Jump to content

Abbott being Abbott


Recommended Posts

On 4/6/2021 at 5:29 PM, Ghost of LL said:

MLB made pretty clear that it wouldn't be in Arlington from the outset, according to Evan Grant, because Arlington just hosted the NLCS and the World Series.

MLB was trying to run away from voting law noise, so they couldn't pick Texas. If they had picked Texas and Texas passes laws that make GA seem mild, what do they do then? Move a second time?

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

In a way, it did. It forced the Democrats to abandon labor to suck up to Wall Street and Silicon Valley for cash, which gave Trump the ability to turn the white union vote in the midwest.

Wait wut?  Does CU have some effect on unions that I am unaware of?

Dems have been cozy with Wall Street since at least the Clinton administration, and if labor unions have lost influence over campaigns, its because they've lost influence more generally.

This indicates that unions have kept up with the soft money donations pretty well. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=P

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

But when it comes to corporate campaign spending, suddenly there can be no line. Because money = speech and, as to this very particular form of speech, there can be no restrictions. Not even something that isn't the tiniest bit restrictive. It's not Citizens United, but Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett built on Citizens United and showed what this is really about. Arizona had passed, by ballot initiative, a matching funds law that gave public campaign funds to candidates who agreed to limit their personal spending, so that they had funds to match opponents who were privately financed. It didn't restrict the ability of a privately financed candidate to spend in any way, nor did it restrict the ability of PACs to support them. Nevertheless, the Court held that Arizona's law was a violation of the private candidate's free speech rights, despite it imposing absolutely no limitation on his ability to speak. Because this shit isn't about speech, it's about power. And Arizona's law challenged the relative power of privately financed candidates to drown out their opponents.  The conservative majority on this Court doesn't give a shit about free speech, they just don't think the American people, through the democratic process, should have the ability to take the rich down a peg.

I agree completely with you on the Arizona case.  And don't think it built on Citizens United at all.  I think that case is a wild departure from the rest of First Amendment jurisprudence.

29 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

If we really must treat corporations like people for every purpose the moment we treat them like people for any purpose, we need to start locking up a lot of people for murder for dissolving corporations and LLCs.

I agree.  I have long argued that corporations should be able to get the corporate death penalty, which would expose shareholders and directors to civil and criminal liability.

27 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

There is inherent absurdity in equating corporations with people especially in terms of giving them unlimited election spending and greater control over our elections.  It is "We the people" and not "We the multinational corporation" or "We the LLC" or "We the shell company."  They are not citizens and are not allowed to vote or run for office.  Giving them overly weighted power in electioneering is unamerican.  It is antithetical to self governance.  It is antithetical to democracy. 

We the people form associations, which are called "corporations."  The right of free association is right there in the Constitution, and it was a right well understood by the Framers.  The legal effect of incorporation and corporate personhood was also well understood at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

We the people form associations, which are called "corporations."  The right of free association is right there in the Constitution, and it was a right well understood by the Framers.  The legal effect of incorporation and corporate personhood was also well understood at the time.

What were the framers thoughts on multinational corporations with anonymous shareholders and zero transparency to the source of their speech?

Honestly, the most caustic aspect of CU is that the corporations can spend money (aka speak) without attributing their speech. The complete lack of transparency combined with unlimited and unrestricted spending has heightened the imbalance

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Captainant said:

What were the framers thoughts on multinational corporations with anonymous shareholders and zero transparency to the source of their speech?

Honestly, the most caustic aspect of CU is that the corporations can spend money (aka speak) without attributing their speech. The complete lack of transparency combined with unlimited and unrestricted spending has heightened the imbalance

They threw its tea into the fucking harbor.

And you're wrong about the effect of Citizens United on transparency.  The decision specifically upheld the provisions of the BCRA requiring identification of the funder, and held that disclosure requirements for campaign contributions were constitutional.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

And you're wrong about the effect of Citizens United on transparency.  The decision specifically upheld the provisions of the BCRA requiring identification of the funder, and held that disclosure requirements for campaign contributions were constitutional.

I'm not saying CU changed transparency - I'm saying that the already existing LACK of transparency combined with the opening of the floodgates that was CU has made things exponentially worse. I mean, superPACs didn't get going until after CU and those are far and wide the biggest flow of dark money into politics

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

The legal effect of incorporation and corporate personhood was also well understood at the time.

This is not accurate.  Great Britain didn't legalize general. private corporations until the mid 19th century, that is, those without a crown grant of authority.  

The US didn't get it's first state corporation law until the 1890s.  Prior to that, any corporate charter was granted by legislation, like GB.

As a philosophical matter, the rights and obligations of the societe anonyme had been hashed out to some degree, but practical experience with corporations as of the founding was nonexistent.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, kevwun said:

I remember when this thread was about Abbott being a jackass.

Greg abbot absolutely loved Citizen United and jogging in the rain and absolutely hates trees and lightning. 
 

Ya happy now? 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I'm not saying CU changed transparency - I'm saying that the already existing LACK of transparency combined with the opening of the floodgates that was CU has made things exponentially worse. I mean, superPACs didn't get going until after CU and those are far and wide the biggest flow of dark money into politics

Which is why we need to pass the For the People Act, which would address your concerns and would definitely be constitutional under the analysis set forth in Citizens United.

31 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

This is not accurate.  Great Britain didn't legalize general. private corporations until the mid 19th century, that is, those without a crown grant of authority.  

The US didn't get it's first state corporation law until the 1890s.  Prior to that, any corporate charter was granted by legislation, like GB.

As a philosophical matter, the rights and obligations of the societe anonyme had been hashed out to some degree, but practical experience with corporations as of the founding was nonexistent.

I understand the difference between a charter corporation and a private corporation, but the fact is that the Founders well understood the concept of a multinational corporation.  The East India Company was more powerful then than any modern corporation (if only by virtue of it being somewhat unique).  There are some corporate governance differences between the East India Company and Delta Air Lines.  But functionally--and as it relates to the issues we are discussing--those differences are insignificant.

35 minutes ago, kevwun said:

I remember when this thread was about Abbott being a jackass.

Yeah--sorry for this tangent.  Back to the point.

I don't know why George P would primary Abbott anyway.  They're in the same lane.

Abbott's primary challenge is going to come from the Q wing.  It's going to be someone like West.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Paxton is also the lowest hanging fruit of the unholy triumvirate.  Republican voters won't have much problem voting against him in the primary.  The FBI could also drop the hammer on him before then and make it even easier.

Edited by kevwun
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would laugh my ass off if a Q nut primaries Abbot.

Or at least I’d be laughing up until this dumbass state elects said Q nut to be the governor. Then it’s not so funny. 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Abbott's primary challenge is going to come from the Q wing.  It's going to be someone like West.

bingo

15 minutes ago, kevwun said:

Someone like Allen West becoming governor here would be very unfunny.

And he would win, too. People don't seem to realize that this is a fucking code red. That wing is drifting towards an Alliance for Brazil style coalition, and if we get an American Bolsonaro, the experiment is over.

Remember, the assault on Democracy that occurred between September 2020 starting with the sabotage of mail delivery and culminating with the attack on the capital and attempt to prevent congress from certifying the vote January 6th didn't fail for a lack of popular support, but failed for poor execution at the national level and a lack of buy-in at the local level.

Right now we are seeing the local takeover. The execution will be better next time. Hopefully the majority will be better prepared and do our part.

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

bingo

And he would win, too. People don't seem to realize that this is a fucking code red. That wing is drifting towards an Alliance for Brazil style coalition, and if we get an American Bolsonaro, the experiment is over.

Remember, the assault on Democracy that occurred between September 2020 starting with the sabotage of mail delivery and culminating with the attack on the capital and attempt to prevent congress from certifying the vote January 6th didn't fail for a lack of popular support, but failed for poor execution at the national level and a lack of buy-in at the local level.

Right now we are seeing the local takeover. The execution will be better next time. Hopefully the majority will be better prepared and do our part.

I'm not at all sure he would win.  West winning the primary would represent a full break between the GQP and the Texas business community.  

I'm not saying that West doesn't win.  I am saying that a Democrat would have a real chance, because I would expect him/her to get a lot of support from the business community that would otherwise go to Abbott.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

I would laugh my ass off if a Q nut primaries Abbot.

Or at least I’d be laughing up until this dumbass state elects said Q nut to be the governor. Then it’s not so funny. 

 

Edited by DDD Dad
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm not at all sure he would win.  West winning the primary would represent a full break between the GQP and the Texas business community.  

I'm not saying that West doesn't win.  I am saying that a Democrat would have a real chance, because I would expect him/her to get a lot of support from the business community that would otherwise go to Abbott.

I agree, but the below gives me pause. To me Greg Abbott looks to be a political creature to an even greater degree than Dan Patrick. 
Abbott doesn't say something like this unless he thinks that the Q wing 1) has in fact fully broken with the Texas Business Community,  2) is fully in control of the nominating process and 3) is not so radioactive enough for traditional Republicans to vote for Democrats or stay home.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Js1 said:

The first potential primary challenger has opted out

But Paxton the Felon might be in trouble

 

He ruled out running for Governor a long time ago. We posted months ago that GPB was gonna run for AG.  

I'm agreeing with some on here that the lunatic candidate that got Abbott all throw into a tizzy is Allen West. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm not at all sure he would win.  West winning the primary would represent a full break between the GQP and the Texas business community.  

I'm not saying that West doesn't win.  I am saying that a Democrat would have a real chance, because I would expect him/her to get a lot of support from the business community that would otherwise go to Abbott.

West will never be governor of Texas. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2021 at 5:50 AM, Bozo_Casanova said:

@washparkhorn, you were very pro Citizens United as I recall, or at least you thought it was right on free speech and would not have disastrous consequences. Any thoughts now?

As I recall, and please correct me if I am wrong, my primary contention was Citizen's United was correctly decided under then existing precedent (and why there was a rational basis for precedent). 

The ease of euthanasia for troublesome trusts, partnerships and corporations is problematic, of course. The moral risk is too great for most artificial entities.  But that is long-settled precedent now. They are political entities. We are well into the consequences of those decisions. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

speaking of which

 

I see the theme of the conference is "Racism & Rudeness", and I'm fine with the second part.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I agree, but the below gives me pause. To me Greg Abbott looks to be a political creature to an even greater degree than Dan Patrick. 
Abbott doesn't say something like this unless he thinks that the Q wing 1) has in fact fully broken with the Texas Business Community,  2) is fully in control of the nominating process and 3) is not so radioactive enough for traditional Republicans to vote for Democrats or stay home.  

 

Well, I think Abbott still has street cred in the business community.  They'll believe he's one of them regardless of what he tells the nutters on QANN or NewsMax.  So I don't think there's anything that Abbott could do or say that would really signal a clean break with the business community.

Now, if the GQP throws out Abbott, that's a very different story.  And I'm very skeptical as to whether a party that is not overtly pro-business can be successful in Texas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Corporate rights ought be specifically granted to corporations, and not piggybacked onto the human rights recognized in the Bill of Rights. Unenumerated corporate rights violate my crystal clear ninth Amendment right to be free of such nonsense.

Humans might be created equal, and endowed with inalienable rights by their creator, but corporations are not so equally created. Corporations could well live centuries, cannot be jailed, can grow so large that they threaten economic stability, etc etc etc. *Corporations are not human.*

Please show me where the Bill of Rights mentions corporations. We might think treating corporations a certain way is unfair, but how does that burden equate into automatically assuming they have rights? The word corporation does not appear in either the ninth, nor the tenth, Amendment, the only Amendments so open ended that such an argument might be fairly entertained.

If corporations want such rights, there is a process in place to grant them those rights. They certainly have the money to buy the influence to do so. But then, actual citizens would get to weigh in on the matter.

/rant

Edited by Willfully Horn
*All caps*
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

Well, I think Abbott still has street cred in the business community.  They'll believe he's one of them regardless of what he tells the nutters on QANN or NewsMax.  So I don't think there's anything that Abbott could do or say that would really signal a clean break with the business community.

Now, if the GQP throws out Abbott, that's a very different story.  And I'm very skeptical as to whether a party that is not overtly pro-business can be successful in Texas.

As a member of ‚Äúthe business community‚ÄĚ I agree with your first paragraph completely, and sadly Abbott is right. He can go full Q and business leaders will probably stay with him.

what I‚Äôm not sure about is the second- Abbott‚Äôs no longer ‚Äúovertly‚ÄĚ pro-business, or at least not consistently the way Perry was. He‚Äôs pro business when it‚Äôs¬†convenient. And the base is in no way pro-business.¬†¬†

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, maybe move the Abbott talk to a more appropriate thread, we're busy here rehashing and repeating ourselves over CU for 15 pages of this thread instead.

Fuck off you CU arguers, go find another thread to shit in so we can get on with the business of shitting on Abbott, please.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2021 at 11:39 AM, kevwun said:

Paxton is also the lowest hanging fruit of the unholy triumvirate.  Republican voters won't have much problem voting against him in the primary.  The FBI could also drop the hammer on him before then and make it even easier.

I call Paxton, Patrick, and Abbott the 3 Stooges

Link to post
Share on other sites

That DMN/UTT poll just basically says that non-Republicans in the state want anyone but Abbott:

Quote

But 56% of Republican voters said they’d vote for Abbott, compared with only 30% for McConaughey.


While Democrats broke 66% to 8% for McConaughey, and independents 44% to 28%, more than twice as many Democratic primary voters ‚ÄĒ 51% ‚ÄĒ said they wanted a progressive candidate for governor than wanted a centrist ‚ÄĒ 25%.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2021 at 8:29 AM, HenryJames said:

 

To be fair to Governor Abbott...he's right.  Trump usually reports sexual assault much earlier than his Democrat counterparts.  Typically in the form of a cancelled check or sealed civil suit deposition.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha sure Chris, the difference is when Trump was President, he would communicate to me that they’re were a ton of assaults happening but he said he wasn’t going to do shit, so I was cool with that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 4th&Five said:

Oh how I wish...

 

TexAgs must melt down over stuff like this.

I mean, he's still embarrassing, but at least a bunch of the aggy are probably not enthused that he's such a big UT fan.

Link to post
Share on other sites
√ó
√ó
  • Create New...