US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5775

On October 27 2016 04:24 Gorsameth wrote:

yes. they demonized Trump by giving literal quotes and ignored Hillary's mistakes that never happened...

On October 27 2016 04:20 pmh wrote:
Trump I think can still win this election but he has to find the exact right angle of attack. The media went to far with demonizing trump and ignoring all of HRC,s mistakes. This does give trump an opening. Ima mail the trump campaign a detailed strategy for the final 2 weeks,i hope they will read it lol.

The US abstained for the first time on Wednesday in a UN vote denouncing the continuing congressional embargo on Cuba.

The Obama administration has relaxed some of the half-century-old sanctions on Cuba over the last two years, a process that culminated in a presidential visit to the Caribbean island state in March and the resumption of commercial flights to Havana. But the Republican-dominated Congress has refused to lift the bulk of the trade restrictions, saying the communist government has not done enough to improve human rights.

At a session of the UN general assembly to debate an annual resolution calling for the lifting of the embargo, the US ambassador, Samantha Power, took to the lectern to make the same argument the administration has been making in Congress – that the embargo has been backfiring for years.

“For more than 50 years, the United States had a policy aimed at isolating the government of Cuba. For roughly half of those years, UN member states have voted overwhelmingly for a general assembly resolution that condemns the US embargo and calls for it to be ended,” Power said.

“The United States has always voted against this resolution. Today the United States will abstain,” the ambassador said, to loud applause in the chamber.

The resolution was passed by 191 votes, with no votes against and only the US and Israel abstaining, emphasizing congressional isolation on the issue. However, the vote is not legally binding on member states.

Explaining the abstention, Power said the administration had called on Congress to lift the embargo but not for the reasons laid out in the UN resolution, which suggests they are in violation of international law. Power said the embargo was legal, but ineffective.

West Virginia residents have settled part of a civil lawsuit over a chemical spill that contaminated drinking water for thousands of people in 2014, according to The Associated Press.

On Wednesday, court officials told the news service that lawyers representing residents and businesses in and around Charleston, W.Va., had reached a settlement with Eastman Chemical Co. over its involvement in the January 2014 spill of a chemical used for cleaning coal. Terms of the settlement must be approved by a judge.

The chemical, called methylcyclohexene methanol, or crude MCHM, caused nausea, eye infections and vomiting after it entered the water supply. The spill prompted the governor to declare a state of emergency for nine counties, and water was cut off to about 300,000 people for days.

Eastman had been listed as a defendant in a federal class action lawsuit, along with the West Virginia American Water Co. and its parent company, American Water Works.

The trial against the water company was set to go forward with jury selection on Thursday, the AP reports, and details of the settlement with Eastman will remain sealed until that trial is over and U.S. District Judge John Copenhaver approves the settlement terms.

Pre-trial documents did not list an amount of money being sought in damages from either the water or chemical companies by the hundreds of thousands of people affected by the spill.

Eastman Chemical sold the crude MCHM to Freedom Industries, which owned and operated a storage tank that leaked the chemical into the Elk River. The lawsuit alleged that Eastman had a duty "to warn its customer [Freedom] about storage incompatibilities" because MCHM was known to be corrosive.

Freedom Industries wasn't listed in the lawsuit because it filed for bankruptcy shortly after the spill, as The Two-Way has reported. However, according to court records, plaintiffs already settled claims against Freedom's president at the time, Gary Southern.

In a pre-trial court filing, the plaintiffs accused Eastman of neglecting to comply with what they call an industry standard to "know your customer."

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has suggested "know your customer" policies for the chemical industry as a safeguard against theft of dangerous chemicals for illicit purposes. In the Elk River case, the suit alleges that, although the purpose of buying crude MCHM was not illicit, the customer was nonetheless an unsafe buyer because Freedom's storage tanks were clearly unstable and inadequate for storing the chemical.

On October 27 2016 04:20 pmh wrote:
Trump I think can still win this election but he has to find the exact right angle of attack. The media went to far with demonizing trump and ignoring all of HRC,s mistakes. This does give trump an opening. Ima mail the trump campaign a detailed strategy for the final 2 weeks,i hope they will read it lol.

Black Lives Matter activist DeRay McKesson is supporting Hillary Clinton as the next President.

In a Washington Post OpEd McKesson says he believes that as president, Clinton will "continue to shape the trajectory of justice and landscape of opportunity in this country."

Referencing Shirley Chisholm, McKesson sets up the importance of civic engagement despite "imperfect systems." He calls out some of his peers who have said they would not vote at all - anticipating that the Trump presidency "bring about a productive apocalypse" whereby the system would inevitably "grind to a halt and force us to confront everything that is wrong with the system."

On October 26 2016 19:42 Simberto wrote:


Stupid question, what is the difference between those 2700$ limit donations directly to a candidate, and the 100.000$+ dollar donation to the "Trump Victory Fund", or whatever else organisation that obviously is also a donation to the candidate?

What is the point in the donation limit when people apparently can just bypass it whenever they like by donating to something different which is exactly the same?

This is confusing me quite a lot. Are there donation limits, or are there not, and if they are there, why are they only there for some donations but not for others? And if they are only there for some donation and not for others, why are they there at all, it seems kind of pointless.

Sussman’s original contribution to Hillary Victory Fund has been similarly allocated to at least 10 other states, and each time has been passed on to the DNC on the same day. That makes his total effective contribution to the DNC about $133,400. (Sussman is Clinton’s biggest donor this election, having given more than $11 million to support her bid, mainly through super-PACs.)

And the handling of Sussman’s donation isn’t unique. Overall in 2016, funds from 410 maxed-out donors have been routed to the DNC through state parties, totaling $9.3 million. The fund has transferred $220,000 of contributions from media mogul Haim Saban and his wife Cheryl to the DNC via state parties, the same amount from billionaires J.B. and Mary Pritzker, and $110,000 from Chicago publishing tycoon Fred Eychaner. All are among the top ten donors supporting Clinton.

On October 27 2016 04:20 pmh wrote:
Trump I think can still win this election but he has to find the exact right angle of attack. The media went to far with demonizing trump and ignoring all of HRC,s mistakes. This does give trump an opening. Ima mail the trump campaign a detailed strategy for the final 2 weeks,i hope they will read it lol.

On October 27 2016 06:00 GreenHorizons wrote:



Kinda disappointed, but not surprised, this didn't get answered (other than the superPAC part), or the article discussed. It's pretty much exactly what I've been talking about.

The "Victory fund" is something that Hillary has been using, except she has more states on board so her limit is ~$354,000 per donor and then the unlimited amount toward superPACs.

It works like this:

Candidate has $2,700 limit
Donor's can only donate up to $33,400 to the DNC
Then each state party has a limit.

The "Victory fund" hosts a fundraiser, where they collect. for example. a $354,000 dollar check from someone like Walmart's Alice Walton or hedge fund manager S. Donald Sussman or $103k from an energy exec in Donald's case and distribute it among the state parties, so they can send it to the DNC.

Then the money is funneled back out of the state parties into the DNC avoiding the limit for individual donations to the DNC.



Source

Neither Trump/RNC or Clinton/DNC can be influenced by that kind of stuff though, obviously.

On October 27 2016 06:12 oneofthem wrote:

people are more complicated than 'rich = robotic manipulation of the system to get richer.' there are some but guys like sussman/simons/bloomberg etc are more similar to concerned citizens with resources.

saban does have a distinctly pro-israel influence on things like brookings, but you should avoid simple characterization of the rich.

On October 27 2016 06:16 Blisse wrote:
Your last sentence "Neither Trump/RNC or Clinton/DNC can be influenced by that kind of stuff though, obviously. " can be sarcastically taken in that context.

On October 27 2016 06:28 Barrin wrote:
Fuck, I hate this election. Can someone show me a similarly bad U.S. presidential election so I can start feeling better about it?

On October 27 2016 06:28 Barrin wrote:
Fuck, I hate this election. Can someone show me a similarly bad U.S. presidential election so I can start feeling better about it?

On October 27 2016 06:28 Barrin wrote:
Fuck, I hate this election. Can someone show me a similarly bad U.S. presidential election so I can start feeling better about it?

Stakes so high, chances I'll make a difference so low (yet I have one of the better chances in the country), literally all the choices are terrible. GDI.

On October 27 2016 06:28 oneofthem wrote:
look at your history of railing against wall street donations etc.

if you actually spell out these potential conflicts, rather than relying on guilt by association, id be more charitable about this.