For example, it is growing more apparently dumb by the day that no one is talking about the fact that the next President will need to make some tweak to the ACA.

I didn’t realize I was required to.

I get where you’re coming from, but that’s a bit overbroad. I grew up in a small town with no serious crime — the police there were perfectly nice because it was basically a ticket writing job with no threat of violence. Those guys didn’t have anything to speak out about and I don’t think that their failure to find…

Of course the irony is that Burnett confirmed (with multiple sources) that said fearless leader assaulted a friend of hers.

It would have been awesome if Burnett did the “get your fucking hands off me” here, but I think pulling away should be enough to send the right message (though no message should need to be sent because it’s absurd and gross to just grab onto someone for no apparent reason).

That’s not just a spokesperson, that’s his campaign manager. She’s had quite the career trajectory, having worked for Todd “legitimate rape” Akin (right after he made that comment) and having run Ted Cruz’s super PAC this primary season (so she has tons of on the record insults of her current boss). I also read that…

You sound like her father.

Your question betrays how much you don’t know about this. Being publisher is an executive position that the board would hire for. The controlling interest are the shares of stock. You have no earthly idea what the fuck you’re talking about.

Passing the controlling interest (i.e. the shares) is fine. It’s making choices based on a conflict of interest that isn’t. The business judgment rule is what applies here — basically they can do anything reasonable (and this promotion likely satisfies it), but they cannot act in a conflict of interest — ironically…

Being publicly traded is very much the distinction that makes a difference here. Just because you don’t know something doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter.

No. Not at all. Plenty of companies are publicly traded and don’t turn a profit. The board has an obligation to run the company in the best interest of the shareholders. Profitability can be part of that, not self-dealing is always part of that (and likely the issue HamNo was pointing at). In any case you’re dead…

Try to have some idea what the fuck you’re talking about.

My point is solely that who holds voting shares isn’t relevant. Voting shares seat board members, board members have a duty to act in the best interest of all shareholders. I don’t necessarily have a complaint about the choice, I have a complaint about how many people think pointing to the voting shares is relevant…

Agreed that nepotism isn’t a de facto violation, and in this case it’s probably fine. I’m just annoyed at how many people think that being the majority voting shareholder is relevant to that question for a public company. And, frankly, even that wouldn’t have bothered me if so many of the comments weren’t super…

That’s not how securities laws work bud. Maybe your next question should be to look into the ‘33 and ‘34 Acts and the related regulations.

According to your link, Bush’s DOJ dropped the criminal charges against those guys. Is that the point you were too lazy to type out?

The George W Bush Justice Department dropped the case against those guys before Obama even took office and fucktards like you still think it was political.

When that business has offered stock on a public exchange it’s duty to the other owners is a lot different than when your dad owns a small store or whatever.

It’s a potential violation of a fiduciary duty to shareholders. No big deal, right?

At some point you might want to start blaming yourself for continuing to click on stuff you don’t want to read. It’s something you could address.