US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9769

On January 25 2018 01:52 brian wrote:


there’s a softball, i’m not. just as his campaign staff’s guilt doesn’t immediately make Trump guilty, this ambiguous investigation without any conclusions of guilt certainly doesn’t reflect on the organization as a whole.

Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Ca.) released the following statement concerning the 384 pages of new text messages between top FBI officials:

“This weekend we met to discuss the text messages and possible next steps in our oversight of these agencies. The contents of these text messages between top FBI officials are extremely troubling in terms of when certain key decisions were made by the Department of Justice and the FBI, by whom these decisions were made, and the evident bias exhibited by those in charge of the investigation. The omission of text messages between December 2016 and May 2017, a critical gap encompassing the FBI’s Russia investigation, is equally concerning. Rather than clearing up prior FBI and DOJ actions, these recently produced documents cause us to further question the credibility and objectivity of certain officials at the FBI.”

On January 25 2018 02:14 brian wrote:
do you not think that same committee is similarly tainted with Nunes at the helm?

On January 25 2018 01:53 Danglars wrote:

I take it you wish those investigations had never occurred. At least, maybe comment on the current matter. I'm open to future investigations if Trump or WH aides sent classified emails to private servers. Or did not forward private emails regarding official business to their work accounts for preservation. What I'm seeing here is (1) who cares about FBI agents deleting texts after talking about insurance policies against Trump's election and (2) if there's any guilt, Trump's done worse and (3) what texts, wait I don't have to see or comment on the texts to assume it's a small matter.

It's pretty obvious what your game is.

On January 25 2018 02:19 Danglars wrote:

You're crossing your committees lol. I'm done without substance provided for this whataboutism.

On January 25 2018 02:19 ChristianS wrote:
I'll probably regret asking this, but what exactly is Strzok accused of/under investigation for? Nothing I saw of the stuff in those texts looked illegal to me, not that I'd necessarily know the ins and outs of relevant law. I get that the "need an insurance policy" stuff followed by deleting a bunch of texts is ideal fodder for strzoking stoking conspiracy theories, but I'm just not quite sure what the accusation is.

Were the texts on a government or private phone? And was he actually under investigation such that they were supposed to be retained, or were there just a lot of right-leaning pundits accusing him of things, but no official investigation?

On January 25 2018 02:22 ShoCkeyy wrote:


Obvious lol, I'm actually happy they went through, and my game is you say you're open to future investigations if Trump did or did not, but that's also the point of the current investigation. What your posts read to me is "the current investigation is worthless because of these anti trump texts", I don't know how they both relate just cause it's the "FBI" which Trump is attacking since the beginning of his presidency. I wouldn't trust results that come out of the FBI if they wait to investigate the emails later.

So there is some kind of double sided answers coming from you. I feel that Mueller is a smart guy, and would try to not get too many people involved. Especially if he knows you may be biased in your research.

On January 25 2018 02:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Capitalism. I'm also guessing this won't make it in the press release.

https://twitter.com/jamieson/status/956189226261012480

In addition to announcing job cuts on Tuesday, Kimberly-Clark said it would raise its quarterly dividend by 3.1 percent this year. Last year, the company spent about $900 million repurchasing its own shares.

She said the tax savings would also be used to make capital investments and to “allocate significant capital to shareholders.”

The job and factory cuts — which are expected to save up to $550 million by the end of 2021 ...The company is also aiming to save more than $1.5 billion from its so-called Force program through efforts like improved productivity at its factories and more efficient distribution.

IN THE WAKE of the 2016 election, a group of despairing Democrats in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, formed a new political group to ensure that they would never be out-organized locally again. Faith leaders, small-business owners, social workers, nonprofit leaders, teachers, and students joined together as part of the historic dusting-off that was taking place all across the country. The group, which came to call itself Lancaster Stands Up, put its energy toward defending the Affordable Care Act from its multiple assaults in Washington and fending off the tea party-dominated state legislature in Harrisburg.

The group’s town halls and protests began to draw eye-popping numbers of people and even attracted national attention. With their newfound confidence, Lancaster progressives looked toward local and federal elections. The national press was captivated by the upsets across the state of Virginia in November, but that same night in Pennsylvania, Democrats across the state in local elections knocked Republicans out of seats they’d owned forever. The surge suggested that capturing the congressional seat covering Lancaster and Reading, which Democrats lost by 11 points in 2016, was well within reach.

In June, one of their own, Jess King, who heads a nonprofit that helps struggling women start and run small businesses in the area, announced that she would be running to take out Republican Rep. Lloyd Smucker in Pennsylvania’s 16th District. Nick Martin, her field director and another co-founder of Lancaster Stands Up, was a leading activist in the popular and robust local anti-pipeline movement, an organized network King was able to tap into.

She planned to focus a populist-progressive campaign on canvassing and harnessing grassroots enthusiasm. If suburban Republicans came along, attracted by the promise of Medicare For All or tuition-free public college, then great, but they would not be King’s target.

Lancaster Stands Up voted to endorse King, as did a local immigrant rights group with a broad grassroots network, Make the Road PA. Justice Democrats, a small-dollar operation that was backing leftist Democrats, got behind her as well. (The primary is set for May 15, with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling on Monday that the GOP had illegally gerrymandered the state’s congressional districts, insisting they be redrawn before the primary. The decision could cut either way for King, depending on the shape of the new map.)

King then sought to secure the endorsement of the major players in Democratic Party circles. Her campaign reached out to EMILY’s List, which was founded to elect pro-choice women to Congress. EMILY’s List sent King a questionnaire, which she filled out and returned, affirming her strong support for reproductive freedom.

That was October, by which point her campaign had broken the $100,000 mark, a sign of viability she had hoped would show EMILY’s List that she was serious. “We followed up a few times after and did not hear back,” said King’s spokesperson, Guido Girgenti.

It turned out the Democratic Party had other ideas — or, at least, it had an old idea. As is happening in races across the country, party leaders in Washington and in the Pennsylvania district rallied, instead, around a candidate who, in 2016, had raised more money than a Democrat ever had in the district and suffered a humiliating loss anyway.

On January 25 2018 03:25 GreenHorizons wrote:






Couldn't they have "paid" for the restructuring with the money they are giving to themselves (shareholders)?

It blows my mind that educated people allow themselves to buy into this garbage. I have a hard time believing any top execs at KC think that the tax cuts are paying for restructuring and not for more money in their pockets. Particularly when



As an aside I find what's happened to the stock market since it's creation to be incredibly fascinating. One company is struggling because they only grow profits 1-2% but another is highly valued while losing money year after year.

I'd love to have a stock broker from the 20's take a look at how the stock market works now and just listen to his bewilderment.

On January 25 2018 04:11 Plansix wrote:
That video will never get old. All that money is going to line the pockets of share holders, who will not create jobs with it. They will pack it away