Is Trump a Fascist?

That's legit. And I agree. If someone dumps toxic wasts into the water supply that person ought to be punished.

So do we want the LLC to be considered just a group of people opeating together, or to be a person in it's own right.

I would think that the actual person(s) doing the dumping should be the one held liable for the crime of dumping.

 

So what is the difference between 'a corporation' and 'just a business'?

 

My understanding is that in a corporation, the shareholders may only collect debts up their investment share value.

 

And in a perfect world, they would be. The problem is that by creating a 'corporate' entity, there exists a piece of paper with a name on it that can be fined but can't be imprisoned. And if you give the govt a choice between tossing someone in prison to protect the public from them, or grabbing a bunch of money to spend on projects that look nice in the next election campaign, elected officials are always going to choose the money.

...and of course, it also creates a perfect 'mercenary' for the govt to use as a proxy to get away with unlawful activities it can't get away with on its own- get the corporation to do it, fine them less than they get paid, and viola, legal crime and no one goes to jail, just money gets shifted around.

 

I may be wrong, but I don't think that working for a corporation gives one immunity against criminal actions. But, as is always the case, discussion forums like this raise questions that need to be puzzled out. Thanks for adding another research project to my list.

 

While I am not an expert on corporate or business law, I know someone who can relate the basics: Google.

<Snip>
Many businesses are corporations, and vice versa. A business may seek to incorporate existing as a legal entity separate from its owners. This means that the owners cannot be held responsible for the debts of the corporation. It also means that the corporation can own assets, sue or be sued, and borrow money.
https://www.investopedia.com › terms
Corporation: What It Is and How to Form One - Investopedia
<End Snip>


As you see, some of these make perfect sense, especially as corporations have many owners (stockholders). Citizens United, both granting corporations First Amendment rights, and then equating money with speech, was a ridiculous and harmful ruling. But, existing prior to that, are other problems with the way corporations are treated in the law-- to one of which, you'd pointed. I personally would also cite the legal requirement that corporate officers put the maximizing of profit, for stockholders, always ahead of all other concerns-- including the public good, the welfare of its employees, or its effect on our environment.

 

Its not 'immunity.' The govt could choose to find and prosecute individuals for crimes they committed in the name of their corporation. Its just that the govt never does that when it can collect a big juicy fine instead. The criminals then remain free to recoup their profits (by engaging in more crime), the govt gets more money for campaigns, everybody wins ...except the public who will keep being victimized, of course.

 

I haven't had a long time to look, but it doesn't look like the corporate form has to do with sheilding criminal actions. It looks to me like the purpose is to limit the ability of creditors to sue passive investors. More research required.

 

I would class it as a kind of partnership. No more, no less.

I think the person who put the dumping system in place should be held responsible as well as the person tasked with overseeing his efforts, rather than just the flunky.

 

I'm less concerned about the 'money is speech' ruling and more concerned about the 'blaming crimes on a fake person' concept, which has been a benefit of having a corporation since long before Citizens United... all the way back to The Roman Empire, in fact, which legally legitimized the very concept of the corporation as an entity ...as well as establishing the concept of Fascism at almost exactly the same time, quite uncoincidentally I think.

 

Agreed, the crime boss is as guilty as the soldier.

 

First, your single-minded focus notwithstanding, I was mentioning that there are various things that one might consider problematic, when in comes to laws governing corporations (if that's OK with you). Second, though corporate influence in politics by virtue of the now less restricted use of their vast wealth, is a serious concern, the emphasis of my post had actually been on the legal requirements upon corporate officers, which forces them to make decisions for the corporation's behavior which, were it a person acting in that manner, he would be seen as sociopathic.

Lastly, when you cite historical facts, that are not part of what would be considered obvious general knowledge, I'm sure I am not the only one who would appreciate your sourcing of those supposed facts, to some authoritative website or article. It has always been my understanding that the first modern corporation, was the Dutch East India Company. If that is incorrect, I will be glad to get better information, but your mere making of a claim about the Roman Empire, is insufficient in itself, as a basis for my updating my base of information.

In fact, your contention about this being at the same time as the "establishing the concept of Fascism," seems almost certainly a misrepresentation of fact. Because Rome used the fasces, as a symbol of its power and authority, by those empowered to wield that power, is not the same as establishing the concept of Fascism, which didn't develop until the 20th century, AFAIK. Mussolini only chose the Roman symbol, from the past, as a way to represent his own view of government. That is not to say there were not Fascist elements to Roman government, particularly when their were strong dictators; however there were also, over the great span of the Empire, elements of oligarchy, in the power of its Senate of elites, as well as of democracy, since Roman magistrates were elected.

Here is an example, of my last point, about providing sources:

<Google Snip>

Magistrates were the elected officials of the Roman republic. Each magistrate was vested with a degree of power, and the dictator, when there was one, had the highest level of power. Below the dictator was the censor (when they existed), and the consuls, the highest ranking ordinary magistrates.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com › ...
Structure of the Republic | Western Civilization - Lumen Learning

 

The Development of the Concept of Corporation from Earliest Roman Times to A.D. 476 (accountingin.com)

Corporatism is one tennet of fascist economic theory, which was largely developed in the pursuit of rebuilding a new Romanesque Empire. Ancient Rome historically used corporations (large private enterprises with special legal distinctions) to govern (rule) aspects and regions under its influence in its stead, paying them ever increasing sums of gold to wield ever increasing delegated authority which resulted in ever increasing bureaucracy, corruption and oppression of Roman subjects and citizens. If that's not what we call 'fascism' today, then what is it?

 

Because he's stating his opinion and he's allowed to have his opinion? And to be honest...when are democrats NOT pushing their politics on everyone?

lol.

So the shoe fits

 

Here's Canada's progressive PM trying to lecture Italy's leader about their LGB community.

 

Just putting my two cents in.

Both parties push their political ideas on everyone. Look at the supreme court's repeal of Roe v Wade or the GOP's more-or-less fanatical defense of the 2nd Amendment. Not debating the merits, just noting hat those political ideas affect EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US. The GOP is no different from the DNC in this.

 

For starters, Biden is not doing this now (no new wars, rising wages relative to inflation). You are poorer now thanks to Biden though he will tell you your wages are up as is your Social Security. Not relative to inflation they are not. And we are in WW3. We allegedly have troops "training" Ukranians. That's how things got started in Vietnam, resulting in some 50K men median age 19 years old, dying (and I think 8 women). Are we supposed to wait for the Russians to start launching nuclear strikes before we say, hey, butt munch, you just put us all in danger playing a game of chicken with a nuclear super power while squandering 100s of billions of our much needed funds so you can do your felony tax evasion, graft and corruption? I don't think so.

Odd. The link should work if you go to youtube to view it. Hmm. It is a clip from Michael Moore's Trumpland in which he explains why he thinks so many people would vote Trump in 2016. After his electric speech he goes off on predictions that all are proven wrong.

And because Trump had nothing to do with the excesses of 1/6, I wouldn't include Ashley Babbit as being part of a violent coup to keep Trump in power. Biden though? We may yet see.

 

Yes you are talking about regulated capitalism or as the libertarians would have it "economic fascism". They prefer laissez-faire capitalism which strips government regulations away and would put us back to the 19th century. Regulated capitalism isn't perfect and can be improved, but it does attempt to protect to health, welfare and agreed upon rights of the citizens.

 

I find the very fact that phrase exists, nevermind the contempt dripping off your words as you use it, because what we're doing with our enabling the weakest among us to turn into breeders, and I don't mean in a small way, might ultimately lead to a real life Idiocracy. When we are financially rewarding single women to have more and more fatherless children, many or whom grow up maladjusted because their primary purpose for existing to their mother was some extra spending cash, it cannot end well.

We should not be 'feeding the animals', so to speak, and for the same reasons we are told not to feed real animals in nature. Creating a permanent dependent class doesn't end well.

 

Hm this term "economic fascism" is intriguing.

What are your thoughts on "positive rights" versus "negative rights"?

 

Your post is an example of at least your own (if not general Republican) misrepresentation. You act as if I have said that Viktor Orbán is not entitled to have an opinion-- wow! How oppressive of me! Then again I am a Democrat, so "the shoe" seems to fit, right? Except that if this was your intention, it would be your baldface lie! I never made any such insinuation. My question had been, why should I, or any American CARE about Orbán's opinion. Can you really not discern a difference between the right of a person to have an opinion, and the option of everyone else, to disregard that opinion? I'm just wondering if I should think of Republicans, rather than as being inherently dishonest, as just being incredibly dull-witted.

You had offered Orbán's opinion, not just as some guy's opinion, but as one that was worth citing-- as if it was more authoritative, or more important, than anyone else's opinion.

ToughTalk said: ↑
Democrats are the Fascists evil dictators.

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZM2os15S5/

Hungary leader.
"The Democrats try to convince you and force you how to live.."

And he's right.
<End Post>

To me, Orbán's statement is obviously nothing more than partisan propaganda. But let's put it to the test. When Republican politicians deprive women & girls of the option of having an abortion, then which Party is forcing them to live in a certain way-- making those politicians, in your parlance, the "Fascist evil dictators?"

 

Orban's opinion could very well be an insight into aspects of progressive foreign relations that are destructive and regressive. Who the **** has any right in telling other nations how to govern?

And yet I believe it. Since pushing your progressive nonsense seems to be the backbone of progressive politics.

And to your nonsense about abortion. If someone doesn't want to be pregnant, then that someone should probably not partake in the one act that can get them...pregnant.

Like I don't like throwing people in jail and robbing them of their freedoms or force them to live a certain way, but you know...if you break the law...actions have consequences.

But I do believe all women should be allowed abortions should their lives or that of the fetus, be in jeopardy.

 

I think that guy is a piece of ****. Lets start with the simple fact that he white.washes some of the most evil and gruesome mass murderers in his video as "less evil than Trump", which shows immediately that these kind of wokies have no moral compass, it contradicts basic human feelings and values.*


It shows at least, that this scumbag realizes he is part of the "elites" Trump wanna take out, rightly so and the video gives you a valid reason why its necessary.








---
*
Lets go a little more into detail here, just take a look at the dictators he is whitewashing as "less evil" cause "just" authoritarian and take out two examples. Mao Zedong and Saddam Hussein as typical examples to explore the world view and the psyche of this man.

1. Lets begin with Mao Zedong, its easy to tell why he is trying to whitewash him, because he sees him (rightly so) as an ideological ally. Its by the way the biggest mass murderer in all of history, depending on how you count up the corpses which methods you use, you could argue that Mao Zedong killed more people than Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin combined, just as a side note, which is nevertheless important to make an evaluation who this guy claims to be less evil. His motivation is easy to explore, its no wonder a guy pushing the woke agenda feels with Mao as his cultural revolution or his big step forward is a huge drift like the wokists wanna do it with out agenda. Especially the Chinese cultural revolution to dissolving family bonds, taking control over young children by state institutions making young children denouncing their parents as "counter revolutionary", which leads them to being tortured to death and leaving the younglings without any family structure but just with a God Mao Zedong is of course a role model for wokies. Destroying family structures, manipulating young kids (you dont have to mention the family trauma caused when a child at some point realize his/her parents were tortured to death due to their denouncement), leaving them traumatized and vulnerable for the party propaganda is a role model for them.

This is why he whitewashes Mao Zedong for good reason, cause he rightly recognizes him as a role model and an ideological ally.


2. Now to Saddam Hussein, who is at first sight an unlogical for a whitewash, as he fits the very (doubtworthy) definition he gives for a fascist 100%. Every point he mentioned is overfulfilled. Although he came to power with the Baath Party, which had a leftist agenda originally, he changed the agenda after he took over and met every point he gives for fascist 100%. He painted himself as the embodyment of the will of the people, he made out minorites like Shiites/Persians and Kurds as subhumans to be annihilated, under him new laws were made which gave a husband a broader spectrum to justify an honour killing of his wife by widening, how women could "dishonour" the family.

So why does whitewash Saddam Hussein? Plain and simple, wokies love to be on the side of fascists who use the "anti-colonial" narrative to justify their actions. Some of them are brainwashed into a real feeling of inferiority as being a white man and defend guys like Saddam Hussein cause they feel it must have a reason, some in reality are just racists themselves and do it in a kind of Charles Manson complex (who considered Black people to be inferior, but wanted them to rebel, cause he thought they needed a more "intelligent" guy - he overestiamted himself widely - to lead and he could use them as willless puppets for his purposes).

Either way the white-washing of Saddam Hussein breaks his own logic in itself, showing that all these "worries" he pretend are fake.


---

 

What, in your opinion, is the justification for the legal establishment (ie: the govt) allowing to exist; the concept of the corporation- a legal 'person' that exists only on paper?

 

No Americans in Ukraine. None of us have been shot at by the Russian military..We are not responsible for Putin's adventures. Arming and training Ukraine is not the same as fighting Russia. Putin grasps that. His saber rattling is the same as the Soviets used to do.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Trump's been accused of the same, but with far more evidence. The Republicans admit they have no real evidence against Biden.

If they're predictions that involve a TFG second term, they haven't been proven wrong as the preconditions have not been met.

He was right there and sent them down the street, then failed to call them off. I'd say he had plenty to do with their actions.

Now who's making predictions that won't come true?[/QUOTE]