BST Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About KnewBee

  • Rank
    5,000 Post Club!

Profile Fields

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
  1. Pretty sure his "feelings" are obvious. Trump is an idiot and a danger.
  2. Kevin Williamson "National Review describing "Elizabeth Warren's Batty Plan to Nationalize everything" is what seems to have the rights heads exploding. The proposed Accountable Capitalism Act offers no plan to nationalize everything. It further does not represent Mussolini rhetoric of the 1930s. The Act itself may be found in full text, but a summary is here as "proposed" and the intent is to "...There is an urgent need to return to the era when American corporations produced broad-based growth that helped workers and shareholders alike." "Very large American corporations must obtain a federal charter as a "United States corporation," which obligates company directors to consider the interests of all corporate stakeholders: American corporations with more than $1 billion in annual revenue must obtain a federal charter from a newly formed Office of United States Corporations at the Department of Commerce. The new federal charter obligates company directors to consider the interests of all corporate stakeholders – including employees, customers, shareholders, and the communities in which the company operates. This approach is derived from the thriving benefit corporation model that 33 states and the District of Columbia have adopted and that companies like Patagonia, Danone North America, and ********* have embraced with strong results. • The boards of United States corporations must include substantial employee participation: Borrowing from the successful approach in Germany and other developed economies, a United States corporation must ensure that no fewer than 40% of its directors are selected by the corporation’s employees. • Sales of company shares by the directors and officers of United States corporations are restricted: Top corporate executives are now compensated mostly in company equity, which gives them huge financial incentives to focus exclusively on shareholder returns. To ensure that they are focused on the long-term interests of all corporate stakeholders, the bill prohibits directors and officers of United States corporations from selling company shares within five years of receiving them or within three years of a company stock buyback. • United States corporations must obtain shareholder and Board approval for all political expenditures: Drawing on a proposal from John Bogle, the founder of the investment company Vanguard, United States corporations must receive the approval of at least 75% of their shareholders and 75% of their directors before engaging in political expenditures. This ensures any political expenditures benefit all corporate stakeholders. • A United States corporation that engages in repeated and egregious illegal conduct may have its charter revoked: State Attorneys General are authorized to submit petitions to the Office of United States Corporations to revoke a United States corporation’s charter. If the Director of the Office finds that the corporation has a history of egregious and repeated illegal conduct and has failed to take meaningful steps to address its problems, she may grant the petition. The company’s charter would then be revoked a year later – giving the company time before its charter is revoked to make the case to Congress that it should retain its charter in the same or in a modified form." All that aside, the Act does not stand a chance of passing and may just be for posturing.
  3. 29 active judges on the 9th. 7 vacancies. How will Trump "remake the 9th"?
  4. It tells us that the election results on the day after will tell us the impact. Saw a poll (Survey Monkey). Telling. The ardent support remains relatively unchanged similar to approval rating (the devout base will never slip). But the disapproval ratings have climbed steadily. Who knows, time will tell and I really hope there isn't a national crisis.
  5. Go back to your 538 research and look at the right side of their site. Daily tracker is in plain view.
  6. The "polls" will get it wrong. Then use "polls" to argue a point. Head scratch. Pretty easy these days to find a poll that suits your way of thinking or believing.
  7. "Now that we’ve firmly established that homosexuality was declassified as a mental health health diagnosis based upon politics instead of science" Who are the "we" that have firmly established your premise? Shouldn't it be more like, "now that I have firmly stated my belief..."
  8. Never knew him, but I share some of his public opinions.
  9. "Mental disorders reflect the anxieties of the era. A study of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) reflects a constantly shifting view, where once commonly accepted mental disorders are relegated to the dustbin of history. If the past is any indicator, our picture of the mind and its illnesses will soon too become obsolete. 10 Obsolete Mental disorders. Male Hysteria Dysaesthesia Aethiopica The Vapors Homosexuality Dementia Praecox Lunacy Neurasthenia Moral Insanity Inadequate Personality Disorder Gender Identity Disorder The only permanence is change.
  10. Which politicians were involved? Was it Congress? Only in a very smal portion of the population do people still consider homosexuality a mental disorder. They have issues.
  11. Considering the drastic societal differences between when the Constitution was written and modern reality (pick a year post 1800), it is sort of marvelous. The courts are not "creating rights" they are just ruling on how the laws passed affect rights. Congress creates the laws (Civil Rights Act), the courts don't.
  12. From the Find Law website: "Reproductive rights" are the rights of individuals to decide whether to reproduce and have reproductive health. This may include an individual's right to plan a family, terminate a pregnancy, use contraceptives, learn about sex education in public schools, and gain access to reproductive health services. Historically, the reproductive rights movement in the U.S. has seen many controversies due to the moral, ethical, and religious undertones of birth control, abortion, and family planning. Today, the subject of reproductive rights continues to be an emotionally and politically charged issue, especially in light of new technologies and recent laws. Where do Reproductive Rights Come From? The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to reproduce, however, the Supreme Court has recognized it as a personal right that is deemed "fundamental" and which extends to procreation (Skinner v. Oklahoma), contraception (Eisenstadt v. Baird), family relationships (Prince v. Massachusetts) and child rearing (Pierce v. Society of Sisters). Moreover, a person's right to privacy is expressed in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and was the subject of the precedent setting case of Roe v. Wade."
  13. Wow, just wow.