What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[LaCroix]

We're talking past each other.  You just keep asserting the same premise over and over.  I've already explained why it doesn't hold.

that's exactly right. we both keep asserting the same premise over and over. you say corporate law is X, I say it appears there's room for it to be Y. you say it can't be Y for unknown reasons. I say it can be Y because X is pretty darn close to Y to the point it's not "crazy" that X can be Y. rinse and repeat

[grumbler]

We're talking past each other.  You just keep asserting the same premise over and over.  I've already explained why it doesn't hold.

that's exactly right. we both keep asserting the same premise over and over. you say corporate law is X, I say it appears there's room for it to be Y. you say it can't be Y for unknown reasons. I say it can be Y because X is pretty darn close to Y to the point it's not "crazy" that X can be Y. rinse and repeat

Minsky, if you haven't bailed yet you probably won't after this, but... really?  Is this "I say X can be Y because I want to believe that" even worth responding to?  I think the utility of having you explain corporate law so even people like me can understand it has been achieved, and anything further would be counter-productive.

[Syt]

Kremlin wants an apology from Fox News for the comments O'Reilly made about Putin: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-foxnews-kremlin-idUSKBN15L0XC?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=5898586204d301347c7b0a50&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook

[LaCroix]

  you're missing the context of the discussion, grumbler. you also haven't read the opinion or looked into the caselaw.

minsky is saying a private corporate controlling shareholder can't have a direct and personal interest in the following circumstance: government subjects corporation to a law that goes against the private corporate controlling shareholder's moral fiber. this is "crazy different" than the government subjecting the corporation to a law that prevents a private corporate controlling shareholder from practicing a particular trade.

"direct, personal" interest is not OK when it affects the person's moral character, but it's OK when it affects the person's desire for profit.

sure, one can easily drawn a distinction there, but it's also valid to reason if the latter has a "direct, personal" interest, then so does the former.

[mongers]

Kremlin wants an apology from Fox News for the comments O'Reilly made about Putin:

I can see why, Putin upset that Fox prompted Trump to lump Putin in with Trump administration's standards.

[The Minsky Moment]

you say corporate law is X, I say it appears there's room for it to be Y. you say it can't be Y for unknown reasons.

1.  Of course there is room for it change.  But the law itself provides the means for change.  For example, it doesn't permit federal appeals court to change state corporate law.

2.  I think I have explained why this particular change is not desirable, even if were it achieved in a lawful way.  Separating the entity from the shareholder is really the sine qua non of a corporation.  If that is altered in a consistent way, it would undermine the liability shield and thus make the corporate form useless for its traditional purpose.  If instead it is altered to preserve separateness to shield the shareholder, but loosened to expand the powers and rights of shareholders, then it is abusive and inequitable.  Hobby Lobby is a great example - why should two controlling shareholders be able to foist their religious views on all the employees of large far-flung corporate enterprise, while protecting the  income and wealth they derive from these enterprises behind a wall of trust structures and limited liability shields?  If rights pass through, so should duties and obligations; if the corporation instead is a protective wall, the wall should function both ways as well.

[FunkMonk]

Kremlin wants an apology from Fox News for the comments O'Reilly made about Putin: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-foxnews-kremlin-idUSKBN15L0XC?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=5898586204d301347c7b0a50&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook

They're just rubbing it in now 

[derspiess]

Robert Reich keeps suggesting that the Berkeley rioters protesters were actually operatives working for Milo.  Anyone here agree?

[LaCroix]

2.  I think I have explained why this particular change is not desirable, even if were it achieved in a lawful way.  Separating the entity from the shareholder is really the sine qua non of a corporation.  If that is altered in a consistent way, it would undermine the liability shield and thus make the corporate form useless for its traditional purpose.  If instead it is altered to preserve separateness to shield the shareholder, but loosened to expand the powers and rights of shareholders, then it is abusive and inequitable.  Hobby Lobby is a great example - why should two controlling shareholders be able to foist their religious views on all the employees of large far-flung corporate enterprise, while protecting the  income and wealth they derive from these enterprises behind a wall of trust structures and limited liability shields?  If rights pass through, so should duties and obligations; if the corporation instead is a protective wall, the wall should function both ways as well.

you can alter things without breaking them. does gorsuch's separate make the corporate form useless for its traditional purpose? if you answer yes, then please explain how. if you answer no, then gorsuch's separate merely includes an additional circumstance in which an individual can have standing.

corporations have always been protective walls. that's why people form corporations rather than partnerships and business types. but to get at the point I think you're making: the employee might have standing to sue back, but she probably would lose.

hobby lobby's holding doesn't really impact much beyond this particular issue, because you have all the other protections available to shareholders -- derivative suits, etc., in the event the corporation tries acting like a church rather than a for-profit machine.

[Valmy]

Robert Reich keeps suggesting that the Berkeley rioters protesters were actually operatives working for Milo.  Anyone here agree?

No way. Milo is not that hardcore.

If they were not far left wing nutcases, the kind that used to riot everytime the G7 would meet, I will eat BB's hat.

[Ed Anger]

Robert Reich keeps suggesting that the Berkeley rioters protesters were actually operatives working for Milo.  Anyone here agree?

I don't think we have many retards here. Assburgers? Plenty.

[Berkut]

Robert Reich keeps suggesting that the Berkeley rioters protesters were actually operatives working for Milo.  Anyone here agree?

Sounds like bullshit to me.

Whenever there are protests, there are going to be elements who want to use the chance to act like douchebags.

Then the people who are opposed to said protests can and will act like the douchebags represent the protesters, because that is a handy little fallacy that they cannot resist using.

Shrug.

[PDH]

Robert Reich keeps suggesting that the Berkeley rioters protesters were actually operatives working for Milo.  Anyone here agree?

Not sure I agree, the protests were full of Berkeley types, but the rioters were outsiders from what I can tell.  Way too organized for Berkeley assaults.  And hiding their faces?  Check out the dumb students caught in the past destroying property in their street clothes.  Who cares what side they are from, they were there to cause chaos.

[Syt]

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Any negative polls are fake news, just like the CNN, ABC, NBC polls in the election. Sorry, people want border security and extreme vetting.

[Berkut]

I don't think he is really sorry. Liar. SAD.