one of those) and things like your computer's depreciation are now valid concerns at tax time. (Don't forget a lawyer.)
Your total business doesn't even have to turn a profit every year. You can 'lose' money to save money. This is not tax evasion - tax evasion is illegal. This is tax avoidance and some say it is your duty to do so. (Don't forget that lawyer.)
I am not a lawyer nor an accountant. This is neither legal advice nor accounting advice. If I were a lawyer I'd sure as hell not be your lawyer and this is in no way considered advice beyond suggesting you check with qualified professionals.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Probably 'shanks.' It's the prison industrial complex in action.
History is not a strong topic of yours.
The bailouts should have COME WITH Antitrust legislation and a breakup. Especially since the reason we bailed them out is that they are "Too big to fail".
Actually the bailed out banks should have probably been nationalized (the US owning all/most of the shares), and then once things were settled you could break them up a lot more easily (since the public owns them). Few contracts / loopholes.
But that's Socialist. Every time I hear someone claim that Obama is a socialist, I think of how he handled the banks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
I have literally never heard anyone publicly support Hillary (other than a few people who actually admit things like "I just want a female president"). I hear glowing things about Bernie every day, from all aspects of the political spectrum.
Yeah, he's behind in polls right now because most people vote for who they've heard of more than anything else, and Clinton is a household name. Bernie's support is growing at record speeds, though, and there's still plenty of time to go before primaries.
https://www.isidewith.com/elec... because it is better to vote rationally. Unfortunately most people will vote emotionally.
People still will vote for the party they have always been voting for, even when the ideas do not agree with their own, because voting for the other is even worse, for whatever reason.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
The bailouts should have COME WITH Antitrust legislation and a breakup. Especially since the reason we bailed them out is that they are "Too big to fail".
A lot of shit happens that 'should' have been done differently but because the politicians are owned, entities like VW and the people running it who broke the law will go relatively unpunished due to a 'get out of jail free' clause in the 'clean air act'.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Just completely ignore the fact that Rand Paul has been opposing CISA since the moment it was disclosed, and is far more of a privacy advocate than Bernie Sanders could ever be. The only reason Bernie is opposed to it is because he's scraping for votes. He's an admitted, unabashed, and unrepentant statist who thinks big government involvement in every detail of your life is the solution to the world's ills.
You proved yourself a big talking blowhard Dave420 http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
APK
P.S.=> Anyone can "talk a game" Dave420 - very few of us actually play it (& you're not one of them, nor will you ever be - you're too stupid...)
... apk
You know what else Europe has? Air. So why don't you quit breathing?
To be honest, except for the military and borders part all the rest of that could be done by state or local governments.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I can tell you've never been to any of the "big cities" of the north. Chicago, Detroit, New York City, Philadelphia, Boston just to name a few are *very* diverse places. I have never claimed that racists don't exist, only that they are becoming less and less common, especially in the south where the older white Anglo Saxon racists are dying off faster than they get created. It is literally "out of style and out of step" to be white and hold racist views. The culture is changing.
A wise man once said that you will know when racism is gone because nobody will be talking about it anymore. I add that you can tell who the racists really are by who is talking the most about it.
BTW, your joke is offensive and not even a little funny to this old white guy from the south. I literally don't care and rarely notice the color of those around me. However, I do perceive that there are many who do care, mostly those who see an old white guy with a southern accent and assume I'm something I'm not and treat me differently. I've seen racism by whites and have been upset by it, not because it was directed at me, but because of how stupid their reasons are. I've also seen racism by blacks, which was directed towards me because of my color, and where it makes me uncomfortable, I don't let it upset me. I figure that the only way this ever really gets stopped is by being slow to take offense when treated badly, being quick to disapprove when others are treated badly and trying to treat others as would want to be treated. Until the majority adopt this view from all "sides", racism will still exist in some form.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
They could try but as long as there were other smaller competitors in the market then the customers wouldn't stand for it.
This is important, because this is how we can reign in corporate "free speech". The Constitution, so sayeth SCOTUS, might give corporations the rights of people, but nothing in the Constitution gives certain types of people a favorable tax status over others.
Now, we have a long tradition of granting favorable tax status to certain groups, but that tax status often comes with restrictions attached. For example, to be a non-profit corporation, a corporation person is often required to publish quite a lot more financial data than a for-profit corporation would of similar size and ownership. Those non-profit corporations might also be restricted from using their funds for political speech. If they violate these rules, they haven't necessarily broken a criminal law, but their favorable tax status can be revoked.
So why don't we just do the same with regular for-profit corporations? If you want any of the speech rights of a person, above and beyond trade speech required to market, sell, and service your products, you have to pay income tax on your gross, not net. If you and your shareholders prefer your favorable tax status, so you can go about your business of being a business, then stop pretending you are a person, limit your speech to trade speech, and go back to being what you are supposed to be.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
I've been from one side of this country to the other, from the top and to the bottom, across the continent in both directions, and across the globe. Your claim doesn't mimic my experiences and I expect, as an old white guy, you're probably not subjected to it and have a pretty piss poor ability to judge. But thanks for your opinion.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
You should stop listening to Fox News. You can get skewed statistics everywhere, but the raw numbers show Bernie dominating Hillary, and he's even got a fair number of Republicans choosing him over Trump. It's unprecedented how much popular support he has; never in American history has a presidential candidate gotten so much popular support. And he effectively has negative values of media coverage! This is why there are Bernie 2016 signs literally all over America. There is not a city in the US that doesn't have a strong Sanders volunteer group, even my podunk Conservative town has one!
Hillary can fight, but she can't win. Bernie is undercutting her in popularity by the day, and there is no sign of the trend reversing anytime soon.
You do realize that is a bot commenting, right? I've seen that exact same blurb posted all over the internet, word for word. There is no use in arguing with a bot. The conservative troll armada is in full fight mode.
Yes, after they make $100 million a year. I feel sooooo sorry for the rich kid that inherited his dad's inherited wealth and now has to pay the appropriate tax on his unearned income and STILL has $29 million a year to squeeze a yacht budget out of.
Well, I'm not a Sanders supporter, but I'm with him on this. I admire his relative consistency and his desire to run a clean campaign, but I think most of his policies won't work well. Still, he should be commended for having some integrity, unlike most of the other candidates.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
That's not correct, at least in terms of what people actually paid. Ostensibly, the rate was very high at the high income range, but very few people actually paid that, because there were even more (and larger) loopholes than there are now. Let's also not forget that the '50s were prosperous for America because most other developed countries had seen large parts of their industrial sectors destroyed (they were being rebuilt, yes, but still...) while America's was largely untouched.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Have you been to many "big cities" in the South? They're also pretty diverse. Honestly, I don't think it's a North/South thing; it tends to be more of a rural/city thing. Rural NY, for instance, is incredibly racist. New Orleans? Not really.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
You know, there is some truth to that, having lived both in very rural and very urban environments in my life.
But I would say that racists exist in both rural and urban areas, they just tend to be different colors, at least in my experience....
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
That's fair. I think rural racists also tend to be more open about it, while racists in cities are sometimes less public with their racism.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
What he said is that Clinton's bungle had the -effect- of hurting her campaign. She didn't fuck it up -in order- to damage her campaign. And the Obama State Department has said very clearly many times that she fucked up. It was a political gaffe to "take credit" for exposing her incompetence or disinterest in doing her job.
I would even beat the streets to campaign for Bernie Sanders if it wasn't for his ridiculous and lethal attitude for guns. That is a total deal breaker for what would otherwise be the only acceptable presidential candidate in the field right now. We need much less guns and much stronger restrictions while drastically reducing manufacturing of guns and ammunition. Unless of course we consider it the new normal to have regular mass shootings out of petty reasons and even toddlers shooting themselves or others on a weekly basis.