2016 elections - because it's never too early

[garbon]

Look at all this Marti drivel. Do we not have anyone to clean up this spill on aisle 12?

[celedhring]

David Lynch has endorsed Bernie. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbSHH7MhcWU

[Eddie Teach]

His hair endorsed Trump though.

[Martinus]

David Lynch has endorsed Bernie. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbSHH7MhcWU

From his wikipedia page, entry on "Political views":

Political views[edit]

Lynch has said that he is "not a political person". However, he has expressed admiration for former US President Ronald Reagan.[138] Describing his political philosophy, he stated, "at that time, I thought of myself as a libertarian. I believed in next to zero government. And I still would lean toward no government and not so many rules, except for traffic lights and things like this. I really believe in traffic regulations."[139] Lynch continued to state that "I don't know if there even is a Libertarian party. They wouldn't have a prayer of getting anywhere. So I'm a Democrat now. And I've always been a Democrat, really. But I don't like the Democrats a lot, either, because I'm a smoker, and I think a lot of the Democrats have come up with these rules for non-smoking."[139]

He endorsed the Natural Law Party in the 2000 presidential election[140] and Democratic incumbent Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election.[141] In the 2016 presidential election, he endorsed Bernie Sanders.[142]

Looks like a guy with a solid and thought through political stance. 

[FunkMonk]

Webb > rappels from a Huey clenching a knife between his teeth, kills everybody at the convention

Fixed for accuracy

[FunkMonk]

All the dems have to do in the general is play the clip of Trump saying women should be punished for having abortions over and over again on loop and it'll be a bloodbath. 

The GOP needs to be on its knees praying every night that Trump doesn't become the nominee. It might be necessary to destroy the party in order to save it, Colonel.

Phew, after all these months of Trump playing it safe and never saying anything remotely controversial that could alienate voters, he finally lets his guards down and slips something that will make him lose. And people were worrying how to stop him. 

[celedhring]

Looks like a guy with a solid and thought through political stance. 

I'm actually a huge Lynch fan, but "thought through" isn't a quality I would give to his work. I mean, his best movies have a solid underlying logic that's manifested in all the eerie madness, but he's very big on improvisation, following on gut feelings, automatic writing, etc...

I read one of his bios about his Reagan fandom, and it's pretty much that; he described how he attended a rally and felt some kind of Old Hollywood cowboy aura emanating from him that made him feel good, and such...

[Berkut]

Not to mention, the notion that a CEO of a major corporation should be applauded for exercising his corporate authority in the interest of a family member and not the company and its shareholders is quite preposterous.

It's too bad Sanders didn't do a better job of hitting such an obvious softball.

Corporations will attempt to influence politicians in whatever manner the law allows, on whatever subjects they find important.

The issue is not their attempts to influence, but rather the levers the law allows them to use their corporate power to influence public representatives.

Fix that problem, and whether they are trying to use their influence for good or bad isn't really the issue any more.

[Martinus]

Not to mention, the notion that a CEO of a major corporation should be applauded for exercising his corporate authority in the interest of a family member and not the company and its shareholders is quite preposterous.

It's too bad Sanders didn't do a better job of hitting such an obvious softball.

Corporations will attempt to influence politicians in whatever manner the law allows, on whatever subjects they find important.

The issue is not their attempts to influence, but rather the levers the law allows them to use their corporate power to influence public representatives.

Fix that problem, and whether they are trying to use their influence for good or bad isn't really the issue any more.

Both methods of influencing the political process - the one that Bernie applauds and the one that Bernie condemns - are legal under US law.

[Berkut]

I mean, we are not talking here about big businesses lobbying Saudi Arabia to stop killing people for being gay (incidentally, I am willing to bet that a lot of businesses that were threatening to pull out of North Carolina or Georgia over these "bathroom" laws are doing business in Saudi Arabia). We are talking about democratically elected legislative bodies of US states passing laws that may be controversial (and with which I may disagree) but which are nowhere near touching fundamental rights of people - and which, in any case, are subject to judicial review under the US constitution and bill of rights.

I am willing to bet that 100% of business that do business in Saudi Arabia consider the impacts of Saudi laws on their ability to make money.

Just like they consider the impact of laws in Georgia, including proposed laws.

What are you arguing about here? That they should consider that (and communicate those considerations to policy makers) or that they should not?

[Martinus]

I mean, we are not talking here about big businesses lobbying Saudi Arabia to stop killing people for being gay (incidentally, I am willing to bet that a lot of businesses that were threatening to pull out of North Carolina or Georgia over these "bathroom" laws are doing business in Saudi Arabia). We are talking about democratically elected legislative bodies of US states passing laws that may be controversial (and with which I may disagree) but which are nowhere near touching fundamental rights of people - and which, in any case, are subject to judicial review under the US constitution and bill of rights.

I am willing to bet that 100% of business that do business in Saudi Arabia consider the impacts of Saudi laws on their ability to make money.

Just like they consider the impact of laws in Georgia, including proposed laws.

What are you arguing about here? That they should consider that (and communicate those considerations to policy makers) or that they should not?

My point is that if they threaten to pull their business out of Georgia, for passing a "bathroom" law, but they continue to do business in Saudi Arabia where gays are being executed, then they are disgusting hypocrites.

[garbon]

I mean, we are not talking here about big businesses lobbying Saudi Arabia to stop killing people for being gay (incidentally, I am willing to bet that a lot of businesses that were threatening to pull out of North Carolina or Georgia over these "bathroom" laws are doing business in Saudi Arabia). We are talking about democratically elected legislative bodies of US states passing laws that may be controversial (and with which I may disagree) but which are nowhere near touching fundamental rights of people - and which, in any case, are subject to judicial review under the US constitution and bill of rights.

I am willing to bet that 100% of business that do business in Saudi Arabia consider the impacts of Saudi laws on their ability to make money.

Just like they consider the impact of laws in Georgia, including proposed laws.

What are you arguing about here? That they should consider that (and communicate those considerations to policy makers) or that they should not?

My point is that if they threaten to pull their business out of Georgia, for passing a "bathroom" law, but they continue to do business in Saudi Arabia where gays are being executed, then they are disgusting hypocrites.

Ah the bizarro extremist point of view that if you aren't dogmatic everywhere on every issue than you are just plain terrible.

[Berkut]

I mean, we are not talking here about big businesses lobbying Saudi Arabia to stop killing people for being gay (incidentally, I am willing to bet that a lot of businesses that were threatening to pull out of North Carolina or Georgia over these "bathroom" laws are doing business in Saudi Arabia). We are talking about democratically elected legislative bodies of US states passing laws that may be controversial (and with which I may disagree) but which are nowhere near touching fundamental rights of people - and which, in any case, are subject to judicial review under the US constitution and bill of rights.

I am willing to bet that 100% of business that do business in Saudi Arabia consider the impacts of Saudi laws on their ability to make money.

Just like they consider the impact of laws in Georgia, including proposed laws.

What are you arguing about here? That they should consider that (and communicate those considerations to policy makers) or that they should not?

My point is that if they threaten to pull their business out of Georgia, for passing a "bathroom" law, but they continue to do business in Saudi Arabia where gays are being executed, then they are disgusting hypocrites.

Which companies are you talking about?

I don't think that response is necessarily hypocrticial at all.

You only think so because you assume that the driving force is some kind of moral outrage.

When some actor does something completely irrational, it is usually worth the effort (if you care) to examine your assumptions about what is motivating their actions.

But it strikes me that you are the one being the hypcrite.

Are you made that a company does business with SA, and threatens Georgia because they should not be doing business with SA, or because they should not threaten Georgia?

It sounds to me like you are mad that their moral outrage doesn't align perfectly with your own, rather than that they have moral outrage at all.

Personally, I suspect their decisions are mostly driven by business analysis than anything else, and moral outrage doesn't enter into it...

[Grey Fox]

He's mad that they take a stand in Georgia while not saying anything in SA. But that's the nature of the entire Western / SA relationship. They hold us by the balls.

[Valmy]

He's mad that they take a stand in Georgia while not saying anything in SA. But that's the nature of the entire Western / SA relationship. They hold us by the balls.

I am just going to go out on a limb and say that companies do business in many countries that do things that would not be tolerated in the West, and most of those countries do not have us by the balls.

Personally, I suspect their decisions are mostly driven by business analysis than anything else, and moral outrage doesn't enter into it...

Though, to be fair, that would be the very definition of hypocrisy right? Claiming to have values you do not actually have.