73 Reds

Keep digging - the hole is getting bigger.

You're entertaining - I'll give you that. Otherwise, I could care less either way.

Hmm... after 20+ years and a first presidential term, wouldn't you think that if he was a pedophile a victim might have come forward? Oh wait, that would make too much sense.

LOL!!!! "Potential"....."Growing evidence"...."what else is there".... Every time you post something in this thread you prove my point - Deranged!

Yeah, some "letter". They just can't seem to understand that it is the policies that Trump stands for and not the person that most people voted for and support. Bringing up what looks like an R- rated birthday card with boys' locker room banter from ??? years ago shows how deranged their mindset has become.

Who cares? No ones ever suggested that Trump is the poster boy for his past behavior. A big, fat nothing burger.

Yeah, one would hope that this report would curtail future litigation but if the article is accurate about years' worth of trials already scheduled it doesn't look that way. The Plaintiffs and their lawyers may also present evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately the report won't help the company in appealing the verdict in original case because appeals are limited to the evidence presented in that case and available at that time. Hopefully both sides see the benefit of a swift global settlement.

The article leaves out some important information. Namely why is the company confident it will prevail on appeal and what are the specific grounds for appealing the original verdict? For both sides settlement seems like it makes a lot of sense. In fact, why would Plaintiffs' lawyers want to spend years trying cases that even if they win, will be tied in appellate courts for years? How long should folks who suffered damages be willing to wait to be compensated? Sometimes litigation is a lose, lose prospect for both sides.

It would be interesting to count how many posts of yours include the word "cult".

Still reeling from yesterday, are we?

It is a mistake to extrapolate current strategies and policies - which are largely perceived as corrective with regard to prior mistaken policies and strategies, into the infinite future.

"Solved"? What exactly does that mean? IMO it means removing an immediate threat. We can deal with future threats later and as they arise. Maybe you would prefer that Iran has nuclear capability now. What is your point?

Wrong (again). Until companies merge they are separate entities free to conduct business as always. Is this such a difficult concept for you to grasp? The fact that you or anyone else don't like the merger conditions is irrelevant. The problem is you don't like the law governing mergers. The remedy for that is legislative, not complaining on a message board.

That's absurd. That would also mean any conditions imposed on any merger request constitute government interference with business. The government is not interfering with any business currently being done by either company. Evidently in your World every merger request automatically gets approved - in fact why even bother with the request?

As stated before that's an entirely different issue. Governments impose conditions on merger requests all the time. The parties have 3 choices: Accept the conditions, withdraw the merger request, or fight the conditions by taking the issue to Court. Management will make the appropriate decision on the part of the companies; not anyone else.

Exactly. Keep it out of politics as well. Same with "ESG" which they have been teaching in business schools. Let businesses decide for themselves what works best. As long as companies comply with the law, mandatory ESG has no more place in business than mandatory DEI.

The Left effectively want quotas. That's the problem.

Actually libertarianism works just fine as long as there is an element of social conscience. The social conscience part could even be driven purely by greed, so as to allow libertarians to thrive. What is the point of being King of a crumbling hill?

No. On what planet is the govt. not entitled to impose conditions for approval of a merger request? That is not, nor ever will be construed as govt. interference.

So don't seek the approval. The business can decide what it wants to do. Its like any other decision; consider the costs and the benefits and make a decision.

Who said they all don't work? Each business is different. Mandatory DEI is wrong. These aren't mutually exclusive issues. But a certain political party makes the issue divisive. Who should care what a business does if it is not violating the law and it works for the business?

If a company approaches the govt. seeking approval (for anything) how is that govt. interference?

Wrong. If you want govt. approval (for anything) you play by govt. rules. Keep trying though.

They didn't have to merge. That's a business decision.

Either because those references violated the law or they could choose to keep them and not do business with the Government. That's a corporate decision. Anyone who does business with the Govt. has to play by Govt. rules. Nothing new there.