|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
|
|
Watching C-Span a bit; the wells fargo hearings are mostly congresspeople yelling at the CEO and posturing. Not very constructive, though perhaps cathartic, and there were some funny bits.
|
"We want to imagine him [Trump] in our image."
lmao
|
On September 30 2016 03:18 zlefin wrote:
Watching C-Span a bit; the wells fargo hearings are mostly congresspeople yelling at the CEO and posturing. Not very constructive, though perhaps cathartic, and there were some funny bits.
The public humiliation keeps the story about Wells Fargo alive in the press, which is exactly what Wells Fargo doesn’t want. Although not immediately productive, it puts a lot of burden on the company as a whole.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 30 2016 01:53 zlefin wrote:
Hmm, my hope to have a mini-debate with tl'ers as presidential candidates never got off the ground, I didn't do enough work to get it going I reckon. well, not worth doing a separate thread for one at this point; but i'm still a bit interested, so i'll do something a bit more ad-hoc.
anyone wanna take the job of moderator? and who else wanted to be in as a candidate (i'm a candidate).
We'll just do something small in the thread, unless there's no interest at all.
I'd moderate it if you found a decent right-leaning opponent, like Danglars or xDaunt or someone of about the same degree of conservatism, that would debate you.
|
On September 30 2016 03:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2016 03:18 zlefin wrote:
Watching C-Span a bit; the wells fargo hearings are mostly congresspeople yelling at the CEO and posturing. Not very constructive, though perhaps cathartic, and there were some funny bits. The public humiliation keeps the story about Wells Fargo alive in the press, which is exactly what Wells Fargo doesn’t want. Although not immediately productive, it puts a lot of burden on the company as a whole.
It's all BS posturing pretty much. If any of the customers stole money from the bank they'd be in prison, the bank steals from thousands upon thousands and no one even gets arrested.
What people who have or have had customer service jobs can tell you is that there's not many large corporations out there on Wall st or off that don't have stealing money from people as part of their profit model.
Most mainstream cell carriers do this thing. Corporate knows they set unrealistic expectations for "add on's", things like accessories or additional services. Corporate also knows that in order to meet those expectations sales associates regularly add unrequested services. One of the most popular back in the day was international internet. Rather than correct this, customer rep employees are told to explain why despite being aware of this problem (expressly told not to communicate that it was a known issue) the charges are legitimate and won't be credited back.
This bank account thing sounds very similar. Congress isn't going to do anything about it whether it's banks, Verizon, or anyone else (that's a significant campaign contributor).
|
On September 30 2016 03:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2016 03:18 zlefin wrote:
Watching C-Span a bit; the wells fargo hearings are mostly congresspeople yelling at the CEO and posturing. Not very constructive, though perhaps cathartic, and there were some funny bits. The public humiliation keeps the story about Wells Fargo alive in the press, which is exactly what Wells Fargo doesn’t want. Although not immediately productive, it puts a lot of burden on the company as a whole.
Aww go easy on the guy, he just had to give back 41m in compensation
(said no one ever)
I vote we bring back stocks. Then people can pelt him with rotten veggies and statements for accounts they didn't open.
|
On September 30 2016 03:10 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2016 03:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I can't help but wonder if there's an official method for a party to purge a candiate found to have pretty much committed treason. Not that they would, obviously. while I haven't read the details, I don't think it comes anywhere close to treason. That sounds like excessive rhetoric. I don't recall there being an official method, from prior discussions on the topic; and convictions in a criminal court would take too long to happen before election anyways.
I think it's technically treason under the letter of the law:
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
But obviously it won't be invoked here (as the specific embargo statute of limitations has elapsed).
Edit: But LOL Conway fucked up and admitted he did indeed break the trade embargo: https://thinkprogress.org/trump-manager-conway-admits-illegal-cuba-spending-c53ab74ff200#.4khb4cvxi
|
Wonder what the people that were arguing here that the alt-right isn't racist think about what those speakers
|
On September 30 2016 03:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2016 03:39 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2016 03:18 zlefin wrote:
Watching C-Span a bit; the wells fargo hearings are mostly congresspeople yelling at the CEO and posturing. Not very constructive, though perhaps cathartic, and there were some funny bits. The public humiliation keeps the story about Wells Fargo alive in the press, which is exactly what Wells Fargo doesn’t want. Although not immediately productive, it puts a lot of burden on the company as a whole. It's all BS posturing pretty much. If any of the customers stole money from the bank they'd be in prison, the bank steals from thousands upon thousands and no one even gets arrested. What people who have or have had customer service jobs can tell you is that there's not many large corporations out there on Wall st or off that don't have stealing money from people as part of their profit model. Most mainstream cell carriers do this thing. Corporate knows they set unrealistic expectations for "add on's", things like accessories or additional services. Corporate also knows that in order to meet those expectations sales associates regularly add unrequested services. One of the most popular back in the day was international internet. Rather than correct this, customer rep employees are told to explain why despite being aware of this problem (expressly told not to communicate that it was a known issue) the charges are legitimate and won't be credited back. This bank account thing sounds very similar. Congress isn't going to do anything about it whether it's banks, Verizon, or anyone else (that's a significant campaign contributor).
GH, you seem to have confused me with someone who thinks that criminal charges should not have been brought. I’ve said over and over that is the only way banks like this are going to stop. The main issue is that all the FBI agents and investigation resources that policed the banks were moved to counter terrorism after 9/11 and getting them back on task takes a lot of political will.
Right now, with this congress, this is the best we get.
|
On September 30 2016 03:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2016 03:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 30 2016 03:39 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2016 03:18 zlefin wrote:
Watching C-Span a bit; the wells fargo hearings are mostly congresspeople yelling at the CEO and posturing. Not very constructive, though perhaps cathartic, and there were some funny bits. The public humiliation keeps the story about Wells Fargo alive in the press, which is exactly what Wells Fargo doesn’t want. Although not immediately productive, it puts a lot of burden on the company as a whole. It's all BS posturing pretty much. If any of the customers stole money from the bank they'd be in prison, the bank steals from thousands upon thousands and no one even gets arrested. What people who have or have had customer service jobs can tell you is that there's not many large corporations out there on Wall st or off that don't have stealing money from people as part of their profit model. Most mainstream cell carriers do this thing. Corporate knows they set unrealistic expectations for "add on's", things like accessories or additional services. Corporate also knows that in order to meet those expectations sales associates regularly add unrequested services. One of the most popular back in the day was international internet. Rather than correct this, customer rep employees are told to explain why despite being aware of this problem (expressly told not to communicate that it was a known issue) the charges are legitimate and won't be credited back. This bank account thing sounds very similar. Congress isn't going to do anything about it whether it's banks, Verizon, or anyone else (that's a significant campaign contributor). GH, you seem to have confused me with someone who thinks that criminal charges should not have been brought. I’ve said over and over that is the only way banks like this are going to stop. The main issue is that all the FBI agents and investigation resources that policed the banks were moved to counter terrorism after 9/11 and getting them back on task takes a lot of political will. Right now, with this congress, this is the best we get.
Yeah only in white collar crime of that level is it a thing where you lose your job, get a fine, a slap on the wrist and mayyybeee give back the money you owe because it was the "corporation" that did it.
Its absolutely absurd. If people arent going to jail, they arent going to stop. I mean I like Warren and how she slams all of these people but really if congress cant get these people in a courthouse and in a jail for obvious wrong doing I should have the right to set up a stall on times square and sell overpriced weed to dopey vacationers.
|
On September 30 2016 03:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2016 03:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 30 2016 03:39 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2016 03:18 zlefin wrote:
Watching C-Span a bit; the wells fargo hearings are mostly congresspeople yelling at the CEO and posturing. Not very constructive, though perhaps cathartic, and there were some funny bits. The public humiliation keeps the story about Wells Fargo alive in the press, which is exactly what Wells Fargo doesn’t want. Although not immediately productive, it puts a lot of burden on the company as a whole. It's all BS posturing pretty much. If any of the customers stole money from the bank they'd be in prison, the bank steals from thousands upon thousands and no one even gets arrested. What people who have or have had customer service jobs can tell you is that there's not many large corporations out there on Wall st or off that don't have stealing money from people as part of their profit model. Most mainstream cell carriers do this thing. Corporate knows they set unrealistic expectations for "add on's", things like accessories or additional services. Corporate also knows that in order to meet those expectations sales associates regularly add unrequested services. One of the most popular back in the day was international internet. Rather than correct this, customer rep employees are told to explain why despite being aware of this problem (expressly told not to communicate that it was a known issue) the charges are legitimate and won't be credited back. This bank account thing sounds very similar. Congress isn't going to do anything about it whether it's banks, Verizon, or anyone else (that's a significant campaign contributor). GH, you seem to have confused me with someone who thinks that criminal charges should not have been brought. I’ve said over and over that is the only way banks like this are going to stop. The main issue is that all the FBI agents and investigation resources that policed the banks were moved to counter terrorism after 9/11 and getting them back on task takes a lot of political will. Right now, with this congress, this is the best we get.
This isn't a matter of the cops not being on the beat, this is a case of the cops not intending on stopping the crime in the first place.
They caught these guys just fine (well it did take a while), still no criminal punishment.
|
On September 30 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2016 03:59 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2016 03:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 30 2016 03:39 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2016 03:18 zlefin wrote:
Watching C-Span a bit; the wells fargo hearings are mostly congresspeople yelling at the CEO and posturing. Not very constructive, though perhaps cathartic, and there were some funny bits. The public humiliation keeps the story about Wells Fargo alive in the press, which is exactly what Wells Fargo doesn’t want. Although not immediately productive, it puts a lot of burden on the company as a whole. It's all BS posturing pretty much. If any of the customers stole money from the bank they'd be in prison, the bank steals from thousands upon thousands and no one even gets arrested. What people who have or have had customer service jobs can tell you is that there's not many large corporations out there on Wall st or off that don't have stealing money from people as part of their profit model. Most mainstream cell carriers do this thing. Corporate knows they set unrealistic expectations for "add on's", things like accessories or additional services. Corporate also knows that in order to meet those expectations sales associates regularly add unrequested services. One of the most popular back in the day was international internet. Rather than correct this, customer rep employees are told to explain why despite being aware of this problem (expressly told not to communicate that it was a known issue) the charges are legitimate and won't be credited back. This bank account thing sounds very similar. Congress isn't going to do anything about it whether it's banks, Verizon, or anyone else (that's a significant campaign contributor). GH, you seem to have confused me with someone who thinks that criminal charges should not have been brought. I’ve said over and over that is the only way banks like this are going to stop. The main issue is that all the FBI agents and investigation resources that policed the banks were moved to counter terrorism after 9/11 and getting them back on task takes a lot of political will. Right now, with this congress, this is the best we get. This isn't a matter of the cops not being on the beat, this is a case of the cops not intending on stopping the crime in the first place. They caught these guys just fine (well it did take a while), still no criminal punishment.
Right, the political will isn’t there. They can’t just bring cases against random people they BELIEVE are responsible. They need to collect evidence, bring it to a DA and then charge people based on that evidence. Right now, the evidence has not been collected by the people who recommend cases to the DA. And they have to do it, it can’t be given to them by another party.
On September 30 2016 04:05 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2016 03:59 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2016 03:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 30 2016 03:39 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2016 03:18 zlefin wrote:
Watching C-Span a bit; the wells fargo hearings are mostly congresspeople yelling at the CEO and posturing. Not very constructive, though perhaps cathartic, and there were some funny bits. The public humiliation keeps the story about Wells Fargo alive in the press, which is exactly what Wells Fargo doesn’t want. Although not immediately productive, it puts a lot of burden on the company as a whole. It's all BS posturing pretty much. If any of the customers stole money from the bank they'd be in prison, the bank steals from thousands upon thousands and no one even gets arrested. What people who have or have had customer service jobs can tell you is that there's not many large corporations out there on Wall st or off that don't have stealing money from people as part of their profit model. Most mainstream cell carriers do this thing. Corporate knows they set unrealistic expectations for "add on's", things like accessories or additional services. Corporate also knows that in order to meet those expectations sales associates regularly add unrequested services. One of the most popular back in the day was international internet. Rather than correct this, customer rep employees are told to explain why despite being aware of this problem (expressly told not to communicate that it was a known issue) the charges are legitimate and won't be credited back. This bank account thing sounds very similar. Congress isn't going to do anything about it whether it's banks, Verizon, or anyone else (that's a significant campaign contributor). GH, you seem to have confused me with someone who thinks that criminal charges should not have been brought. I’ve said over and over that is the only way banks like this are going to stop. The main issue is that all the FBI agents and investigation resources that policed the banks were moved to counter terrorism after 9/11 and getting them back on task takes a lot of political will. Right now, with this congress, this is the best we get. Yeah only in white collar crime of that level is it a thing where you lose your job, get a fine, a slap on the wrist and mayyybeee give back the money you owe because it was the "corporation" that did it. Its absolutely absurd. If people arent going to jail, they arent going to stop. I mean I like Warren and how she slams all of these people but really if congress cant get these people in a courthouse and in a jail for obvious wrong doing I should have the right to set up a stall on times square and sell overpriced weed to dopey vacationers.
In the 80s people went to jail for insider trading. But that was in an era where we devoted resources to policing Wall Street for real, like with FBI agents.
|
On September 30 2016 03:55 Dan HH wrote:Wonder what the people that were arguing here that the alt-right isn't racist think about what those speakers
Again, it depends upon your definition of "alt right." Interestingly enough, there appears to be quite a battle going on between the racist and non-racist elements of the alt right over control of the "alt right brand" and "alt right movement." Long story short, the alt right is quite fluid right now.
|
On September 30 2016 04:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 30 2016 03:59 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2016 03:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 30 2016 03:39 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2016 03:18 zlefin wrote:
Watching C-Span a bit; the wells fargo hearings are mostly congresspeople yelling at the CEO and posturing. Not very constructive, though perhaps cathartic, and there were some funny bits. The public humiliation keeps the story about Wells Fargo alive in the press, which is exactly what Wells Fargo doesn’t want. Although not immediately productive, it puts a lot of burden on the company as a whole. It's all BS posturing pretty much. If any of the customers stole money from the bank they'd be in prison, the bank steals from thousands upon thousands and no one even gets arrested. What people who have or have had customer service jobs can tell you is that there's not many large corporations out there on Wall st or off that don't have stealing money from people as part of their profit model. Most mainstream cell carriers do this thing. Corporate knows they set unrealistic expectations for "add on's", things like accessories or additional services. Corporate also knows that in order to meet those expectations sales associates regularly add unrequested services. One of the most popular back in the day was international internet. Rather than correct this, customer rep employees are told to explain why despite being aware of this problem (expressly told not to communicate that it was a known issue) the charges are legitimate and won't be credited back. This bank account thing sounds very similar. Congress isn't going to do anything about it whether it's banks, Verizon, or anyone else (that's a significant campaign contributor). GH, you seem to have confused me with someone who thinks that criminal charges should not have been brought. I’ve said over and over that is the only way banks like this are going to stop. The main issue is that all the FBI agents and investigation resources that policed the banks were moved to counter terrorism after 9/11 and getting them back on task takes a lot of political will. Right now, with this congress, this is the best we get. This isn't a matter of the cops not being on the beat, this is a case of the cops not intending on stopping the crime in the first place. They caught these guys just fine (well it did take a while), still no criminal punishment. Right, the political will isn’t there. They can’t just bring cases against random people they BELIEVE are responsible. They need to collect evidence, bring it to a DA and then charge people based on that evidence. Right now, the evidence has not been collected by the people who recommend cases to the DA. And they have to do it, it can’t be given to them by another party. Show nested quote +On September 30 2016 04:05 Rebs wrote:On September 30 2016 03:59 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2016 03:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 30 2016 03:39 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2016 03:18 zlefin wrote:
Watching C-Span a bit; the wells fargo hearings are mostly congresspeople yelling at the CEO and posturing. Not very constructive, though perhaps cathartic, and there were some funny bits. The public humiliation keeps the story about Wells Fargo alive in the press, which is exactly what Wells Fargo doesn’t want. Although not immediately productive, it puts a lot of burden on the company as a whole. It's all BS posturing pretty much. If any of the customers stole money from the bank they'd be in prison, the bank steals from thousands upon thousands and no one even gets arrested. What people who have or have had customer service jobs can tell you is that there's not many large corporations out there on Wall st or off that don't have stealing money from people as part of their profit model. Most mainstream cell carriers do this thing. Corporate knows they set unrealistic expectations for "add on's", things like accessories or additional services. Corporate also knows that in order to meet those expectations sales associates regularly add unrequested services. One of the most popular back in the day was international internet. Rather than correct this, customer rep employees are told to explain why despite being aware of this problem (expressly told not to communicate that it was a known issue) the charges are legitimate and won't be credited back. This bank account thing sounds very similar. Congress isn't going to do anything about it whether it's banks, Verizon, or anyone else (that's a significant campaign contributor). GH, you seem to have confused me with someone who thinks that criminal charges should not have been brought. I’ve said over and over that is the only way banks like this are going to stop. The main issue is that all the FBI agents and investigation resources that policed the banks were moved to counter terrorism after 9/11 and getting them back on task takes a lot of political will. Right now, with this congress, this is the best we get. Yeah only in white collar crime of that level is it a thing where you lose your job, get a fine, a slap on the wrist and mayyybeee give back the money you owe because it was the "corporation" that did it. Its absolutely absurd. If people arent going to jail, they arent going to stop. I mean I like Warren and how she slams all of these people but really if congress cant get these people in a courthouse and in a jail for obvious wrong doing I should have the right to set up a stall on times square and sell overpriced weed to dopey vacationers. In the 80s people went to jail for insider trading. But that was in an era where we devoted resources to policing Wall Street for real, like with FBI agents.
Admittedly my knowledge of the finer details of the finance world is limited, but I suspect it's not policed all that differently than drugs. Whenever they lock someone up, it's not because of what they are doing, it's because they aren't playing ball or are small fries.
As such, the actual amount of crime isn't reduced in any significant way, the profits are just redistributed across the remaining interests.
We need an almost entirely new house and senate (and not Hillary or Kaine as president) if we actually want to do something significant.
Random question for Hillary supporters, who do you think Hillary would be tapping for the next Dem president? Her emphasis on "someone who could do the job of being president" for her VP pick seems to me to indicate she thinks the next best president after her would be Tim Kaine.
|
On September 30 2016 03:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:+ Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/777862495633416192
Yeah, this is the hardcore racialism of the past centuries.
|
U.S. lawmakers on Thursday expressed doubts about Sept. 11 legislation they forced on President Barack Obama, saying the new law allowing lawsuits against Saudi Arabia could be narrowed to ease concerns about its effect on Americans abroad.
A day after a rare overwhelming rejection of a presidential veto, the first during Obama's eight years in the White House, the Republican leaders of the Senate and House of Representatives opened the door to fixing the law as they blamed Obama, a Democrat, for not consulting them adequately.
"I do think is worth further discussing," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters, acknowledging that there could be "potential consequences" of the "Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act," known as JASTA.
House Speaker Paul Ryan said Congress might have to "fix" the legislation to protect U.S. service members in particular.
Ryan did not give a time frame for addressing the issue, but Republican Senator Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he thought the issues could be addressed in Congress' "lame-duck" session after the Nov. 8 election.
The law grants an exception to the legal principle of sovereign immunity in cases of terrorism on U.S. soil, clearing the way for lawsuits by the families of victims of the attacks seeking damages from the Saudi government. Riyadh has denied longstanding suspicions that it backed the hijackers who attacked the United States in 2001. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals.
Riyadh is one of Washington's longest-standing and most important allies in the Middle East and part of a U.S.-led coalition fighting Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria.
JASTA will add tension to U.S.-Saudi relations, after friction over Obama's 2015 nuclear deal with Saudi rival Iran.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest noted how quickly lawmakers shifted from overwhelmingly voting to override the veto to wanting to change the law.
"I think what we've seen in the United States Congress is a pretty classic case of rapid onset buyer's remorse," Earnest told a White House briefing.
Source
You can't make this shit up. Congress is blaming Obama for a law they wrote, he veto'd and they overrode.
|
On September 30 2016 04:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2016 03:55 Dan HH wrote:Wonder what the people that were arguing here that the alt-right isn't racist think about what those speakers Again, it depends upon your definition of "alt right." Interestingly enough, there appears to be quite a battle going on between the racist and non-racist elements of the alt right over control of the "alt right brand" and "alt right movement." Long story short, the alt right is quite fluid right now.
Where/how can one observe this battle? I am serious, I only see the alt-right through what comes through this topic, but I would be interested to see the "battlegrounds" so to say (It was also interesting seeing world war bernie on the dem side until the great saltening)
|
On September 30 2016 04:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2016 04:11 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 30 2016 03:59 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2016 03:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 30 2016 03:39 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2016 03:18 zlefin wrote:
Watching C-Span a bit; the wells fargo hearings are mostly congresspeople yelling at the CEO and posturing. Not very constructive, though perhaps cathartic, and there were some funny bits. The public humiliation keeps the story about Wells Fargo alive in the press, which is exactly what Wells Fargo doesn’t want. Although not immediately productive, it puts a lot of burden on the company as a whole. It's all BS posturing pretty much. If any of the customers stole money from the bank they'd be in prison, the bank steals from thousands upon thousands and no one even gets arrested. What people who have or have had customer service jobs can tell you is that there's not many large corporations out there on Wall st or off that don't have stealing money from people as part of their profit model. Most mainstream cell carriers do this thing. Corporate knows they set unrealistic expectations for "add on's", things like accessories or additional services. Corporate also knows that in order to meet those expectations sales associates regularly add unrequested services. One of the most popular back in the day was international internet. Rather than correct this, customer rep employees are told to explain why despite being aware of this problem (expressly told not to communicate that it was a known issue) the charges are legitimate and won't be credited back. This bank account thing sounds very similar. Congress isn't going to do anything about it whether it's banks, Verizon, or anyone else (that's a significant campaign contributor). GH, you seem to have confused me with someone who thinks that criminal charges should not have been brought. I’ve said over and over that is the only way banks like this are going to stop. The main issue is that all the FBI agents and investigation resources that policed the banks were moved to counter terrorism after 9/11 and getting them back on task takes a lot of political will. Right now, with this congress, this is the best we get. This isn't a matter of the cops not being on the beat, this is a case of the cops not intending on stopping the crime in the first place. They caught these guys just fine (well it did take a while), still no criminal punishment. Right, the political will isn’t there. They can’t just bring cases against random people they BELIEVE are responsible. They need to collect evidence, bring it to a DA and then charge people based on that evidence. Right now, the evidence has not been collected by the people who recommend cases to the DA. And they have to do it, it can’t be given to them by another party. On September 30 2016 04:05 Rebs wrote:On September 30 2016 03:59 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2016 03:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 30 2016 03:39 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2016 03:18 zlefin wrote:
Watching C-Span a bit; the wells fargo hearings are mostly congresspeople yelling at the CEO and posturing. Not very constructive, though perhaps cathartic, and there were some funny bits. The public humiliation keeps the story about Wells Fargo alive in the press, which is exactly what Wells Fargo doesn’t want. Although not immediately productive, it puts a lot of burden on the company as a whole. It's all BS posturing pretty much. If any of the customers stole money from the bank they'd be in prison, the bank steals from thousands upon thousands and no one even gets arrested. What people who have or have had customer service jobs can tell you is that there's not many large corporations out there on Wall st or off that don't have stealing money from people as part of their profit model. Most mainstream cell carriers do this thing. Corporate knows they set unrealistic expectations for "add on's", things like accessories or additional services. Corporate also knows that in order to meet those expectations sales associates regularly add unrequested services. One of the most popular back in the day was international internet. Rather than correct this, customer rep employees are told to explain why despite being aware of this problem (expressly told not to communicate that it was a known issue) the charges are legitimate and won't be credited back. This bank account thing sounds very similar. Congress isn't going to do anything about it whether it's banks, Verizon, or anyone else (that's a significant campaign contributor). GH, you seem to have confused me with someone who thinks that criminal charges should not have been brought. I’ve said over and over that is the only way banks like this are going to stop. The main issue is that all the FBI agents and investigation resources that policed the banks were moved to counter terrorism after 9/11 and getting them back on task takes a lot of political will. Right now, with this congress, this is the best we get. Yeah only in white collar crime of that level is it a thing where you lose your job, get a fine, a slap on the wrist and mayyybeee give back the money you owe because it was the "corporation" that did it. Its absolutely absurd. If people arent going to jail, they arent going to stop. I mean I like Warren and how she slams all of these people but really if congress cant get these people in a courthouse and in a jail for obvious wrong doing I should have the right to set up a stall on times square and sell overpriced weed to dopey vacationers. In the 80s people went to jail for insider trading. But that was in an era where we devoted resources to policing Wall Street for real, like with FBI agents. Admittedly my knowledge of the finer details of the finance world is limited, but I suspect it's not policed all that differently than drugs. Whenever they lock someone up, it's not because of what they are doing, it's because they aren't playing ball or are small fries. As such, the actual amount of crime isn't reduced in any significant way, the profits are just redistributed across the remaining interests. We need an almost entirely new house and senate (and not Hillary or Kaine as president) if we actually want to do something significant. Random question for Hillary supporters, who do you think Hillary would be tapping for the next Dem president? Her emphasis on "someone who could do the job of being president" for her VP pick seems to me to indicate she thinks the next best president after her would be Tim Kaine.
The difference with drugs is there is physical evidence and the police find that first hand. If were to take the current problem with Wells Fargo and treat it like drugs, bringing charges now would be like if someone brought a bag of coke to the police station and said “This is my neighbor coke, arrest them.” The police couldn’t really rely on the bag of coke brought into the station as evidence in court, since their proof of how owns it is weak at best. But they could go find more bags of coke and arrest the neighbor.
That is the current problem. There is no one to go and find the evidence of exactly who to charge. There are some likely suspects, but the FBI would need to do the digging and bring those charges. And there is no will to do that right now because congress is a tire fire.
|
On September 30 2016 04:30 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +U.S. lawmakers on Thursday expressed doubts about Sept. 11 legislation they forced on President Barack Obama, saying the new law allowing lawsuits against Saudi Arabia could be narrowed to ease concerns about its effect on Americans abroad.
A day after a rare overwhelming rejection of a presidential veto, the first during Obama's eight years in the White House, the Republican leaders of the Senate and House of Representatives opened the door to fixing the law as they blamed Obama, a Democrat, for not consulting them adequately.
"I do think is worth further discussing," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters, acknowledging that there could be "potential consequences" of the "Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act," known as JASTA.
House Speaker Paul Ryan said Congress might have to "fix" the legislation to protect U.S. service members in particular.
Ryan did not give a time frame for addressing the issue, but Republican Senator Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he thought the issues could be addressed in Congress' "lame-duck" session after the Nov. 8 election.
The law grants an exception to the legal principle of sovereign immunity in cases of terrorism on U.S. soil, clearing the way for lawsuits by the families of victims of the attacks seeking damages from the Saudi government. Riyadh has denied longstanding suspicions that it backed the hijackers who attacked the United States in 2001. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals.
Riyadh is one of Washington's longest-standing and most important allies in the Middle East and part of a U.S.-led coalition fighting Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria.
JASTA will add tension to U.S.-Saudi relations, after friction over Obama's 2015 nuclear deal with Saudi rival Iran.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest noted how quickly lawmakers shifted from overwhelmingly voting to override the veto to wanting to change the law.
"I think what we've seen in the United States Congress is a pretty classic case of rapid onset buyer's remorse," Earnest told a White House briefing. SourceYou can't make this shit up. Congress is blaming Obama for a law they wrote, he veto'd and they overrode.
A racist asshole paired with a stuffed shirt who stands for nothing blame the black president for a law he vetoed.
The worst part is they have no idea that the public isn’t buying it any more. Only their shrinking pool of hard line supporters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
