• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 11:21
CEST 17:21
KST 00:21
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Season 1 - Final Week2[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall10HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation14$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced6Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles6[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China10Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL68
StarCraft 2
General
RSL Season 1 - Final Week Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation TL Team Map Contest #4: Winners Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles
Tourneys
RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament $25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event WardiTV Mondays
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma
Brood War
General
Player “Jedi” cheat on CSL BW General Discussion Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ [G] Progamer Settings
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China [BSL20] Grand Finals - Sunday 20:00 CET CSL Xiamen International Invitational
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile What do you want from future RTS games?
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Positive Thoughts on Setting Up a Dual-Caliber FX
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Summer Games Done Quick 2025! Russo-Ukrainian War Thread
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Men Take Risks, Women Win Ga…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 676 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9605

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 9603 9604 9605 9606 9607 10093 Next
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.
brian
Profile Blog Joined August 2004
United States9617 Posts
December 28 2017 13:31 GMT
#192081
i know this is beyond cynical but at this point i have to wonder if he’s not just following orders
ShoCkeyy
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
7815 Posts
December 28 2017 13:35 GMT
#192082
This guy Roy is a complete joke. How are you going to try and "sue" voting results based on "fraud" in a place where you yourself have placed many many obstacles for minorities to not vote....
Life?
Gahlo
Profile Joined February 2010
United States35140 Posts
December 28 2017 13:40 GMT
#192083
"And I would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for diddling kids!"
Ciaus_Dronu
Profile Joined June 2017
South Africa1848 Posts
December 28 2017 13:40 GMT
#192084
On December 28 2017 22:31 brian wrote:
i know this is beyond cynical but at this point i have to wonder if he’s not just following orders


The later Doug reaches the senate the less he can vote on. I thought it too when I saw that.
Under normal circumstances this would be dismissable. But with McTurtle and Trump being the people they are and with the records they have, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
brian
Profile Blog Joined August 2004
United States9617 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-12-28 14:07:27
December 28 2017 13:50 GMT
#192085
On December 28 2017 22:40 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 28 2017 22:31 brian wrote:
i know this is beyond cynical but at this point i have to wonder if he’s not just following orders


The later Doug reaches the senate the less he can vote on. I thought it too when I saw that.
Under normal circumstances this would be dismissable. But with McTurtle and Trump being the people they are and with the records they have, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

Trump and congressional republicans have been playing the dirtiest of politics since the garland vote. not only would it not surprise me but i just expect it. anything they can do to get a win, they do. Getting this tax bill through only happened by pandering hard to Corker(essentially paying him off lol) et. al. by singular votes, confirming another Democrat can’t possibly be high on the to-do list.

as a matter of fact i’d have expected these orders to be a condition of the re-endorsement of his campaign. Moore can’t possibly want to lose all over again..

it’s funny to think how much Corker profits from Jones winning. Now they have to sell him even harder. Whatever it takes to not compromise with the dems. lul.
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
December 28 2017 14:02 GMT
#192086
Scientists say 2017 is set to be the third warmest year on record in the US as they look back on a year littered with stark signals of climate change.

The year-to-date average temperature across the contiguous US has been 2.6F above the 20th century average, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), placing it only behind 2012 and 2016 in terms of record warmth.

December may influence the overall 2017 ranking, but according to Jake Crouch, a climate scientist at Noaa: “We can say with confidence that the year will be in at least the top five,” for record warmth.

“It’s been another really warm year for the contiguous US,” Crouch said. “The last time we saw a year with below average temperatures was 1996. So this will be the 21st consecutive year that’s above average. And even though it’s not a record, we are seeing climate change manifest itself.”

Eight states – Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and Western Virginia – have in fact experienced record warmth for the first 11 months of the year. A national record, however, is out of reach due to the lack of an El Niño, a periodic climatic event that appeared last year and spurred extra heat.

But the fingerprint of climate change extends beyond just temperature. California’s deepest drought on record was broken by intense rainfall at the start of the year, an example of the long dry spells interrupted by ferocious downpours that scientists say are becoming more frequent in a warming world.

To the north, Arctic sea ice reached a record low wintertime maximum extent as, incredibly, temperature instruments in Alaska malfunctioned due to the surging warmth.

Further south, there was a hurricane season that was unusually punishing. There were six major hurricanes, defined as category three or above, including the first two major hurricanes – Harvey and Irma – to hit the continental US in 12 years.

“This was a hurricane season that wouldn’t quit,” said Timothy Gallaudet, acting Noaa administrator.

While these hurricanes may well have formed without human-induced warming, the extra heat in the Atlantic and in the atmosphere helped fuel the storms. Harvey, which dumped around 25tn gallons of water on the Houston area in just a few days, derived perhaps a third of its strength from the extra heat added to the planet since industrialization, according to one estimate.

“The number of hurricanes wasn’t related to climate change, that was bad luck, but the hurricanes were different because of climate change,” said Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University.

“It’s very reasonable to assume that Harvey was made worse by climate change. Maria and Irma were consistent with the idea that the most powerful hurricanes will get more powerful. This is the kind of stuff we will have to get used to.”

Ultimately, 2017 may well be remembered more for the political response to climate change. The newly-installed Trump administration set about tearing up policies deigned to address global warming, such as Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan, announced the US was to withdraw from the Paris climate accord and repeatedly questioned the scientific basis of climate change.

Meanwhile, specific regulations curbing planet-warming gases from vehicles and drilling operations were scaled back, with more federal land and water opened up for fossil fuel exploration.

“The US is moving backwards as far as rational climate policy goes and I guess we will have to see whether this is a blip or a long term trend,” said Dessler. “A lot will depend on the elections next year and whoever the president is in 2020.

“Everyone recognizes that the weather is weird and things are getting warming, but climate change has become an identity issue. If you see yourself as a good Republican, you don’t believe in climate change. It’s hard to change that viewpoint when it’s part of someone’s identity. It’s like trying to convince someone they should be Jewish rather than Catholic.”

As for 2018, as the Environmental Protection Agency holds a sort of show trial, perhaps televised, of climate science itself, the planet will continue to warm.

“My expectation is that it will be another hot year,” said Dessler. “The climate of the past has gone. This is our new normal. I doubt we’ll ever see a record cold year again.”


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
December 28 2017 14:07 GMT
#192087
So Tennessee Senator Bob Corker is in trouble now, because he flip-flopped to vote for Donald Trump's tax bill after a provision was included that reportedly helps him personally.

Color me not shocked. I spent most of this past summer investigating Corker, whose personal finances have been the subject of inquiry for years. Everything you need to know about the Senator can be discerned from this chart.

Click on that link and you’ll see what non-partisan research group Center for Responsive Politics has tracked: Corker's net worth has risen by millions since before being elected, to the point of being the fourth wealthiest man in the upper chamber, worth $69 million as of 2015.

How do you increase your net worth so significantly while you're working full-time as a Senator? That is not an easy story to explain.

According to his own disclosure forms, Corker in 2006 carried a series of huge loans.

Corker took office in January, 2007, during the last gasp of the Bush/Rove political juggernaut. The Iraq war had gone south and the Republicans had just been routed in midterms. The financial crisis was just around the corner. And nobody paid attention to the smooth-talking freshman Senator from Tennessee, who turned out to have some financial issues.

The former Chattanooga mayor's election was not without controversy. Corker was a country-club Republican who used an old Southern formula to get elected. He benefited from a lurid race-baiting RNC ad that showed a white woman winking and asking Corker's African-American opponent, Democrat Harold Ford, to "Call me!"

But no one knew about Corker's private peccadilloes.

It wasn't until Corker took office and filled out disclosure forms that his finances became public – sort of. Few in the media seem ever to have read the "liabilities" section of Corker's first disclosure, where the former mayor and construction magnate listed a series of massive outstanding loans. At the low end, Corker appeared to owe a hair-raising $24.2 million. At the high end, $120.5 million.

He had been in debt to some of the nation's biggest lenders – including somewhere between $12 million and $60 million in debt to GE Capital alone.

Corker had been a construction magnate in Tennessee before taking office, a sort of mini-Trump. Before he ran for office, he sold off his business to a local developer named Henry Luken.

It has always been Corker's contention that when he sold his business, his debts were also sold, meaning he was not technically in debt when he went to Washington. Still, he continued to list the loans as liabilities.

This is what Corker spokeswoman Micah Johnson told me this summer, about Corker's outstanding loans back then, and why they were listed on his Senate disclosure:

"On January 4, 2006, in preparation for his run for the Senate and to avoid conflicts, Senator Corker sold the majority of his commercial real estate portfolio. The loans… were transferred with the properties," Johnson wrote. "While the sale took place in January, 10 months before he was elected and one year before he took office, they still would have been listed on his 2007 financial disclosure since the sale took place in 2006."

Many of Corker's critics have disagreed with this interpretation of events. But even if the loans were discharged when he sold his company, it's what happened after Corker got elected that boggles the mind.

Ten years before reporters would swarm over Trump for (among other things) raising fees at his Mar-a-Lago resorts before making a series of taxpayer-funded visits, Corker tested the limits of the moonlighting possibilities in the legislative branch, essentially becoming a full-time day-trader who did a little Senator-ing in his spare time.

In the first nine months of 2007, Corker made an incredible 1,200 trades, over four per day, including 332 over a two-day period.

When I asked Johnson about this, and asked if Corker was making those trades himself or through a broker, Johnson gave a curious answer.

"Soon after taking office in January of 2007, rather than continuing to have a broker make discretionary transactions on his behalf throughout the day or week on a wide range of stocks in various companies, the senator felt it would be prudent to eliminate this arrangement," Johnson said. "The closing out of this arrangement would have added substantially to the number of trades normally made in the broker's discretionary account."

Johnson seems to be saying that Corker would have made substantially more trades if he had executed them through a broker. So, he didn't. I can offer no commentary shedding light on what this means, except to say that at the bottom of all of this is the still-incontrovertible fact that Corker made a truly awesome number of financial transactions while in office.

By 2014, when Corker sat on the Senate Banking Committee, a position that gave him regular access to prime information about the future direction of the markets, the Tennessee Senator still had his foot on the gas. He made 930 stock trades that year.

Of his colleagues on the committee, Rhode Island's Jack Reed made 39 trades, Pennsylvania's Patrick Toomey 26, and nobody else made any – meaning Corker made 93.5% of all trades made by the legislators most plugged-in to the country's finances.

When I asked about that extraordinary volume of trading in 2014, when Corker sat on the Banking Committee, Johnson answered thusly: "In 2014, Senator Corker entered a separately managed account (SMA), which is a portfolio managed by a professional asset management firm. Since he had not previously been in a SMA, he asked the Senate Ethics Committee for a ruling on how they should be reported," she said.

She went on: "The Senate Ethics Committee studied the issue for several weeks, and out of an abundance of caution, advised us to report all underlying positions of the account, even though the senator was making no investment decisions."

A Separately Managed Account is not the same thing as a blind trust. That the Senate Ethics Committee advised Corker to continue reporting his positions even if the senator was making "no investment decisions" was noteworthy. And no matter what, it continued to be true that Corker was making a dizzying number of financial moves while sitting on the Senate Banking Committee.

Corker's activities didn't go completely unnoticed. A few ethics groups and reporters cried foul over the years. He had to amend his Senate disclosures after the Wall Street Journal in 2015 found unreported income from "quick" trades in a Chattanooga company called CBL enterprises. As Fortune noted at the time, Corker went back and made "dozens" of amendments to earlier disclosures, to reveal about $3.8 million in previously unreported income.

Meanwhile, Bethany McLean of Yahoo! News later reported that Corker had invested in a Tennessee hedge fund that made profitable short bets against the housing market with Goldman Sachs.

Anne Weismann, director of the Campaign for Accountability, which filed a complaint against Corker in 2015, described Corker's trading history in damning terms.

"Senator Corker's trades followed a consistent pattern," she said. "He bought low and sold high. It beggars belief to suggest these trades – netting the senator and his family millions – were mere coincidences."


Source

Speaking of Corker, I found this article by Rolling Stone on him to be pretty fascinating. Apparently he has been actively trading stocks the entire time he has been in office. Like so much that he rocketed up to being the fourth richest member.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
December 28 2017 15:50 GMT
#192088
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
December 28 2017 15:56 GMT
#192089
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
IyMoon
Profile Joined April 2016
United States1249 Posts
December 28 2017 16:04 GMT
#192090
On December 29 2017 00:56 Danglars wrote:
https://twitter.com/abc/status/946213216836780032


This I kinda get. Why would the FBI lead this, someone else who isnt involved in what he was going to testify about should lead it
Something witty
brian
Profile Blog Joined August 2004
United States9617 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-12-28 16:13:08
December 28 2017 16:07 GMT
#192091
On December 29 2017 01:04 IyMoon wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 29 2017 00:56 Danglars wrote:
https://twitter.com/abc/status/946213216836780032


This I kinda get. Why would the FBI lead this, someone else who isnt involved in what he was going to testify about should lead it

because a cop being murdered the day before testifying against his fellow cops shouldn’t be investigated by the people he was testifying against. even assuming the conclusion is correct, it’s still not something that should be conducted by the baltimore PD.
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
December 28 2017 16:12 GMT
#192092
On December 29 2017 01:07 brian wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 29 2017 01:04 IyMoon wrote:
On December 29 2017 00:56 Danglars wrote:
https://twitter.com/abc/status/946213216836780032


This I kinda get. Why would the FBI lead this, someone else who isnt involved in what he was going to testify about should lead it

because a cop being murdered the day before testifying against his fellow cops shouldn’t be investigated by the people he was testifying against.

I think the problem for the FBI is that they are also investigating the department for the corruption, so they are not without some specter of bias. So unless there is some clear evidence that he was killed in connection with the corruption case, they don't have cause jump in on the matter. Even if the department is requesting it.

It looks shady as fuck, but that isn't enough.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
brian
Profile Blog Joined August 2004
United States9617 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-12-28 16:30:12
December 28 2017 16:16 GMT
#192093
On December 29 2017 01:12 Plansix wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 29 2017 01:07 brian wrote:
On December 29 2017 01:04 IyMoon wrote:
On December 29 2017 00:56 Danglars wrote:
https://twitter.com/abc/status/946213216836780032


This I kinda get. Why would the FBI lead this, someone else who isnt involved in what he was going to testify about should lead it

because a cop being murdered the day before testifying against his fellow cops shouldn’t be investigated by the people he was testifying against.

I think the problem for the FBI is that they are also investigating the department for the corruption, so they are not without some specter of bias. So unless there is some clear evidence that he was killed in connection with the corruption case, they don't have cause jump in on the matter. Even if the department is requesting it.

It looks shady as fuck, but that isn't enough.

Wouldn’t this sort of logic also preclude the usefulness of a district attorney?(edit: oops bad analogy, the states attorney has a jury. i see why this fails.) the entire point of the FBI conducting the investigation is the presumption of their impartiality is it not?

i think him being a witness the day after the murder is plenty cause. And again, since i had edited it into my last post after you had quoted it, assuming their conclusion that it is not connected to their case, i think it should still be the fbi investigation to get that conclusion, not the investigation by the department he was testifying against. it’s just impossible to assume the BPD’s impartiality here isn’t it? even if the idealist in me really wants to.
IyMoon
Profile Joined April 2016
United States1249 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-12-28 16:22:03
December 28 2017 16:21 GMT
#192094
On December 29 2017 01:16 brian wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 29 2017 01:12 Plansix wrote:
On December 29 2017 01:07 brian wrote:
On December 29 2017 01:04 IyMoon wrote:
On December 29 2017 00:56 Danglars wrote:
https://twitter.com/abc/status/946213216836780032


This I kinda get. Why would the FBI lead this, someone else who isnt involved in what he was going to testify about should lead it

because a cop being murdered the day before testifying against his fellow cops shouldn’t be investigated by the people he was testifying against.

I think the problem for the FBI is that they are also investigating the department for the corruption, so they are not without some specter of bias. So unless there is some clear evidence that he was killed in connection with the corruption case, they don't have cause jump in on the matter. Even if the department is requesting it.

It looks shady as fuck, but that isn't enough.

Wouldn’t this sort of logic also preclude the usefulness of a district attorney? the entire point of the FBI conducting the investigation is the presumption of their impartiality is it not?


I admit, I only read the headline of the tweet but wasn't he set to testify about federal corruption, not state?

Edit: Going back and re reading I was wrong and now I don't get why the FBI won't pick it up
Something witty
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
December 28 2017 16:21 GMT
#192095
On December 29 2017 01:07 brian wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 29 2017 01:04 IyMoon wrote:
On December 29 2017 00:56 Danglars wrote:
https://twitter.com/abc/status/946213216836780032


This I kinda get. Why would the FBI lead this, someone else who isnt involved in what he was going to testify about should lead it

because a cop being murdered the day before testifying against his fellow cops shouldn’t be investigated by the people he was testifying against. even assuming the conclusion is correct, it’s still not something that should be conducted by the baltimore PD.

The FBI better be monitoring the murder case with heavy scrutiny. You’re right that the department he was about to testify against is responsible for investigating his death. Additionally, the AG (& underlings) that will weigh the evidence and prosecute is an elected position where the support/nonsupport of the police union weighs considerably. It doesn’t pass the smell test right now.
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
December 28 2017 16:31 GMT
#192096
California regulators say Nestle may have to stop collecting a large portion of the water it bottles from the San Bernardino National Forest, because it lacks the legal permits for millions of gallons of water. Nestle sells the water under the Arrowhead label.

The State Water Board says that of the 62.6 million gallons of water that Nestle says it extracted from the San Bernardino spring each year on average from 1947 to 2015, the company may only have a right to some 8.5 million gallons. Those numbers come from a nearly two-year investigation.

The state says Nestle should apply for a new permit and ensure that all of its water diversions comply with California regulations, laying out a timeline for the company to respond.

The Water Board began investigating after several complaints were made against Nestle during California's recent drought. Spurred by a 2015 report in the Desert Sun newspaper, the allegations against Nestle ranged from accusation that the giant company lacked full rights to the water it was selling to claims that its actions were harming the natural environment and its inhabitants.

Nestle has said it monitors its spring sites to be sure they don't cause problems, and the Water Board's report was less conclusive on those points. But Nestle wasn't able to satisfy Water Board investigators who wanted to clarify how much water the company could lawfully extract.

"While Nestlé may be able to claim a valid basis of right to some water in Strawberry Canyon," the board says in its report, "a significant portion of the water currently diverted by Nestlé appears to be diverted without a valid basis of right."

When the Desert Sun published its story about Nestle's Arrowhead operation back in 2015, the newspaper's Ian James told NPR, "Nestle has 11 spring sources that it uses in California as well as five bottling plants. And the water that's bottled comes both from springs as well as from other supplies pumped directly from groundwater or from municipal supplies."

In that 2015 story, James said that he found California lacked reliable state-wide oversight data on the bottled-water industry.

California's State Water Board recently sent Nestle a letter summarizing its report. As for what the company must do now, the board issued a string of recommendations, giving Nestle 60 days to submit a compliance plan and 90 days to submit an investigation and monitoring plan.

Member station KPCC reports:

"Nestle said it was too soon to say what impact, if any, the letter would have on Arrowhead bottled water. A spokeswoman said she was pleased that the report reaffirms Nestle holds valid rights to 'a significant amount' of water."

Water from the headwaters of Strawberry Creek in the San Bernardino National Forest has been bottled since the late 1800s — and Nestle had told California regulators that the claim to the water by the original owner of the Arrowhead Springs Hotel had extended through the years to the Swiss multinational.

Water Board officials did not agree, saying that while the hotel's use was riparian — taking place at the water's origin — Nestle couldn't convert that to an "appropriative use."

The board left open the possibility that Nestle could make a valid claim to extract more water from the forest land.


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
December 28 2017 17:04 GMT
#192097
On December 29 2017 01:16 brian wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 29 2017 01:12 Plansix wrote:
On December 29 2017 01:07 brian wrote:
On December 29 2017 01:04 IyMoon wrote:
On December 29 2017 00:56 Danglars wrote:
https://twitter.com/abc/status/946213216836780032


This I kinda get. Why would the FBI lead this, someone else who isnt involved in what he was going to testify about should lead it

because a cop being murdered the day before testifying against his fellow cops shouldn’t be investigated by the people he was testifying against.

I think the problem for the FBI is that they are also investigating the department for the corruption, so they are not without some specter of bias. So unless there is some clear evidence that he was killed in connection with the corruption case, they don't have cause jump in on the matter. Even if the department is requesting it.

It looks shady as fuck, but that isn't enough.

Wouldn’t this sort of logic also preclude the usefulness of a district attorney?(edit: oops bad analogy, the states attorney has a jury. i see why this fails.) the entire point of the FBI conducting the investigation is the presumption of their impartiality is it not?

i think him being a witness the day after the murder is plenty cause. And again, since i had edited it into my last post after you had quoted it, assuming their conclusion that it is not connected to their case, i think it should still be the fbi investigation to get that conclusion, not the investigation by the department he was testifying against. it’s just impossible to assume the BPD’s impartiality here isn’t it? even if the idealist in me really wants to.

Just because they don't have an open investigation doesn't mean they are not monitoring the police investigation.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
TheLordofAwesome
Profile Joined May 2014
Korea (South)2616 Posts
December 28 2017 17:44 GMT
#192098
On December 28 2017 23:07 Plansix wrote:
Show nested quote +
So Tennessee Senator Bob Corker is in trouble now, because he flip-flopped to vote for Donald Trump's tax bill after a provision was included that reportedly helps him personally.

Color me not shocked. I spent most of this past summer investigating Corker, whose personal finances have been the subject of inquiry for years. Everything you need to know about the Senator can be discerned from this chart.

Click on that link and you’ll see what non-partisan research group Center for Responsive Politics has tracked: Corker's net worth has risen by millions since before being elected, to the point of being the fourth wealthiest man in the upper chamber, worth $69 million as of 2015.

How do you increase your net worth so significantly while you're working full-time as a Senator? That is not an easy story to explain.

According to his own disclosure forms, Corker in 2006 carried a series of huge loans.

Corker took office in January, 2007, during the last gasp of the Bush/Rove political juggernaut. The Iraq war had gone south and the Republicans had just been routed in midterms. The financial crisis was just around the corner. And nobody paid attention to the smooth-talking freshman Senator from Tennessee, who turned out to have some financial issues.

The former Chattanooga mayor's election was not without controversy. Corker was a country-club Republican who used an old Southern formula to get elected. He benefited from a lurid race-baiting RNC ad that showed a white woman winking and asking Corker's African-American opponent, Democrat Harold Ford, to "Call me!"

But no one knew about Corker's private peccadilloes.

It wasn't until Corker took office and filled out disclosure forms that his finances became public – sort of. Few in the media seem ever to have read the "liabilities" section of Corker's first disclosure, where the former mayor and construction magnate listed a series of massive outstanding loans. At the low end, Corker appeared to owe a hair-raising $24.2 million. At the high end, $120.5 million.

He had been in debt to some of the nation's biggest lenders – including somewhere between $12 million and $60 million in debt to GE Capital alone.

Corker had been a construction magnate in Tennessee before taking office, a sort of mini-Trump. Before he ran for office, he sold off his business to a local developer named Henry Luken.

It has always been Corker's contention that when he sold his business, his debts were also sold, meaning he was not technically in debt when he went to Washington. Still, he continued to list the loans as liabilities.

This is what Corker spokeswoman Micah Johnson told me this summer, about Corker's outstanding loans back then, and why they were listed on his Senate disclosure:

"On January 4, 2006, in preparation for his run for the Senate and to avoid conflicts, Senator Corker sold the majority of his commercial real estate portfolio. The loans… were transferred with the properties," Johnson wrote. "While the sale took place in January, 10 months before he was elected and one year before he took office, they still would have been listed on his 2007 financial disclosure since the sale took place in 2006."

Many of Corker's critics have disagreed with this interpretation of events. But even if the loans were discharged when he sold his company, it's what happened after Corker got elected that boggles the mind.

Ten years before reporters would swarm over Trump for (among other things) raising fees at his Mar-a-Lago resorts before making a series of taxpayer-funded visits, Corker tested the limits of the moonlighting possibilities in the legislative branch, essentially becoming a full-time day-trader who did a little Senator-ing in his spare time.

In the first nine months of 2007, Corker made an incredible 1,200 trades, over four per day, including 332 over a two-day period.

When I asked Johnson about this, and asked if Corker was making those trades himself or through a broker, Johnson gave a curious answer.

"Soon after taking office in January of 2007, rather than continuing to have a broker make discretionary transactions on his behalf throughout the day or week on a wide range of stocks in various companies, the senator felt it would be prudent to eliminate this arrangement," Johnson said. "The closing out of this arrangement would have added substantially to the number of trades normally made in the broker's discretionary account."

Johnson seems to be saying that Corker would have made substantially more trades if he had executed them through a broker. So, he didn't. I can offer no commentary shedding light on what this means, except to say that at the bottom of all of this is the still-incontrovertible fact that Corker made a truly awesome number of financial transactions while in office.

By 2014, when Corker sat on the Senate Banking Committee, a position that gave him regular access to prime information about the future direction of the markets, the Tennessee Senator still had his foot on the gas. He made 930 stock trades that year.

Of his colleagues on the committee, Rhode Island's Jack Reed made 39 trades, Pennsylvania's Patrick Toomey 26, and nobody else made any – meaning Corker made 93.5% of all trades made by the legislators most plugged-in to the country's finances.

When I asked about that extraordinary volume of trading in 2014, when Corker sat on the Banking Committee, Johnson answered thusly: "In 2014, Senator Corker entered a separately managed account (SMA), which is a portfolio managed by a professional asset management firm. Since he had not previously been in a SMA, he asked the Senate Ethics Committee for a ruling on how they should be reported," she said.

She went on: "The Senate Ethics Committee studied the issue for several weeks, and out of an abundance of caution, advised us to report all underlying positions of the account, even though the senator was making no investment decisions."

A Separately Managed Account is not the same thing as a blind trust. That the Senate Ethics Committee advised Corker to continue reporting his positions even if the senator was making "no investment decisions" was noteworthy. And no matter what, it continued to be true that Corker was making a dizzying number of financial moves while sitting on the Senate Banking Committee.

Corker's activities didn't go completely unnoticed. A few ethics groups and reporters cried foul over the years. He had to amend his Senate disclosures after the Wall Street Journal in 2015 found unreported income from "quick" trades in a Chattanooga company called CBL enterprises. As Fortune noted at the time, Corker went back and made "dozens" of amendments to earlier disclosures, to reveal about $3.8 million in previously unreported income.

Meanwhile, Bethany McLean of Yahoo! News later reported that Corker had invested in a Tennessee hedge fund that made profitable short bets against the housing market with Goldman Sachs.

Anne Weismann, director of the Campaign for Accountability, which filed a complaint against Corker in 2015, described Corker's trading history in damning terms.

"Senator Corker's trades followed a consistent pattern," she said. "He bought low and sold high. It beggars belief to suggest these trades – netting the senator and his family millions – were mere coincidences."


Source

Speaking of Corker, I found this article by Rolling Stone on him to be pretty fascinating. Apparently he has been actively trading stocks the entire time he has been in office. Like so much that he rocketed up to being the fourth richest member.

Wow. That article is pretty incredible and very, very damning.
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
December 28 2017 17:52 GMT
#192099
On December 29 2017 02:44 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 28 2017 23:07 Plansix wrote:
So Tennessee Senator Bob Corker is in trouble now, because he flip-flopped to vote for Donald Trump's tax bill after a provision was included that reportedly helps him personally.

Color me not shocked. I spent most of this past summer investigating Corker, whose personal finances have been the subject of inquiry for years. Everything you need to know about the Senator can be discerned from this chart.

Click on that link and you’ll see what non-partisan research group Center for Responsive Politics has tracked: Corker's net worth has risen by millions since before being elected, to the point of being the fourth wealthiest man in the upper chamber, worth $69 million as of 2015.

How do you increase your net worth so significantly while you're working full-time as a Senator? That is not an easy story to explain.

According to his own disclosure forms, Corker in 2006 carried a series of huge loans.

Corker took office in January, 2007, during the last gasp of the Bush/Rove political juggernaut. The Iraq war had gone south and the Republicans had just been routed in midterms. The financial crisis was just around the corner. And nobody paid attention to the smooth-talking freshman Senator from Tennessee, who turned out to have some financial issues.

The former Chattanooga mayor's election was not without controversy. Corker was a country-club Republican who used an old Southern formula to get elected. He benefited from a lurid race-baiting RNC ad that showed a white woman winking and asking Corker's African-American opponent, Democrat Harold Ford, to "Call me!"

But no one knew about Corker's private peccadilloes.

It wasn't until Corker took office and filled out disclosure forms that his finances became public – sort of. Few in the media seem ever to have read the "liabilities" section of Corker's first disclosure, where the former mayor and construction magnate listed a series of massive outstanding loans. At the low end, Corker appeared to owe a hair-raising $24.2 million. At the high end, $120.5 million.

He had been in debt to some of the nation's biggest lenders – including somewhere between $12 million and $60 million in debt to GE Capital alone.

Corker had been a construction magnate in Tennessee before taking office, a sort of mini-Trump. Before he ran for office, he sold off his business to a local developer named Henry Luken.

It has always been Corker's contention that when he sold his business, his debts were also sold, meaning he was not technically in debt when he went to Washington. Still, he continued to list the loans as liabilities.

This is what Corker spokeswoman Micah Johnson told me this summer, about Corker's outstanding loans back then, and why they were listed on his Senate disclosure:

"On January 4, 2006, in preparation for his run for the Senate and to avoid conflicts, Senator Corker sold the majority of his commercial real estate portfolio. The loans… were transferred with the properties," Johnson wrote. "While the sale took place in January, 10 months before he was elected and one year before he took office, they still would have been listed on his 2007 financial disclosure since the sale took place in 2006."

Many of Corker's critics have disagreed with this interpretation of events. But even if the loans were discharged when he sold his company, it's what happened after Corker got elected that boggles the mind.

Ten years before reporters would swarm over Trump for (among other things) raising fees at his Mar-a-Lago resorts before making a series of taxpayer-funded visits, Corker tested the limits of the moonlighting possibilities in the legislative branch, essentially becoming a full-time day-trader who did a little Senator-ing in his spare time.

In the first nine months of 2007, Corker made an incredible 1,200 trades, over four per day, including 332 over a two-day period.

When I asked Johnson about this, and asked if Corker was making those trades himself or through a broker, Johnson gave a curious answer.

"Soon after taking office in January of 2007, rather than continuing to have a broker make discretionary transactions on his behalf throughout the day or week on a wide range of stocks in various companies, the senator felt it would be prudent to eliminate this arrangement," Johnson said. "The closing out of this arrangement would have added substantially to the number of trades normally made in the broker's discretionary account."

Johnson seems to be saying that Corker would have made substantially more trades if he had executed them through a broker. So, he didn't. I can offer no commentary shedding light on what this means, except to say that at the bottom of all of this is the still-incontrovertible fact that Corker made a truly awesome number of financial transactions while in office.

By 2014, when Corker sat on the Senate Banking Committee, a position that gave him regular access to prime information about the future direction of the markets, the Tennessee Senator still had his foot on the gas. He made 930 stock trades that year.

Of his colleagues on the committee, Rhode Island's Jack Reed made 39 trades, Pennsylvania's Patrick Toomey 26, and nobody else made any – meaning Corker made 93.5% of all trades made by the legislators most plugged-in to the country's finances.

When I asked about that extraordinary volume of trading in 2014, when Corker sat on the Banking Committee, Johnson answered thusly: "In 2014, Senator Corker entered a separately managed account (SMA), which is a portfolio managed by a professional asset management firm. Since he had not previously been in a SMA, he asked the Senate Ethics Committee for a ruling on how they should be reported," she said.

She went on: "The Senate Ethics Committee studied the issue for several weeks, and out of an abundance of caution, advised us to report all underlying positions of the account, even though the senator was making no investment decisions."

A Separately Managed Account is not the same thing as a blind trust. That the Senate Ethics Committee advised Corker to continue reporting his positions even if the senator was making "no investment decisions" was noteworthy. And no matter what, it continued to be true that Corker was making a dizzying number of financial moves while sitting on the Senate Banking Committee.

Corker's activities didn't go completely unnoticed. A few ethics groups and reporters cried foul over the years. He had to amend his Senate disclosures after the Wall Street Journal in 2015 found unreported income from "quick" trades in a Chattanooga company called CBL enterprises. As Fortune noted at the time, Corker went back and made "dozens" of amendments to earlier disclosures, to reveal about $3.8 million in previously unreported income.

Meanwhile, Bethany McLean of Yahoo! News later reported that Corker had invested in a Tennessee hedge fund that made profitable short bets against the housing market with Goldman Sachs.

Anne Weismann, director of the Campaign for Accountability, which filed a complaint against Corker in 2015, described Corker's trading history in damning terms.

"Senator Corker's trades followed a consistent pattern," she said. "He bought low and sold high. It beggars belief to suggest these trades – netting the senator and his family millions – were mere coincidences."


Source

Speaking of Corker, I found this article by Rolling Stone on him to be pretty fascinating. Apparently he has been actively trading stocks the entire time he has been in office. Like so much that he rocketed up to being the fourth richest member.

Wow. That article is pretty incredible and very, very damning.

The most compelling argument I have seen thus far is that trading stocks isn’t illegal for a senator, but Corker was trading so many there was no way he could have ever assessed which ones were a conflict of interest. And he made a staggering amount of money while also having a full time job.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
TheLordofAwesome
Profile Joined May 2014
Korea (South)2616 Posts
December 28 2017 19:19 GMT
#192100
On December 29 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 29 2017 02:44 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
On December 28 2017 23:07 Plansix wrote:
So Tennessee Senator Bob Corker is in trouble now, because he flip-flopped to vote for Donald Trump's tax bill after a provision was included that reportedly helps him personally.

Color me not shocked. I spent most of this past summer investigating Corker, whose personal finances have been the subject of inquiry for years. Everything you need to know about the Senator can be discerned from this chart.

Click on that link and you’ll see what non-partisan research group Center for Responsive Politics has tracked: Corker's net worth has risen by millions since before being elected, to the point of being the fourth wealthiest man in the upper chamber, worth $69 million as of 2015.

How do you increase your net worth so significantly while you're working full-time as a Senator? That is not an easy story to explain.

According to his own disclosure forms, Corker in 2006 carried a series of huge loans.

Corker took office in January, 2007, during the last gasp of the Bush/Rove political juggernaut. The Iraq war had gone south and the Republicans had just been routed in midterms. The financial crisis was just around the corner. And nobody paid attention to the smooth-talking freshman Senator from Tennessee, who turned out to have some financial issues.

The former Chattanooga mayor's election was not without controversy. Corker was a country-club Republican who used an old Southern formula to get elected. He benefited from a lurid race-baiting RNC ad that showed a white woman winking and asking Corker's African-American opponent, Democrat Harold Ford, to "Call me!"

But no one knew about Corker's private peccadilloes.

It wasn't until Corker took office and filled out disclosure forms that his finances became public – sort of. Few in the media seem ever to have read the "liabilities" section of Corker's first disclosure, where the former mayor and construction magnate listed a series of massive outstanding loans. At the low end, Corker appeared to owe a hair-raising $24.2 million. At the high end, $120.5 million.

He had been in debt to some of the nation's biggest lenders – including somewhere between $12 million and $60 million in debt to GE Capital alone.

Corker had been a construction magnate in Tennessee before taking office, a sort of mini-Trump. Before he ran for office, he sold off his business to a local developer named Henry Luken.

It has always been Corker's contention that when he sold his business, his debts were also sold, meaning he was not technically in debt when he went to Washington. Still, he continued to list the loans as liabilities.

This is what Corker spokeswoman Micah Johnson told me this summer, about Corker's outstanding loans back then, and why they were listed on his Senate disclosure:

"On January 4, 2006, in preparation for his run for the Senate and to avoid conflicts, Senator Corker sold the majority of his commercial real estate portfolio. The loans… were transferred with the properties," Johnson wrote. "While the sale took place in January, 10 months before he was elected and one year before he took office, they still would have been listed on his 2007 financial disclosure since the sale took place in 2006."

Many of Corker's critics have disagreed with this interpretation of events. But even if the loans were discharged when he sold his company, it's what happened after Corker got elected that boggles the mind.

Ten years before reporters would swarm over Trump for (among other things) raising fees at his Mar-a-Lago resorts before making a series of taxpayer-funded visits, Corker tested the limits of the moonlighting possibilities in the legislative branch, essentially becoming a full-time day-trader who did a little Senator-ing in his spare time.

In the first nine months of 2007, Corker made an incredible 1,200 trades, over four per day, including 332 over a two-day period.

When I asked Johnson about this, and asked if Corker was making those trades himself or through a broker, Johnson gave a curious answer.

"Soon after taking office in January of 2007, rather than continuing to have a broker make discretionary transactions on his behalf throughout the day or week on a wide range of stocks in various companies, the senator felt it would be prudent to eliminate this arrangement," Johnson said. "The closing out of this arrangement would have added substantially to the number of trades normally made in the broker's discretionary account."

Johnson seems to be saying that Corker would have made substantially more trades if he had executed them through a broker. So, he didn't. I can offer no commentary shedding light on what this means, except to say that at the bottom of all of this is the still-incontrovertible fact that Corker made a truly awesome number of financial transactions while in office.

By 2014, when Corker sat on the Senate Banking Committee, a position that gave him regular access to prime information about the future direction of the markets, the Tennessee Senator still had his foot on the gas. He made 930 stock trades that year.

Of his colleagues on the committee, Rhode Island's Jack Reed made 39 trades, Pennsylvania's Patrick Toomey 26, and nobody else made any – meaning Corker made 93.5% of all trades made by the legislators most plugged-in to the country's finances.

When I asked about that extraordinary volume of trading in 2014, when Corker sat on the Banking Committee, Johnson answered thusly: "In 2014, Senator Corker entered a separately managed account (SMA), which is a portfolio managed by a professional asset management firm. Since he had not previously been in a SMA, he asked the Senate Ethics Committee for a ruling on how they should be reported," she said.

She went on: "The Senate Ethics Committee studied the issue for several weeks, and out of an abundance of caution, advised us to report all underlying positions of the account, even though the senator was making no investment decisions."

A Separately Managed Account is not the same thing as a blind trust. That the Senate Ethics Committee advised Corker to continue reporting his positions even if the senator was making "no investment decisions" was noteworthy. And no matter what, it continued to be true that Corker was making a dizzying number of financial moves while sitting on the Senate Banking Committee.

Corker's activities didn't go completely unnoticed. A few ethics groups and reporters cried foul over the years. He had to amend his Senate disclosures after the Wall Street Journal in 2015 found unreported income from "quick" trades in a Chattanooga company called CBL enterprises. As Fortune noted at the time, Corker went back and made "dozens" of amendments to earlier disclosures, to reveal about $3.8 million in previously unreported income.

Meanwhile, Bethany McLean of Yahoo! News later reported that Corker had invested in a Tennessee hedge fund that made profitable short bets against the housing market with Goldman Sachs.

Anne Weismann, director of the Campaign for Accountability, which filed a complaint against Corker in 2015, described Corker's trading history in damning terms.

"Senator Corker's trades followed a consistent pattern," she said. "He bought low and sold high. It beggars belief to suggest these trades – netting the senator and his family millions – were mere coincidences."


Source

Speaking of Corker, I found this article by Rolling Stone on him to be pretty fascinating. Apparently he has been actively trading stocks the entire time he has been in office. Like so much that he rocketed up to being the fourth richest member.

Wow. That article is pretty incredible and very, very damning.

The most compelling argument I have seen thus far is that trading stocks isn’t illegal for a senator, but Corker was trading so many there was no way he could have ever assessed which ones were a conflict of interest. And he made a staggering amount of money while also having a full time job.

My knowledge of the law about members of Congress and insider trading is very little. But I seem to remember seeing articles years ago about similar stuff, and it wasn't technically illegal for members of Congress to trade stocks like this because the purchases of shares were made prior to votes that would affect the company's stock price. Simply knowing what the outcome of the vote would likely or probably be wasn't enough to meet the legal definition of insider trading.

But I personally don't see this kind of thing as ethical in any way.
Prev 1 9603 9604 9605 9606 9607 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
OSC
13:00
King of the Hill #217
davetesta64
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Lowko454
trigger 78
SC2Nice 64
StarCraft: Brood War
Jaedong 1777
EffOrt 868
Stork 582
firebathero 490
Mini 433
actioN 402
Snow 379
hero 252
Mind 163
Rush 140
[ Show more ]
Backho 116
ToSsGirL 102
JulyZerg 87
Hyun 87
Zeus 84
Pusan 70
JYJ69
sSak 55
sas.Sziky 47
Sea.KH 46
Sharp 45
HiyA 40
soO 36
sorry 33
Shinee 33
Terrorterran 25
Aegong 21
Rock 18
zelot 16
ajuk12(nOOB) 11
IntoTheRainbow 8
SilentControl 6
Hm[arnc] 4
Dota 2
Gorgc8681
qojqva2266
syndereN408
febbydoto11
Counter-Strike
flusha446
Foxcn325
chrisJcsgo212
markeloff105
kRYSTAL_30
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor169
XaKoH 151
Other Games
B2W.Neo1617
crisheroes613
DeMusliM475
Fuzer 289
RotterdaM209
Hui .142
ArmadaUGS89
KnowMe38
QueenE36
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick38843
BasetradeTV21
StarCraft: Brood War
Kim Chul Min (afreeca) 10
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 14 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• poizon28 25
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• blackmanpl 16
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Nemesis6218
• TFBlade880
Upcoming Events
Replay Cast
8h 40m
RSL Revival
18h 40m
Classic vs Cure
FEL
1d
OSC
1d 4h
RSL Revival
1d 18h
SHIN vs Clem
FEL
1d 20h
FEL
2 days
CSO Cup
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs QiaoGege
Dewalt vs Fengzi
Hawk vs Zhanhun
Sziky vs Mihu
Mihu vs QiaoGege
Zhanhun vs Sziky
Fengzi vs Hawk
Sparkling Tuna Cup
2 days
[ Show More ]
RSL Revival
2 days
FEL
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs Dewalt
QiaoGege vs Dewalt
Hawk vs Bonyth
Sziky vs Fengzi
Mihu vs Zhanhun
QiaoGege vs Zhanhun
Fengzi vs Mihu
Replay Cast
4 days
Replay Cast
6 days
The PondCast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-07-07
HSC XXVII
NC Random Cup

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
Acropolis #3
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025

Upcoming

2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSL Xiamen Invitational
CSL Xiamen Invitational: ShowMatche
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Underdog Cup #2
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.