US Politics Mega-thread - Page 601

On August 08 2018 23:24 Plansix wrote:
My bet is that a lot the freedom caucus is going to be proven to be deep in the graft by the end of all of this.

On August 08 2018 23:24 Plansix wrote:
My bet is that a lot the freedom caucus is going to be proven to be deep in the graft by the end of all of this.

On August 08 2018 23:38 Howie_Dewitt wrote:

I have a bad feeling about this. Namely, that all of the crazies who support those people will see their mass indictment (if it happens, which I'm not so sure of) as some kind of plot against the right, sparking more extremist violence and conspiracy theorist garbage.

On August 08 2018 23:38 Howie_Dewitt wrote:

I have a bad feeling about this. Namely, that all of the crazies who support those people will see their mass indictment (if it happens, which I'm not so sure of) as some kind of plot against the right, sparking more extremist violence and conspiracy theorist garbage.

Voters in Missouri have overwhelmingly rejected a right-to-work law passed by the state's Republican-controlled Legislature that would have banned compulsory union fees — a resounding victory for organized labor that spent millions of dollars to defeat the measure.

With about 98 percent of the precincts reporting, the "no" vote on Missouri's Proposition A, which supported the law, was running about 67 percent, with nearly 33 percent voting "yes."

In 2017, the right-to-work law passed Missouri's Republican Legislature and was signed by then-Gov. Eric Greitens. However, union organizers gathered enough signatures to keep it from going into effect pending the results of a statewide referendum. The rejection of Proposition A effectively kills the law.

"It's a truly historic moment," said Mike Louis, president of the Missouri AFL-CIO. "Tonight we celebrate, but tomorrow we're getting back to work. We're going to take this energy and momentum and build more power for working people across Missouri."

More from AFL-CIO MO President Mike Louis: pic.twitter.com/wgX9WfZtTY

— Jason Rosenbaum (@jrosenbaum) August 8, 2018
Currently, 27 states and Guam have laws allowing employees in private-sector unionized workplaces to opt out of union membership and union fees.

(In a case involving public-service employees, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that unions cannot require workers to pay union dues or fees.)

As The Associated Press notes, "At issue are so-called fair-share fees, which are less than full dues but are intended to cover unions' nonpolitical costs such as collective bargaining. Unions say it's fair for people to pay the fees, because federal law requires them to represent even those employees who don't join. But supporters of right-to-work laws counter that people should have the right to accept a job without being required to pay a union."

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports:

"Voters in rural and urban areas all showed strong support for scrapping the law. In St. Louis City, with 100 percent of precincts reporting, 88 percent of voters landed on the 'no' side.

"Labor-friendly parts of southeast Missouri also showed strong opposition to the law, with more than three-fourths of voters in Iron, Reynolds, St. Francois and Ste. Genevieve counties voting to shoot down right to work."

The Post-Dispatch reports that even deep-red St. Charles County saw nearly 72 percent of voters rejecting the measure.

Missouri went heavily for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election and the rejection of right to work — a core Republican aim — could have wider political implications.

According to the AP, "unions powered an opposition effort that had spent more than $15 million as of late July, well over three times as much as various groups that support right-to-work. Advertisements generally have focused on economics, with supporters claiming right-to-work would lead to more jobs and opponents claiming it would drive down wages."

On August 09 2018 01:28 Plansix wrote:
It seems there there is a call for more evidence for a potential grand jury:

Federal prosecutors step up probe of land deal pushed by wife of Bernie Sanders

This one seems to be real political hatchet job, since the only person calling for the investigation is Brady Toensing, a lawyer who ran Trump's local campaign in VT and it was called for in 2016. The events in question took place in 2010 and 2011. I doubt this would have gotten the time of day under a different justice department.

On August 09 2018 01:05 Plansix wrote:
I love that he was at a congressional picnic when the insider trading went down. It really shows just how little shame these folks have. They hate goverment and the law in general.

On August 09 2018 03:03 ticklishmusic wrote:


I agree the investigation is politically motivated, but it does sound like Jane Sanders committed bank fraud and came out of it with barely a slap on the wrist.

On August 09 2018 03:03 ticklishmusic wrote:


I agree the investigation is politically motivated, but it does sound like Jane Sanders committed bank fraud and came out of it with barely a slap on the wrist.

On August 09 2018 03:15 CatharsisUT wrote:


At least two other members of the committee he is on which directs the FDA also bought shares. This graft was basically open knowledge to the people at that picnic.

On August 09 2018 03:03 ticklishmusic wrote:


I agree the investigation is politically motivated, but it does sound like Jane Sanders committed bank fraud and came out of it with barely a slap on the wrist.

On August 08 2018 22:38 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Yea I edited that part, I meant online, on this forum. We already know pretty much where everyone stands. Idk how that drives "discussion" without attacking a person.

Step by step: evidence of the assassination attempt

-A drone was located in the business center Cipreses by the group number 2, referred to as “group BRAVO.” It was manipulated from the 10th floor by a terrorist group trained in the Colombian town of Chinacota, in the northern province of Santander.

-The terrorists made preparatory observations ahead of the attempt on the July 24 parade in the state of Carabobo, yet did not eventually launch the attack then because of a lack of preparation, just as they eventually canceled on July 5 on the celebration of the Independence.

-They were confirmed that the public event on Aug.4 would take place on Avenida Bolivar in the afternoon, instead of the Avenida Los Proceres, and brought a drone to this location —the one the military officials identified and technological teams neutralized.

-They lifted the drone above all the structures of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, but it was then disturbed in its trajectory by technological equipment —used in order to inhibit signals. Meanwhile, the first group activated the second drone.

-They had planned to use two drones, one that would explode with a pentrite chemical component, while the second one was meant to draw the attention somewhere else by crashing against a building called Don Eduardo, exploding with a C4 component.

-Maduro reported that he was immediately told there was an attack going on and tried to organize immediately the evacuation in a bid to preserve the security of the crowd.

-Ten minutes later, Maduro received a call from the Armed Forces' General saying they had caught two people with drone command equipment that seemed to be involved in the attack, then a few minutes later they caught others. “People's intelligence allowed the quick apprehension of these terrorists.”

-Identified terrorists include: Rayder Russo, resident of Colombia, and Osman Delgado, resident of the United States.

-More raids are being carried out in order to arrest other groups involved in the consummation of the attack.

-The masterminds of the attack are people who participated in the 2017 violent demonstrations in Venezuela.

-The people involved in the attack were offered US50 million and residency in the United States.

On August 09 2018 04:46 Gorsameth wrote:
unpopular President suffers attempted assassination and blames foreign enemy.

I think I've heard this one before. Skeptical doesn't begin to describe my distrust of his claim.