Widgets Magazine
Page 3 of 63 FirstFirst 1234567853 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 1570
  1. #51

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    My bad on the math, but I'm still guessing you didn't read it.

    I'd read anything from any site, as well as the links in it, if I thought it contained useful information.
    Which is a diplomatic way of saying you will only read HuffPo and Slate.

  2. #52

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    Damn, can't you read? It's not about notifying, it's about misleading the public and lying to them and violating statutes.

    "Brieger wrote that Healey was merely explaining the basis for her belief that Exxon might have violated consumer protection statutes. The attorney general has not only the right, but also the duty to investigate the company if she believes it misled consumers and investors, Brieger ruled."

    "In a statement, a spokeswoman for Healey said the Massachusetts court had affirmed her authority to investigate potential fraud and she blasted Exxon for its aggressive pushback."

    "The ruling is a major victory for Healey, who, along with the attorney general of New York, pursued probes into Exxon Mobil after reports published in 2015 suggested the company had encouraged climate-change confusion for years after its own scientists established the risks."
    And I can read just fine. In fact I highlighted a few passages you may have missed in your own post.

    And how again are they misleading consumers...

    Some might call it...uh...exercising caution...


  3. Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    And I can read just fine. In fact I highlighted a few passages you may have missed in your own post.

    And how again are they misleading consumers...

    Some might call it...uh...exercising caution...
    OK, so how do you start prosecuting an entity without a belief that they broke a law? You have to believe that they did something wrong in order to start the process of figuring out if they did, right? Neither Exxon nor anybody else is going to be blatantly fraudulent or misleading (unless they've got really crappy lawyers), so there has to be a potential existence of fraudulence or misleading-ness (or whatever the word is for that, don't have time to look it up) and/or a belief that they've done so for someone to start prosecution.

    I don't know how they're misleading consumers or investors, that's what this lawsuit is for, I don't buy Exxon products, nor am I an investor, so I don't know what communications have been sent out that are supposedly fraudulent and/or misleading and/or violating consumer protection laws.

    As far as the cartoon goes, isn't that pretty much the way science is? Theories, hypotheses, etc., that get modified over time as more evidence comes in and then finally they either get disproven or proven? Right now, I believe that the consensus is that it is fairly well settled that humans are exacerbating climate change and within a certain amount of time, very bad sh*t will happen. Not sure if it will *ever* be completely 100% proven, but the evidence over the past few years seems to back that up (hell, 2017 alone with all the California storms is helping prove that weather is being f-ed up, and most likely made worse by human-exacerbated climate change, along with all the "hottest month/year on record" statistics we've had over the past few years).

  4. #54

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Do you not find the humor in prosecuting an entity for misleading the consumer, while the thing that they are misleading the consumer on has also been misrepresented and misleading over the last 40 years.

  5. Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Which is a diplomatic way of saying you will only read HuffPo and Slate.
    And NY Times, and WaPo, and The Guardian, and Salon, and Seattle Times, and Chicago Tribune, and NewsOK, and Journal Record, and OK Gazette, and CNN, and CNBC, and Buzzfeed, and Politico, and AOL, and Daily Beast, and even Breitbart and Fox News. Probably left out some, though.

  6. Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Do you not find the humor in prosecuting an entity for misleading the consumer, while the thing that they are misleading the consumer on has also been misrepresented and misleading over the last 40 years.
    Who's "they" and how have they been misrepresenting and misleading the consumer? Looks like science to me.

  7. #57

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    Who's "they" and how have they been misrepresenting and misleading the consumer? Looks like science to me.
    Why yes scientist. They are going to charge them for crimes for misrepresenting "facts" that seem to have been a moving target over the last 40 years. Yes they, real people.

  8. #58

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    Why do you think he won't be a bad one?
    He's experienced and well versed in DOJ issues. Like I said, I don't know that he's going to be a reformer or transformative, just that he will do just fine.

  9. Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Chadanth View Post
    He's experienced and well versed in DOJ issues. Like I said, I don't know that he's going to be a reformer or transformative, just that he will do just fine.
    Do intentions/beliefs and past history matter?

    For example, I could be a great UNIX systems admin/engineer and know everything about it, but if I was interviewed by a company and my beliefs are opposite of/don't match up with what they believe or the law says, would I be expected to do just fine at that company?

  10. #60

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    Do intentions/beliefs and past history matter?

    For example, I could be a great UNIX systems admin/engineer and know everything about it, but if I was interviewed by a company and my beliefs are opposite of/don't match up with what they believe or the law says, would I be expected to do just fine at that company?
    Technically those beliefs should not come into play during the hiring process. You are protected by law from having to divulge that type of information. Just saying.

    Now, the "past history" would only come into play if you say kept getting canned for being such a "good UNIX admin". I think the jig might be up then.

    But that's not really the case here. People are enraged because they have differences of opinion. Not because he has actually done anything illegal.

    This pick is a non-issue for me. He likely won't do anything transformative as mentioned above, but is that really what we want in the lead law enforcer. They are not supposed to make policy, just enforce it.

  11. #61

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    Right now, I believe that the consensus is that it is fairly well settled that humans are exacerbating climate change and within a certain amount of time, very bad sh*t will happen.
    It's not.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    the evidence over the past few years seems to back that up (hell, 2017 alone with all the California storms is helping prove that weather is being f-ed up, and most likely made worse by human-exacerbated climate change, along with all the "hottest month/year on record" statistics we've had over the past few years).
    It doesnt.

  12. Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Technically those beliefs should not come into play during the hiring process. You are protected by law from having to divulge that type of information. Just saying.

    Now, the "past history" would only come into play if you say kept getting canned for being such a "good UNIX admin". I think the jig might be up then.

    But that's not really the case here. People are enraged because they have differences of opinion. Not because he has actually done anything illegal.

    This pick is a non-issue for me. He likely won't do anything transformative as mentioned above, but is that really what we want in the lead law enforcer. They are not supposed to make policy, just enforce it.
    So does somebody have to do something illegal to not get confirmed? Is that the low bar that is set? What BS....

    What if I worked at a company that shared my opinions/beliefs and I didn't ever get canned, but whatever I did at that company was looked at with a wink and nod and those actions I performed at those companies were unethical or had been overturned by later people coming in after the ones I worked with left (similar to Sessions working for/with the Republicans in Alabama)? Would that mean I'm still a great (not "good" as you have it) UNIX admin? Or would that be a disqualification during a future interview with another company?

    Past history that is public should definitely be taken into account for positions such as these, and has been in the past, except for this set of nominees. And why the hell are questions being asked of the nominees about their beliefs and stances on issues if that is protected by law and shouldn't be divulged?

  13. #63

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    For Travellers.....

  14. #64

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    So does somebody have to do something illegal to not get confirmed? Is that the low bar that is set? What BS....

    What if I worked at a company that shared my opinions/beliefs and I didn't ever get canned, but whatever I did at that company was looked at with a wink and nod and those actions I performed at those companies were unethical or had been overturned by later people coming in after the ones I worked with left (similar to Sessions working for/with the Republicans in Alabama)? Would that mean I'm still a great (not "good" as you have it) UNIX admin? Or would that be a disqualification during a future interview with another company?

    Past history that is public should definitely be taken into account for positions such as these, and has been in the past, except for this set of nominees. And why the hell are questions being asked of the nominees about their beliefs and stances on issues if that is protected by law and shouldn't be divulged?
    REALITY is being taken in consideration. What is being thrown around on this board about his "past" being consumed with racist hate and bigotry, not so much. Context and reality are a bitch when you get down to them. Politicians have enough of a public record that nearly anyone could be torn apart by out of context decisions and quotes. I think the simple fact that Trump chose him is what is sending so many like yourself off the cliff.

    That being said, how often does a company, let alone a government have the exact right person for the job at any given moment in time. They don't, exacerbated even more by the fact that a good portion are elected. Outside of some differing opinions, what has he done that disqualifies him from the role (I know, I know, Brazile has him as worse than unqualified, whatever that means, of course she also thinks voter suppression lost Clinton the election so...). Maybe he wouldn't seem so smarmy if he had the questions in advance.

    Sessions will follow in an extremely long line of contemptible lawyers that have served in this position.

    The sad fact is, the level of tenacity in your opposition, make me favor him even more. Sad.

  15. Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    ... I think the simple fact that Trump chose him is what is sending so many like yourself off the cliff.
    Not really true - there are a few of his nominations that I don't oppose nearly as much as him (Chao, Kelly, and possibly some of the others, but haven't gotten around to checking out yet), and there are some that I do oppose as much as him (Tillerson, so far, and maybe Pompeo).


    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    The sad fact is, the level of tenacity in your opposition, make me favor him even more. Sad.
    That's a sad thing to help form an opinion on - what someone else on a message board thinks of him...

  16. Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    This should be unbelievable, but it happened, so it's not. Yes, I know, "anonymous official", but he has a past history (wait, is that admissible?) with Russia.

    http://www.salon.com/2017/01/13/mich...ctions-report/

    An anonymous official is claiming that retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, who will soon serve as national security adviser to President-elect Donald Trump, contacted Russia on the day that President Obama announced sanctions against the country for its alleged hacking of the 2016 presidential election.

  17. #67

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    If only there was a group of Senators that could filibuster these nominations.

    Karma can be a real b sometimes.

  18. Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackmoreRulz View Post
    For Travellers.....
    Watched it, was tiresome. Your point?

  19. #69

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    This should be unbelievable, but it happened, so it's not. Yes, I know, "anonymous official", but he has a past history (wait, is that admissible?) with Russia.

    http://www.salon.com/2017/01/13/mich...ctions-report/

    An anonymous official is claiming that retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, who will soon serve as national security adviser to President-elect Donald Trump, contacted Russia on the day that President Obama announced sanctions against the country for its alleged hacking of the 2016 presidential election.
    So now we're upset that the NSA appointment resorted to diplomacy? Gosh.

  20. Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by jerrywall View Post
    So now we're upset that the NSA appointment resorted to diplomacy? Gosh.
    Not really NSA - that's the National Security Agency, but anyway, he's not the national security adviser *yet*, so this is the problem:

    The Logan Act prohibits U.S. citizens from corresponding with foreign governments in order to resolve “disputes” with the United States, according to The Post.

    That, *and* his past cozy history with Russia.

  21. #71

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    Watched it, was tiresome. Your point?
    With all of your bluster worrying about Sessions following the letter of the law, where was it back then?

  22. #72

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by jerrywall View Post
    So now we're upset that the NSA appointment resorted to diplomacy? Gosh.
    My thoughts exactly.

    It's like saying because Hillary Clinton had a server in her house she was necessarily doing something illegal. One does not necessarily lead to the other.

  23. Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Mattis isn't too troublesome, except that he's a military guy in a traditionally civilian post, and he doesn't have much (if any) experience managing an entire bureacracy (different from Carson, though - Mattis has *tons* of experience in the Defense "field", while Carson has none in the Housing "field").

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...iver_vote.html

  24. #74

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    It seems that the only party that cares about the rule of law is the one that isn't in power. I imagine this phenomena has held true over the years.

  25. #75

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackmoreRulz View Post
    With all of your bluster worrying about Sessions following the letter of the law, where was it back then?
    Don't you understand that the simple existence of an R next to his name makes him unqualified. If only Trump would nominate someone who has followed the law so well as Cruz pointed out, we wouldn't have all this bluster.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Why I am still a Trump supporter..
    By SoonerQueen in forum Politics
    Replies: 333
    Last Post: 01-17-2019, 02:52 PM
  2. Donald Trump
    By Outhunder in forum Politics
    Replies: 205
    Last Post: 10-01-2015, 01:08 PM
  3. 2015 ULI Impact Award nominees
    By Pete in forum General Real Estate Topics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-16-2015, 07:33 AM
  4. 2015 R&R Hall of Fame nominees
    By kelroy55 in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-16-2014, 05:13 PM
  5. Political Appointees as Ambassadors
    By ThomPaine in forum Politics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-09-2014, 03:26 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO