> The right to refuse service to customers, and birth control to employees, on the basis of religious belief of business owners, has been confirmed by the US Supreme Court.
> You should be just as sick that these companies are pulling
One can be sick of people turning the office into a political battle-field and simultaneously have no problems with outward corporate lobbying. These are different problems.
I would imagine a non-profit isn't able to well.... profit as much. And if I know one thing it is that a rich guy loves his money as much as a preacher loves the Lord.
Well, I do think it (was) dumb, but I also didn’t bring it up to show a big problem. I just wanted a counter-example to the claim that profits are limited at non-profits.
Thanks. Not sure how I missed that. Regardless, the point still stands. Non-profit just means profit isn't its primary goal, but rather generally some mission. A non-profit can make oodles of money, but if it closes up shop, it can't be distributed to the "owners." It has to go to another non-profit.
The NFL had a specific exemption added to the tax code just for it, so it really isn't a good example anyway. Nobody else could form such a "non-profit" without a literal act of Congress.
As a sibling comment mentions, non-profits aren't always "above board" in reality, e.g. the NFLs or Susan G. Komens of the world.
The position that I'm coming from is that a newspaper isn't always meant to be particularly profitable, e.g. in my small city our major paper is owned and underwritten by a wealthy real-estate family.
While the paper does good reporting in other areas, including having won a recent Pulitzer, they never publish anything negative about the local real-estate and development. You will never find a piece critical of development or developer mistakes in this paper.
If you're of the mind that papers can and are used as a way of laundering business propaganda for the owner, allowing it a non-profit status would then allow it to be a money-sink. The owning family can now provide donations to the non-profit paper which serves the business interests in the PR sphere. These donations can be written off. This means the tax-payer is now further subsidizing their PR efforts by virtue of a tax write off.
> All of a sudden the political subs were... reasonable.
Yeah... no. It went full "Not My President" overnight.
Hell, not even overnight. It went full "Not My President" that very night.
And if you think that's bad, had to deal with brass at work (fintech) proclaiming that we needed to spend an insane amount of capital in preparation for the record trade volume we would need to process because the markets were going to collapse.
It's weird that the fact Russians targeted also heavily BLM doesn't get attention. They ran the biggest FB page, tons of other on other platform. Mueller pdf is s fascinating read, I suggest everyone to read it. It's not dry at all and has everything for every side in it.
It's a tired argument. Like saying Jill Stein is a Russian asset because literally 1 post in 10,000 (from troll farms) mentioned her as a "redirection" effort. Yes, mentioning Sanders is also a way to redirect from voting for Hillary. Suggesting he's somehow accountable or responsible for this is ridiculous though.
The only person HRC has to blame for losing is herself. The amount of actual-fake-news where there was total bullshit made up about her was nearly non-existent, and especially so when compared to the bullshit made up about Trump (paying hookers to pee in a bed Obama slept in, which got REAL mainstream media coverage thousands of times).
> Like saying Jill Stein is a Russian asset because literally 1 post in 10,000 (from troll farms) mentioned her as a "redirection" effort.
That's not why Stein is called a Russian asset; they did the same with Sanders, who acknowledged and rejected what they were doing when it was discovered, and wasn't nearly as often labeled that way. Aside from the difference in each candidates response there's other behavioral differences including, well, things like this:
> Like saying Jill Stein is a Russian asset because literally 1 post in 10,000 (from troll farms) mentioned her as a "redirection" effort.
Therein lies a good point I routinely use to befuddle, is how do you know these trolls are working on behalf of someone for their benefit, or working on behalf of the opposition as a way to attempt to discredit?
> compared to the bullshit made up about Trump (paying hookers to pee in a bed Obama slept in, which got REAL mainstream media coverage thousands of times).
This is so absurd. Given the quantity of bullshit, self-incrimination and self-contradiction coming out of his mouth, it's really hard to imagine feeling a need to make up more...
Who said anything about hard science? Just because something is well-understood by a group of people doesn't mean it has to have some sort of scientific basis to have any validity.
In defense of "the Boomers," and believe me I have plenty of gripes about trends within that generation, we Millenials aren't exactly above reproach.
I can agree that it's not nearly as easy for us as it was for the past few generations, but it's not nearly as grim as most make it out to be. To put it bluntly, I see a lot of the same "me me me" mentality that the Boomers have been criticized for.
There's the idea that life is just handed to us, so long as we "do the right things." It's perfectly possible to own a home, raise a family, what have you. You just might not get to work the job you want, study the degree program you want, or live in the neighborhood you want.
That is not the case at all.