US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5632

On October 18 2016 17:13 Dismay wrote:
I see claims that Scott Foval (one of the guys in the video about inciting violence at Trump rallies) got fired today but no sources or anything.

On October 18 2016 16:08 Acrofales wrote:

Good. Well, in that case, I agree with the original statement that pussygate had a tiny impact, if any, on Trump's chances to become president. Clearly the first debate was the real dealbreaker for him, and the second debate was, at best, insufficient to turn it around (preaching to the choir, as many here have noted). Can't really distinguish between pussygate and the 2nd debate, but there's not a large jump.

Donald Trump has lost little support since the first presidential debate, despite days of damaging news stories about his treatment of women, according to a new poll.

On October 18 2016 19:31 Toadesstern wrote:

again, the original statement that he argued against was this:

hence his screenshot with the timing of the first debate, to show that the FIRST debate hurt him (even if he technically speaking might not have lost people already voting for him)...
you're not even disagreeing with what he's saying. The only time I see him mentioning the 2nd debate is when he acknowledged that the "I'll put her in jail" line probably sells well with his base.

On October 18 2016 20:29 RoomOfMush wrote:
Bill O'Reilly on Colbert. Was actually pretty good to be honest. I wasnt expecting O'Reilly to be so honest and open about supporting hillary.
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +

On October 18 2016 21:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
As O'Reilly has gotten older- especially during this election cycle- I've seen him become more and more disillusioned with his Republican-no-matter-what bullshit.

On October 18 2016 21:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
As O'Reilly has gotten older- especially during this election cycle- I've seen him become more and more disillusioned with his Republican-no-matter-what bullshit.

Exxon Mobil Corp asked a federal court on Monday to throw out a subpoena from New York state that would force the oil company to hand over decades of documents as part of a wide-ranging inquiry into whether it misled investors about climate change risks.

The filing means Exxon has now requested the US district court in Fort Worth, Texas for injunctions against two major climate subpoenas: one issued by New York and another from Massachusetts that the company challenged in June.

Exxon, which for more than a decade has acknowledged the risks of climate change, has criticised the prosecutors’ inquiries as politically motivated.

A group of state attorneys general, led by New York, said in March they would go after the world’s largest publicly traded oil company for allegedly violating securities laws by soft-pedaling the dangers of climate change and efforts to fight it.

Judge Ed Kinkeade has yet to rule on Exxon’s requests in the high-profile case.

But in a statement to the court last week, Kinkeade said he would be concerned if there was “bias or prejudgement about what the investigation of Exxon would discover” when Massachusetts attorney general Maura Healey issued her subpoena.

Her office was not immediately available for comment on Monday.
Eric Soufer, spokesman for New York State’s attorney general, accused Exxon of forum-shopping.

“Exxon will do everything in its power to distract, delay, and avoid any investigation into its actions, which may have violated state securities and consumer fraud laws. Exxon’s latest claims in its stunt litigation in Texas are meritless,” he said.

On Friday, New York filed in a New York court to derail Exxon’s latest request.
In its filing, Exxon said New York’s inquiry has periodically shifted focus, first by looking for misleading comments about climate change, then moving onto the value of its reserves and how they might be “stranded” in the ground by carbon regulation in the future.

Exxon said in September the US Securities & Exchange Commission is the right agency to vet how it books reserves and that it complies with accounting and securities laws.

Some legal experts have said that, regardless of Exxon’s past comments on climate change, it could not have violated securities laws because investors gather their information from a variety of entities with disparate views.

On October 18 2016 22:31 Adreme wrote:
Bill knows his brand and his audience and he has spent years telling them exactly what they want to hear. Maybe it's because he is retiring soon or because Trump is that offensive to him but it seems like he doesn't care about that brand at the moment

In all, people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.

Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates.

On October 18 2016 23:08 farvacola wrote:
You mean to tell me that journalists aren't supporting the candidate who said

wow, how surprising.

On October 18 2016 23:08 farvacola wrote:
You mean to tell me that journalists aren't supporting the candidate who said

wow, how surprising.