US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5738

AT&T Reaches Deal to Buy Time Warner for More Than $80 Billion

AT&T Inc. has reached an agreement to buy Time Warner Inc. for between $105 and $110 a share, with a deal likely to be announced as soon as Saturday evening, according to people familiar with the plans.

The boards of the two companies are meeting on Saturday to approve the transaction, the people said. The deal is half cash and half stock, according to one of the people.

The acquisition is valued at more than $80 billion and pushes the carrier deeper into the traditional entertainment business at a time of stalled wireless growth. For Time Warner, the deal represents a victory for Chief Executive Jeff Bewkes, 64, who took some heat from investors for rebuffing a takeover bid two years ago from 21st Century Fox at $85 a share. (21st Century Fox and Wall Street Journal-owner News Corp share common ownership.)

The pairing brings together AT&T’s millions of wireless and pay-television subscribers with Time Warner’s deep media lineup including networks such as CNN, TNT, the prized HBO channel and Warner Bros. film and TV studio.

A merger of the companies would be the most ambitious marriage of content and distribution in the media and telecom industries since Comcast Corp.’s purchase of NBCUniversal and would create a behemoth to rival that cable giant. A rigorous regulatory review is expected and the acquisition of Time Warner likely wouldn’t close until late 2017, people close to the process said.

Regulators have indicated misgivings about the prior Comcast-NBCU deal—in particular, whether obligations placed on Comcast were tough enough and enforceable—so it is unclear if they will be willing to bless another such merger. At the very least, former regulatory officials say there could be significant conditions placed on the combination.

The transaction would be far and away the biggest media deal of recent years. Time Warner had a market capitalization of $68 billion before The Wall Street Journal reported on the advanced talks Friday, while AT&T’s was $233 billion.

On Friday, Time Warner shares closed at $89.48, up 8%.

AT&T has been shifting its sights to media and video in recent years, diving deeper into television after its nearly $50 billion deal to acquire satellite television provider DirecTV last year. That made AT&T, which traces its roots to the old ‘Ma Bell, the country’s biggest pay television provider as well as its second-largest wireless operator.

Time Warner “is the last scaled content play that’s acquirable,” said Michael Nathanson, an analyst at MoffettNathanson, noting that the rest of the major media companies are either so valuable they would be difficult to acquire, like Walt Disney Co., or family controlled, like 21st Century Fox, CBS and Viacom. “HBO, Turner and Warner Bros. are really good assets for a future of nonlinear consumption.”

On October 23 2016 04:33 Logo wrote:
Man this is the transcript of the speech that's being put forth by Trump and Reddit. http://vesselnews.io/gettysburg-address-first-100-days-trump-administration/

Is this not the same Gettysburg speech everyone is talking about where he says he will sue his harassees and all sorts of other things we've come to expect?

Have his speeches been getting this sort of summary all along?

Not that the summary makes it any better. His policies are terrifying.

A former Arkansas senator, a leading local food champion and a beermaker turned governor are among the top contenders to be the next U.S. Secretary of Agriculture should Hillary Clinton win on Nov. 8, POLITICO has learned.

There are five names at the top of an evolving list that the transition is mulling for agriculture secretary — one of the lower-profile Cabinet posts despite its crucial role in the food supply. The list includes Blanche Lincoln, a former Arkansas senator; Kathleen Merrigan, the former deputy secretary of agriculture; John Hickenlooper, the current governor of Colorado; Karen Ross, the current agriculture secretary of California; and Steve Beshear, the former governor of Kentucky.

Sources who have been briefed on the transition team's deliberations cautioned that the list of candidates most seriously under consideration remains fluid two and a half weeks out from the election. If Clinton wins the presidency, the dynamics for selecting the nominee for agriculture secretary are also likely to change significantly based on the makeup of more sought-after cabinet nominations, since Clinton has pledged that half of her cabinet would be women.

For now, three of the top five contenders are women — Ross, Lincoln and Merrigan — and all have long track records in agriculture.

Many in agriculture are giving the early edge to Ross, who, as the head of California's Department of Food and Agriculture, oversees the largest farming state in the country with deep experience in tough issues for agriculture, ranging from labor to trade and water availability and quality.

“I’d have to give Karen Ross the best chance of getting it,” said one agriculture policy insider after reviewing the list.

Ross is a “deeply knowledgeable and competent administrator who would know how to do the job on the first day,” said a food policy observer, adding that “few people would be as prepared to do the job.”

To be sure, Ross checks a lot of boxes for a lot of key interest groups, from conventional to organic agriculture as well as environmental groups. Plus, many say it’s time for a Californian, or at least a non-Midwesterner to lead the department.

The last time that happened was from 2001 until 2005 when Ann Veneman served as President George W. Bush’s first agriculture secretary. Veneman is also from California.

Ross also has the advantage of being close with current Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, the longest serving member of Obama’s cabinet, who also happens to be Clinton’s top adviser on agriculture issues and will undoubtedly be a critical voice in selecting the nominee.

On October 23 2016 02:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Heck, even in 2016, one of our two major political parties consistently makes God-related arguments to try and hinder social progress.

On October 23 2016 04:33 Logo wrote:
Man this is the transcript of the speech that's being put forth by Trump and Reddit. http://vesselnews.io/gettysburg-address-first-100-days-trump-administration/

Is this not the same Gettysburg speech everyone is talking about where he says he will sue his harassees and all sorts of other things we've come to expect?

Have his speeches been getting this sort of summary all along?

Not that the summary makes it any better. His policies are terrifying.

Trump says:
“Therefore, on the first day of my term of office, my administration will immediately pursue the following six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, DC:

FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress;
SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health);
THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated;
FOURTH, a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service;
FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government;
SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections

On October 23 2016 05:46 a_flayer wrote:

Maybe people can discuss these issues?

On October 23 2016 05:46 a_flayer wrote:


I'd say that's about true. Very often people zoom in on one specific part of the speech and repeat it endlessly.


Reading through the whole thing of his policies, there are only like 4 or 5 parts that really turn me off. I don't have a solid of a grasp to consider some of the others, but there's also a few that seem to hit the right spot regarding term limits and lobbyists. Not sure if it would have the desired effect, but it might be beneficial to the governing process. Add some reversing of citizens united and you could have a decent hotfix to the system. Maybe another way to reduce corporate influence...

Maybe people can discuss these issues?

On October 23 2016 06:01 Howie_Dewitt wrote:

The third one is so arbitrary and dumb, how did something like this get into a presidential speech?
The bolded ones are better, but still weird.