The owners are perfectly free to donate as they please. If they like, they can have the corporation distribute all of its profit as dividends, and they can donate those. Problem solved.

You seem to believe that packages of rights are inseparable, which makes no sense, and you seem to think that a corporation should follow rules set by the owners. In fact, a corporation is not a naturally existing thing (it's much different from a partnership), and should function according to the laws governing corporations. If this turns out to be inconvenient for the people who would like to form a corporation that violates laws, then the people don't have to form a corporation. They can form a large partnership.

I can follow none of your other reasoning. Please order your thoughts better.

The paths of execution can be hard to determine. Deterministic does not mean easy to figure out.

It is entirely possible that different reasonable paths of execution will result in a different natural order of freeing objects. In that case, you can try to set things up so you can prove an order of destructing, or you can keep track of who's using the memory to see when it can be deleted, and if you're doing the latter you'll find it easier and more convenient to use std::shared_ptr.

I think we need to classify "illogical" beliefs better. A belief can be said to be illogical if it contravenes evidence, or when there's simply no evidence for it.

To give an example, a belief in Christianity would be supported by no objective evidence, but it can't be falsified either. A belief that one's own religion had been proven correct, or that other people's religions had been proven false, would contravene a whole lot of evidence.

Snowden's trial would not be a proper place to question NSA activities. If I break into somebody's house and find strong evidence that the homeowner murdered people (like shallow graves in the basement), I'm still guilty of breaking and entering.

I'm getting a real strong sense that lots of people think a fair trial would be one that acquits Snowden, rather than one according to the best practices of the US court system impartially applied.

Aside from the fact that the NSA has legal opinions that all of its official actions are Constitutional (I don't agree with them, but I can't clearly refute them), what more would a public trial reveal?

Since she handed over a large number of emails, there's no reason to conclude she didn't hand over all the ones she was required to hand over. Your assumption of illegality seems to be based on your belief that Clinton was a criminal, which is similar to what judges refer to as novel legal reasoning.

You're also invited to say what Clinton did differently from her predecessors. We know Kerry is doing things differently, due to a change in the law.

A lot of ships were sunk during the battle, but it was a very far-flung battle. I believe Musashi was the only Japanese warship sunk in the Sibuyan Sea during that battle (a Japanese heavy cruiser was crippled during the action). In fact, the sinking was not due to magazine explosions but rather to flooding, finally capsizing. I'd expect the turrets to be quite some distance away, but there's no reason to expect the hull to have broken up badly.

There's lots of things I can either buy or find/create/grow myself. Potatoes I buy in a store are neither more nor less potatoey than potatoes I grow.

You're proposing an awful lot of centralization and regulations for something that's supposed to be decentralized and unregulated.

The assumption is that, if you're conducting $10K transactions in cash, it might be worth taking a look at you, because a lot of people who do that are criminals. Same principle as suspecting the husband if the wife is murdered: it may not be fair to any individual husband, but the husband is involved in enough murders to make it worth checking out.

Their severance package, as I understand it, involves chainsaws. I prefer payments for back PTO and maybe some weeks based on years of service.

At a quick read, the difference I saw was that Clinton handed over relevant emails (we have no way of knowing whether they're all the relevant ones, but this problem was solved by a law passed the year after she left the office), while the White House staffers apparently didn't. The Presidential Records Act requires that certain communications be delivered to the archives, and apparently that wasn't done in the Bush case.

Before we get out the firing squads, I'd like to know which federal laws they broke. So far, nobody has pointed out any to me.

Which laws did she break? Apparently she did turn over the relevant emails, if a little late, and I don't know what the law says on that.

If she was acting so nefariously, why have previous Secretaries of State done the exact same things? Have they all been nefarious? Including Colin Powell?

I would think that one way the law matters here is whether she actually broke it. The fact that she did something that would be illegal if she did it now is irrelevant.

If you want me to believe that Clinton was sleazy, instead of ScentCone, please give me some actual reasons why standard practices that were legal were sleazy.

A lot of sports journalism seems to work much the same way. Given random fluctuations in a player's performance, the journalists will make up reasons and assign moral failings.