- Popular Post
jm91
-
Posts
213 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by jm91
-
-
37 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:
was pompeo involved?
i've seen a few reports, all repeating an accusation from one original report, claiming pompeo recommended the firing.....according to an unnamed white house official.
has it been repeated enough times to become fact yet?
Maybe its true..may its not true. It should be investigated.
That is the role of congress to oversee the executive branch.
-
51 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:
Yes, I think he's a mole. But that's beside the point. Your dodging the actual point says all anyone needs to know.
I think the point is a potential abuse of power by the secretary of state. Your comments are trying to get the topic off point.
-
27 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:
i am very much looking forward to the testimony on c-span! i can't wait to hear about pompeo sending staffers to pick up his dry cleaning and walk his dog. it's gonna be a hoot!
there must be a reason for this. surely pelosi knows how trump will be able to play the deep state angle, after what was (allegedly) done to flynn and others. yet another obama holdover investigating nothingburgers. could this be one of those get something in the news before this other thing gets out things?
The accusations against the secretary of state are pretty trivial.
If true he should just say yes.. I did that and I understand government workers are not my personal valets. But I suspect IF true guys like the secretary of state can not or will not admit mistakes so IF he got the IG fired - that is an issue.
-
1
-
-
trump can fire the IG but trump is also accountable if the guy was fired as a way of obstructing an investigation in the secretary of state. I guess that nuance needs to be pointed out to you. Or are you a supporter of the theory that the president has absolute immunity from any action he takes while president?
Democracy requires transparency. I think you would support the process of democracy. Maybe not.
-
7 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:
Yes, I think he's a mole. But that's beside the point. Your dodging the actual point says all anyone needs to know.
The point is democracy in the US is based on checks and balances and congress has oversight to investigate the executive branch. I hear you mocking that process. Sad really.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:
This whole thread is much ado about nothing. The president has notified House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in writing of his intent to fire the mole in question- precisely what he is supposed to do. Nancy trying to spin this into a potential crime is beyond laughable.
"Trump informed Congress of his intent to oust Linick, a Justice Department veteran appointed to the role in 2013 by then President Barack Obama, in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Friday night.
The president said he "no longer" had the "fullest confidence" in Linick and promised to send the Senate a nominee "who has my confidence and who meets the appropriate qualifications." The executive branch is required to notify Congress 30 days ahead of time if it intends to remove an inspector general."
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/15/state-department-inspector-general-fired-261536
Mole in question?
Hmmm. you know he was a mole?
Sounds like you have personal information. Get ready to testify in front of congress. Please don't plead your constitutional right not to self incriminate.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, rabas said:
Was he fired for starting and illegal investigation(s) for political purposes? Was he working outside his job description?
Good questions. So you agree that the entire matter should be investigated? Democracy is about transparency - or do you believe that only credible accusations against people you don't like should be investigated?
-
6 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:
Investigate away! I think it's hilarious.
Nice to see that you eventually came around to the idea that potential crimes should be investigated.
-
15 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:
Honestly, I think you should accept two words: Trump won.
I agree trump won. He is the president of the USA. He is our president. The president and the people in his administration are subject to the rule of law. If the IG was fired because he was investigating the secretary of state then it is a possible illegal act. That should be investigated.
You don't believe in the rule of law?
You will probably claim partisanship - but IF the IG was fired because he was investigating the secretary of state the congress has a DUTY to investigate...or maybe you do not believe in the rule of law.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:
Nobody takes Pelosi and her little cabal of hitlers seriously. If they are talking, lies are flowing.Nice distraction. The issue is should possible criminal acts be investigated by congress. That is their duty.
-
1
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:
Seriously, you guys are gonna try the obstruction of justice thingy again?
Seriously, you don't think possible criminal acts should be investigated?
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
The hypocrisy of trump supporters is amazing. I recently had a conversation with a trump supporter over this issue. Their position was that is trump and his administration are immune from any sort of oversight - basically he can do whatever he wants and he is immune from criticism or any investigation.
I pointed out that Congress has the duty to oversee the executive branch - that oversight is part of US law. Their response was that I was lying and that the president and the actions of his representatives were immune from even being looked at for illegality - the president and his people are not subject to the laws of the country.
I hear that attitude here. Recently the lawyer for trump argued before the supreme court that trump could murder someone and he could not be investigated for the crime until AFTER he left office. trump certainly has some loyal cultists.
The firing should be investigated. If it was to stop an investigation of illegal acts by the secretary of state then the firing was probably illegal.
I get the impression many trump supporters only like the rule of law when it applies to other people.
Pure hypocrisy,
-
5
-
1
-
1
-
5 hours ago, CNXexpat said:
That´s why I wrote "usually" and not "always".
It is pretty clear many people don't understand representative sampling.
-
5 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:
1) Musk is a master of PR. How bout you? And what makes you think his well-paid employees don't want to get back to working, producing and making money anyway? The implication here is government is overreaching and starving people.
2) I notice you made no prediction on the outcome. And yes, given Musk will likely prevail, the moot will be moot.
The rest of these points are straying from the topic and the forum has rules.
No comments on the conservative economist who is in favor of brutal capitalism?
I am <deleted> at PR and not a billionaire.
It is still bad PR. Tesla can sue so what? Tesla still looks like some huge corporation that doesn't care about the health and safety of its workers.
My prediction is the public health officials, Tesla management and the workers will come to some sort of accommodation. Lots of testing, masks, disinfecting equipment - that is the likely outcome not Tesla winning some lawsuit which would take years to run through the courts. Musk will probably be pouting in the background.
I lost all respect for Musk when that story of the cave rescue hit the news and Musk accused the one guy of being a kiddy fiddler. Musk sounds like a guy who has lots of money and no one to reign in his worst instincts.
Is he a good businessman? He is certainly good at getting public subsidies for his companies 4-5 billion USD and counting.
-
8 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:
1) Likely a moot point. Musk has filed suit. I predict he will prevail. What's your call?
2) if if if if... It appears item 1 has destroyed this "if" of yours.
3) Please read my posts carefully.
4) You have conceded this issue, has you have shown no conservative economists saying what you claim they would say.
5) Take it up with them.
6) Again, Charles Dickens has nothing to do with the topic. Now tell me about this pure capitalism in the US. Didn't think so.
1. Maybe a moot point but terrible PR - implying he is more concerned about his factory than his workers
2. No 1 has not destroyed 2. You thinking is unclear.
3. I did read your post carefully - and you stated no one should get subsidy - your writing is unclear,
4. Milton Friedman - a nobel prize winning economist - I have given you a conservative economist and that is exactly what he said. Businesses have one purpose and that is to make money -
5. Hmm. I made a valid point. You deflect
6. Dickens is relevant - Pure capitalism is the goal of many conservatives. It does not exist and basically can not exist as the assumptions of the free market will never be met. But conservative economist love the idea of capitalism even when it leads to huge corporations with extracting as much money as possible from consumer and workers with no oversight or interference from anyone
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:
1) We are a nation of laws, not rules.
2) Your suspicion of what you think Musk might do does not constitute a threat. Stick with REALITY.
3) We were talking about corporate welfare subsidies, not funding education. This is the THIRD time I have told you I have no problem funding education. But keep beating a dead horse if it suits you.
4) Businesses are leaving California in record numbers and there is nothing you can do to change that.
https://www.southstarcommunities.com/blog/companies-leave-california-bound-for-texas
Furthermore, thousands of businesses start in any large state each year. The vast majority fail. Straw man argument. Try harder.
5) Tell me about these conservative economists that have made the argument you claim they have. Links, please.
6) Not interested in your Charles Dickens fairy tales. I deal with facts. Isn't time you present some?
1. Administrative rules have the force of law.
2. If Musk is telling the press he will open his factory in violation of local rule (with the effect of law) he is telling workers the factory is open and implied is they better go back to work.
3. You said no one should get subsidies. Be clear in your writing.
4. No straw man argument - an economics argument. Businesses go where they can make money,
and many tech companies go to California - and many others leave. Your original statement is the straw man.
5. The Chicago school of economics Milton Friedman. A brutal form of capitalism advocated by many conservative think tanks - the only responsibility of business is to make money and they have no other responsibility.
6. I am interested in Dickens as an instructive lesson on the abuses of pure capitalism where everything is turned into a commodity including human beings.
-
Just now, Slip said:
I was commenting on the fact that if employees were simply to resign rather than return to an unsafe workplace (as suggested by Crazy Alex), it (the company) would quite rightly run the risk of falling foul of constructive dismissal legislation.
Ah..got it. Thanks for the clarification.
I think workers have a right to a safe work environment.
Maybe crazy alex does not.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Slip said:
It sounds like he is arguing against the constructive dismissal laws to me:
In California, the California Supreme Court defines constructive discharge as follows:
"In order to establish a constructive discharge, an employee must plead and prove, by the usual preponderance of the evidence standard, that the employer either intentionally created or knowingly permitted working conditions that were so intolerable or aggravated at the time of the employee's resignation that a reasonable employer would realize that a reasonable person in the employee's position would be compelled to resign."[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal#United_States_law
I am not sure who you are referring to but I think workers should expect to work in safe environments. If the local heath officials deem the factory conditions could spread Covid19 then the responsible thing to do is consult with workers and health officials about how to comply with local laws. Musk does not seem to be doing that...he may not be making those day to day decisions but his public comments make him and the factory managers seem like they don't care about the workers safety.
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:
OK, so you admit he wasn't demanding. And where did Musk mention firing workers? It seems you are making very strange interpretations of the actual facts related to the topic.
And no, my argument is not that workers should go back to work if they fear for their safety. That is completely dishonest. But as your claim of demanding has crumbled under its own weight, we'll move on from that one.
Neither Charles Dickens, nor any of his novels, have anything to do with the topic. And further, you have made dishonest comments about my position on education. I clearly stated I have no problem funding education, but expect results.
The fact remains California has driven thousands and likely tens of thousands of businesses away with burdensome regulations, high taxes and high cost of living. It appears Musk may have finally had enough- like so many other businesses before him.
I hope we can proceed with the topic at hand with you doing better than make up fairy tales about what I've posted and dragging Charles Dickens novels into it.
Nave nice day.
A factory opening in violation of local rules and if the workers fear for their safety I strongly suspect they will face disciplinary action. That is more than a demand that is an implied threat - IF that is the case.
No you said no one should get subsidies. I am taking your comments and applying them.
The fact also remains that thousand and likely 10s if thousands of new businesses start every year in California. Businesses open and close that is capitalism.
Conservative economist would argue that if businesses are not profitable in California they should leave and make room for new businesses that are forming.
Why not use Dickens as a reference? Many conservatives celebrate a ruthless form of capitalism that resembles a Dickens novel.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:
Well, I can't read Musk's mind. Apparently you can. OK. As for the location of Telsa, your assertion is silly. There are plenty of very good technology companies far away from Silicon Valley. For example, Apple is doing most of its expansion AWAY from California (Colorado and Texas aren't near Silicon Valley).
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/20/tech/apple-austin-campus/index.html
So who should we think knows best where to do business? The businesses themselves or you? Not a tough decision.
Now about your claim that Tesla is "demanding" workers return to work. Not even the New York Times is making such an allegation:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/08/business/economy/tesla-coronavirus-factory-alameda.html#
So on what do you base your claim of Tesla "demanding"? And do you realize people can choose to resign even if your specious claim about "demanding" were true, yes?
Opening and not following local regulations about public health and possibly firing workers for not going back to work is a form of demanding.
Ah... lets see your argument is workers should go back to work even if their workplace is breaking local public health rules and if they fear for their safely then too bad get another job.
Hmmm..
It sounds very much like a Charles Dickens novel. Maybe taxpayers should also defund public education and put the little ones back in the coal mines. Cheaper coal would result - a win win. No one deserves subsidies was your earlier comment so by your logic children from families who can not afford an education should stop being deadbeats and go to work.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:
I think the topic is Elon Musk being tired of California and wanting to move out of the state like so many other companies have done already. What conservatives "seem to" think about the "success" of California is irrelevant.
So let's try to focus.
Musk is posturing so he can beg for more public money.
Tesla is a technology company and it needs to be close to the technology center of silicon valley.
The company is possibly putting its workers at risk by demanding they return to work.
Whether they should or should not is an economic and public health decision. Musk's comments make it sound like he does not care about the safety of the workers.
And yes I think you should try and focus.
-
2
-
-
Just now, Crazy Alex said:
Yes, obviously taxes are only one of many considerations. Cost of living and regulations are two other important factors. California fails on those fronts as well.
I'm not sure why you're complaining about conservatives. California is run by liberals. Musk gets his money from liberal-supported *green energy* subsidies. Conservatives have little to nothing to do with this topic.
Conservatives seem to hate the success of California and I am amused by their anguish.
Conservative hypocrisy is also fun to point out. Don't you think?
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:
My point is what I typed. What is YOUR point with the personal attacks?
These are not personal attacks.
You are posting questions. They have no point.
So what is your point about green energy?
Are you for it or against it? Posting a question does not reveal your position.
-
- Popular Post
3 minutes ago, Stargrazer9889 said:There must be many states like Nevada or New Mexico where the taxes
to businesses are way cheaper than California. I would consider this to be
a good decision by Mr Musk or any smart business person.
Geezer
In a previous job I was involved in analysis work for decisions on the economics of building facilities. Taxes is only one of many considerations.
I have no problem giving public money to support businesses.
My problem is the pure hypocrisy of many conservatives who whine and anguish about tax funded education etc.. then gladly hand over hundreds of billions of dollars to the wealthiest people in the world.
Many of the conservatives I run into have no values or principles.
My opinion is Musk is posturing to try and get more public money. A principled conservative would oppose that as Tesla has already been given hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies.
-
2
-
1
What are your greatest concerns living in Thailand over the next years?
in ASEAN NOW Community Pub
Posted
immiseration - Nice word...I had to look that one up.