I appreciate the citation, but any American with access to Google could see that Hunter and Joe's relationship with Ukraine was super suspicious; noting that Joe is Trump's "main domestic political rival" does not imply malice the same way as "digging up dirt" implies.

It is a fair thing to disclose, but the only reasonable way to read that is as a disclosure. If running against the President makes you immune from investigation then hot damn, I'm running for president in 2024.

This was not the allegation, neither by the "whistleblower" nor by the House in their impeachment.

In any event, politicians are not immune from investigation just because they're running against the president: How is it that the son of the vice-president (with no business or oil experience) manages to sit on the board of a foreign oil company making more in one month than most Americans make in a year? Now if I told you his father managed (and withheld) aid to that country, wouldn't that be a little suspicious? What if I told you they shared a phone number during this time? If I told you that Ukraine lost $40 billion of assets that are missing to this day, wouldn't that be something worth investigating?

What you just experienced is called a "typo" you stupid fucking dumbass. Are you completely incapable of guessing a word that would make sense to add there?

If you're going to make a non-sequitur, then I'm going to assume it's because you agree that playing carrot-and-stick with foreign nations is not, in fact, illegal, but in fact the most important the president performs. Vice President Joe Biden bragged that he withheld billions of dollars of aid to Ukraine for a long time, nobody cared about that. It's only when it's a person you don't like.

... How the fuck does the top executive of a country and its military launch a coup against himself? Did you spend even two seconds thinking about this?

If you mean the riot, that lasted all of a few hours. Its participants were charged with Unauthorized Entry/trespassing, and not crimes against the government itself. And even if they burned down the Capitol building, Congress could have held that vote outside in a circus tent for all I care. Democracy was not in danger even in the slightest. There has been zero evidence to date that Trump was organizing a riot, he said to protest "peacefully".

Democrats spent four years railing about how the 2016 election was rigged and manipulated by the Russians without evidence; but when Trump does the literal same thing NOW it's bad? You have some explaining to do.

So you agree that the FBI investigation was kicked off Hillary?

That's called "diplomacy" you incompetent retard. When the president bombs another country or gives them weapons just what do you think he is doing? The president has a wide variety of tools at his disposal to enforce American foreign policy abroad.

He was "impeached" for something that's not actually a crime. Congress had the entire US Code to throw at him, including "extortion", and the best they could do is make up a charge that's not even illegal? And you're wondering why he was acquitted?

What is the difference between an "entity" and an "individual," and what would happen if the technical definition of "person" did not include both?

Corporate Personhood has nothing to do with skipping out on debts or prosecution. You would fail basic law school.

Corporate personhood is the legal doctrine that ensures corporations are bound by same laws that individuals are. It is specified at the very beginning of the US code:

The ability for a corporation to shield its owners and/or employees from liability is a completely separate concept is called a private limited company (LLC in US law), and the risk of such a corporation defaulting on its debt is priced into its debt.

Go pack up your obvious hobby-horse and take it back home.

... in response to consumer demand & high prices.

The most important function of prices is to determine where to allocate production & capital resources. If prices fell back to $2/gal do you really think they'd keep increasing production?

You're going to have to gaslight us better than this.

The proposed bill preserves the "right" to copyright, it just reduces the duration so it's not so obviously biased to corporations. No person needs a copyright 50 years after they've died, never mind 80. The current law benefits corporations only. This bill is what we want. If it takes Disney going full woke to get Republicans to finally care about corporate copyright abuse, why would you care?

Democrats have not compromised on a single issue during the entire Biden administration. Seriously, find me one. Schumer just forced a vote on a bill to override state abortion laws, no exceptions, literally the most extreme law possible, more extreme than any European country... and they're wondering why it was voted down. Uh-huh. They could have made a few compromises and picked up a couple left-leaning R votes. They refused.

But please, keep telling me how it's Republicans who are stuck in a cult.

Wrong. It is illegal for corporations to give money to politicians or campaigns, in any amount. You can't even provide discounts to those politicians (that's a "contribution in kind").

When people talk about corporate money in campaigns, they're either:

(1) Misreading donations by employees as donations by the corporation (you are required to report your employer to the FEC when you donate to a campaign, and this is public information)

(2) Permitting corporations to publish ads with political content, which indeed, the First Amendment prohibits Congress from restricting this (whether corporations are people or not does not change this, 1A says "no law", it's not a right bestowed on people only).

Yes, if you bothered to read the US Code, you wouldn't have to get very far to understand this, as this is provided in the LITERAL FIRST PARAGRAPH. Not only is this not a new phenomenon, it's a foundation of Common Law too. In the law, corporations and persons are synonyms so that the law applies equally to both of them. You want corporations to be accountable to the law, right? That's what corporate personhood is for.

No, corporations have the right to say whatever they want. That doesn't change the fact that if corporations want to enter into politics and try to sway the discourse, then by all means, let's play politics. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

"Some people are poor therefore we need to give cash money to the richest corporations and people in the country" is certainly a take.

Water and electricity are not significant portions of people's budgets. Housing, food, and heating (depending on climate) are, and we don't have massive subsidies approaching the same level that we subsidies water and electricity (especially renewable energy).

Even if it was, the solution you're looking for is a per-person credit, write-off, rebate, or prebate. There's problems with these too, but at least it actually addresses your problem.

They don't work because it's a massive waste of resources to have redundant water and energy distribution infrastructure going to everyone's homes. You say it as if it's the only possible solution and it's not.

Also, it drives me up a wall how there's a political faction reducing tax rates saying it's "trickle down economics" and "a tax scam" yet we have to give actual money directly to the same people otherwise the poor can't afford food. It's as if people are driven by ideology rather than rational economic thinking.

They also selected some foxes for aggression, and the opposite happened. They snarl, growl, and in general go absolutely apeshit when anyone walks up to their cage. I can't find the video right away (Google can't understand the difference between foxes, Michael J. Fox, and Fox News), but Alan Alda was visiting them.

[Citation Needed] you dumbnuts.

This ruling only applies to the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit. If a similar case were filed a court under another circuit, that court might read the opinion, but they would issue their own opinion, potentially entirely different. Through various means, the ruling can be appealed to the respective appellate court, and if the conflict persists, one of the parties could petition SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari to resolve the split.

Oh no, how did Apple ever create great products without all of them phoning home?

*Looks at Apple II*
*Looks at iMac*
*Looks at iPod*
*Looks at iPhone*
*Looks at Magic Mouse*

Ok maybe not that one, but you get the idea.

You say that as if pollution is essential to their business model and that's just not true. Not only do they not pollute, if it were somehow physically impossible for their customers to pollute, their profit margins wouldn't be hurt one penny. (It might even be beneficial because they wouldn't sink money into recycling programs.)

The hell you talking about?

Only police officers and teachers have to be civil? Journalists don't have to? The fuck? I expect journalism and academia to be tolerant of diverse viewpoints. Why is that such a high bar? It might be legal to treat your coworkers like shit but that doesn't make it good, fuck you.

Yes, I generally expect my workplace to be civil. If coworkers shout obscenities at me, I complain then quit. You shouldn't shout down your coworkers. Why is this so difficult for you to admit?

So what? If what she said was actually off-color, it doesn't matter! I used the example as an example of the double standard! Unlike Carano, Whoopi was literally being racist during her job she was getting paid to do! Now THAT'S a perfectly good reason to fire someone if I've ever seen one.