Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Trekkin]

It's also significant that they can prove he's lying, which would indicate a body of evidence that is probative to Mueller's exacting requirements without his testimony. That's a significant departure from the usual standard of conspiracy cases in which people flipping is about the only way to move the investigation up through the hierarchy.

[Doomblade187]

It's also significant that they can prove he's lying, which would indicate a body of evidence that is probative to Mueller's exacting requirements without his testimony. That's a significant departure from the usual standard of conspiracy cases in which people flipping is about the only way to move the investigation up through the hierarchy.

Alternatively, they have discrepancies between his story and another guy who flipped, and they're using it to punish him with harder sentencing. Sounds like they can verify though.

[Trekkin]

It's also significant that they can prove he's lying, which would indicate a body of evidence that is probative to Mueller's exacting requirements without his testimony. That's a significant departure from the usual standard of conspiracy cases in which people flipping is about the only way to move the investigation up through the hierarchy.

Alternatively, they have discrepancies between his story and another guy who flipped, and they're using it to punish him with harder sentencing. Sounds like they can verify though.

That would be one specific form that body of evidence could take, yeah. There just usually aren't so many witnesses to specific acts of conspiracy that you can do this sort of comparison with this confidence at this stage, which would suggest that, provided there's something there, it would not have been covered up with sufficient competence to hide, say, Trump's involvement.

In other words, there's usually a certain amount of circumspection and obfuscation here. Trump may well have just said, in the middle of a campaign meeting, something like "Hey Poptartopolis, loop Paul here in on the treason thing we're definitely doing with Wikileaks. I want to be able to tweet about it tomorrow."

[RedKing]

Trump responded today to GM's announced plant closings by threatening to remove all subsidies:

Very disappointed with General Motors and their CEO, Mary Barra, for closing plants in Ohio, Michigan and Maryland. Nothing being closed in Mexico & China. The U.S. saved General Motors, and this is the THANKS we get! We are now looking at cutting all @GM subsidies, including for electric cars. General Motors made a big China bet years ago when they built plants there (and in Mexico) - don’t think that bet is going to pay off. I am here to protect America’s Workers!

So...he's going to protect American workers by hurting GM so that it has to lay off more American workers. Seems legit.

[Madman198237]

So...he's going to protect American workers by hurting GM so that it has to lay off more American workers. Seems legit.

I don't like Trump, but I think you're just being unfair here. What alternative(s) do you propose? Penalizing the company specifically and obviously for removing jobs in America is a good way to encourage companies to, you know, hold jobs in America. It's not the best method, but it's one that is simple and possible to implement...or at least threaten to implement...before the plants actually close.

If they lay off more American workers, well, what do you propose? If they do that then there's no point subsidizing them if they're not actually creating jobs here. Well, even LESS of a point subsidizing them than there is now that they're closing down a bunch of plants here.

[nenjin]

The guy who keeps half his wealth at least off shore to reduce his tax liability is pissed because GM is putting their plants where the cost of labor is the lowest?

This is why Trump is an asshole. If he were the head of GM he'd have done the exact same thing.

[SalmonGod]

So...he's going to protect American workers by hurting GM so that it has to lay off more American workers. Seems legit.

I don't like Trump, but I think you're just being unfair here. What alternative(s) do you propose? Penalizing the company specifically and obviously for removing jobs in America is a good way to encourage companies to, you know, hold jobs in America. It's not the best method, but it's one that is simple and possible to implement...or at least threaten to implement...before the plants actually close.

If they lay off more American workers, well, what do you propose? If they do that then there's no point subsidizing them if they're not actually creating jobs here. Well, even LESS of a point subsidizing them than there is now that they're closing down a bunch of plants here.

Agreed here. Enacting more direct punishments against businesses for bad behaviors is something I've wanted forever, but instead we've had both sides of the aisle ass-kissing on the pretense that if we don't worship them, they'll take jobs elsewhere.  Not that there's anything especially great about Trump's response in this case.  Moving plants around is motivated by deeper issues with how the global economy works, and nothing's being done to address that here.  Where I want to see this kind of stuff is in response to taxation issues, finance scandals, golden parachutes, environmental abuses, etc.  That's where we normally encounter the "But it hurts their pocketses and then they can't afford to employ people!" rhetoric.  Even if this isn't quite the same, hearing that same message we would normally roll our eyes at makes me do a double-take.

The guy who keeps half his wealth at least off shore to reduce his tax liability is pissed because GM is putting their plants where the cost of labor is the lowest?

This is why Trump is an asshole. If he were the head of GM he'd have done the exact same thing.

And yeah, this is true.  He does still deserve to be called a hypocrite.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You can't hurt an entity like GM unless you strike directly at its rotten heart. Their executives and stockholders don't give a good goddamn about losing the subsidies, not really. That sort of thing is an inconvenience for them and an existential threat for the actual workers at GM.

Now, if we were to arrest them all on tax evasion and use their fortunes to restart the Works Progress Administration...

[redwallzyl]

You can't hurt an entity like GM unless you strike directly at its rotten heart. Their executives and stockholders don't give a good goddamn about losing the subsidies, not really. That sort of thing is an inconvenience for them and an existential threat for the actual workers at GM.

Now, if we were to arrest them all on tax evasion and use their fortunes to restart the Works Progress Administration...

Join the MetalSlimeFront today for a better future!

[MrRoboto75]

The shareholders are like that parasite that makes slugs purposely get eaten by birds.  Ultimately they care not if GM dies or not.  They'll find a new host to abuse, like they've been doing for decades.

[Cathar]

Well, when you're a shareholder you don't want your share to die. I mean clearly. You invested money in that, and it's in your interest not to lose it. That shits expensive yo. But it is also in your interest to squeeze it as hard as you can get away with it.

What is really insupportable hypocrisy is when people whose main income is the fruit of their share brag about their life of unproductive parasitism then blame poor people for not working.

[bloop_bleep]

Well, when you're a shareholder you don't want your share to die. I mean clearly. You invested money in that, and it's in your interest not to lose it. That shits expensive yo. But it is also in your interest to squeeze it as hard as you can get away with it.

What is really insupportable hypocrisy is when people whose main income is the fruit of their share brag about their life of unproductive parasitism then blame poor people for not working.

I think Mr. Roboto means that the shareholders will sell before everything really blows up. They'll still have their dividend revenue, and compared to that the share price losses will be acceptable losses.

[scriver]

So...he's going to protect American workers by hurting GM so that it has to lay off more American workers. Seems legit.

I don't like Trump, but I think you're just being unfair here. What alternative(s) do you propose? Penalizing the company specifically and obviously for removing jobs in America is a good way to encourage companies to, you know, hold jobs in America. It's not the best method, but it's one that is simple and possible to implement...or at least threaten to implement...before the plants actually close.

If they lay off more American workers, well, what do you propose? If they do that then there's no point subsidizing them if they're not actually creating jobs here. Well, even LESS of a point subsidizing them than there is now that they're closing down a bunch of plants here.

Agreed here. Enacting more direct punishments against businesses for bad behaviors is something I've wanted forever, but instead we've had both sides of the aisle ass-kissing on the pretense that if we don't worship them, they'll take jobs elsewhere.  Not that there's anything especially great about Trump's response in this case.  Moving plants around is motivated by deeper issues with how the global economy works, and nothing's being done to address that here.  Where I want to see this kind of stuff is in response to taxation issues, finance scandals, golden parachutes, environmental abuses, etc.  That's where we normally encounter the "But it hurts their pocketses and then they can't afford to employ people!" rhetoric.  Even if this isn't quite the same, hearing that same message we would normally roll our eyes at makes me do a double-take.

The guy who keeps half his wealth at least off shore to reduce his tax liability is pissed because GM is putting their plants where the cost of labor is the lowest?

This is why Trump is an asshole. If he were the head of GM he'd have done the exact same thing.

And yeah, this is true.  He does still deserve to be called a hypocrite.

I agree with all of this

[bloop_bleep]

This is why Trump is an asshole. If he were the head of GM he'd have done the exact same thing.

Nah, he'd probably hire a bunch of undocumented immigrants for less than minimum wage and then 'forget' to pay them later.

[RedKing]

So...he's going to protect American workers by hurting GM so that it has to lay off more American workers. Seems legit.

I don't like Trump, but I think you're just being unfair here. What alternative(s) do you propose? Penalizing the company specifically and obviously for removing jobs in America is a good way to encourage companies to, you know, hold jobs in America. It's not the best method, but it's one that is simple and possible to implement...or at least threaten to implement...before the plants actually close.

If they lay off more American workers, well, what do you propose? If they do that then there's no point subsidizing them if they're not actually creating jobs here. Well, even LESS of a point subsidizing them than there is now that they're closing down a bunch of plants here.

How about making the subsidies based on the workforce? Like, "For every US worker you employ, you get a shiny new nickel" (or whatever...I'm throwing out random numbers here). Then it's just a matter of adjusting the subsidy amount to make it economically feasible for GM to employ US workers instead of moving those jobs offshore. Which is about the only reason ANY industry should be getting taxpayer subsidies in the first goddamn place, IMHO.

Trump is using the subsidies as a blunt object rather than a carrot-and-stick. He's using tariffs the same way. Hell, he uses Twitter the same way.
All he knows is stick.

Meanwhile, Mississippi reminded everyone why it's last in the country in most metrics of being a good place to live.