Sorta like North Carolina
US Department of Transportation Secretary Foxx says he is considering shutting down the Metro in Washington, D.C., after a series of a electrical incidents. "We have the ability to withhold funds from Metro. We have the ability to shut Metro down, and we're not afraid to use it," he said. The Department of Transportation believes too much electricity flows through the subway system. Too much electricity? You mean too much power? Or too many amperes? Draws too much current for the overworked, underfunded, antiquated power distribution system?
The Federal Transit Administration, issued a series of emergency safety directives to Metro officials on Saturday that included steps to reduce power throughout the rail system. One recommendation is to cut the number of railcars per train from eight to six. That would make trains far more crowded at peak hours. I've ridden those trains at peak hours. There is no more room for more people. Literally. Remember, Metro is funded mostly by the adjacent states, not the Feds, since it serves to deliver the workers from those states to the federal sweatshops, without overloading state highways.
The subway system is used by about 700,000 riders a day. That's 350,000 more cars in the morning, and the same 350,000 cars in the evening. Unless the federal workers are permitted to work from home. Or maybe just the disadvantaged ones.
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/11/2016 13:58 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[14 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Meh... go ahead. Shut it down.
Maybe the idiot leaders in DC will have to get their own drinks and food and make their own appointments without the slaves plebs.
#2
Using too much of the magic Blue Smoke? If you let all the Blue Smoke out of the wires it won't work any more. That's what happened to my refridgedeezer.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
05/11/2016 15:23 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Don't like electricity eh? Well here's an alternative.
[FREEBEACON] Hillary Clinton ... sometimes described as The Heroine of Tuzla and at other times as Mrs. Bill, never as Another James Baker ... has received nearly $75,000 in political insurance contributions from employees at the Department of Justice, the agency that would decide whether or not to act if the FBI recommended charges against Clinton or her aides following its investigation into her private email server.
Justice Department employees have given Clinton far more money than her rivals, Sen. Bernie Sanders ...The only openly Socialist member of the U.S. Senate. Sanders was Representative-for-Life from Vermont until moving to the Senate for the rest of his life in 2006, assuming the seat vacated by Jim Jeffords... (I., Vt.) and Donald Trump, according to a review of federal campaign contributions for the 2016 presidential cycle.
Clinton collected $73,437 from individuals who listed the "Department of Justice" as their employer. Twelve of the 228 contributions were for $2,700, the maximum individual amount allowed by law.
The fundraising haul marks a dramatic increase over Clinton’s unsuccessful presidential run in 2008, when she took in 23 contributions totaling $15,930 from employees at the agency, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Trump, by comparison, has received little help from Justice Department employees, recording just two contributions for a total of $381.
Sanders has taken 51 donations totaling $8,900 from Justice Department employees.
David Bossie, president of the watchdog group Citizens United, told the Washington Free Beacon he is not surprised by the donations, and renewed his call for Attorney General Loretta Lynch to appoint a special counsel to handle Clinton’s case.
How much did Lynch give? And how much more to the Clinton Foundation?
Posted by: Fred ||
05/11/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Paying in hopes of keeping their corrupt jobs when Hillary fills her jobs with corrupt cronies
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/11/2016 7:56 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Considering where DoJ has traditionally gotten its employees from, it's not surprising.
h/t Instapundit
...This boilerplate Democratic campaign strategy would be fine -- perhaps even compelling - if deployed against a vanilla Republican candidate. Trump is, however, no Republican cast in the same mold as George W. Bush, John McCain, or Mitt Romney. In fact, as Team Clinton was revealing its intention to attack Trump for his proposal to ease the tax burden on the rich, the news cycle was already dominated by Trump's decision to buck Republican orthodoxy on taxes in an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd.
...It's not merely the Clinton campaign's bullheaded determination to plunge forward with an uncreative campaign strategy that was designed and implemented well before Donald Trump became the presumptive GOP nominee. Clinton appears to have learned nothing from the pile of Republican bodies Trump left in the wake of his scorched earth primary campaign.
"She’s married to a man who was the worst abuser of women in the history of politics," Trump said of his friend, golf buddy, and the inspiration for his 2016 presidential bid, former President Bill Clinton. "She’s been the total enabler." The celebrity candidate added of the former first lady. "She would go after these women and destroy their lives. She was an unbelievably nasty, mean enabler, and what she did to a lot of those women is disgraceful."
#3
Bill Clinton was a very natural politician. Hillary is not, not even close. She looks fake doing just about anything and only rabid partisan loyalties have kept her bouyed this long. I think she'll be crushed in November.
#5
Actually I don't think she'll be the candidate.
1-two weeks before convention she'll drop out for "health reasons"
2- The party will nominate Biden/Warren (aka Fauxcahontas")as the ticket to appease all the Bernie lovers
3- For her cooperation, she'll receive a full pardon for all (alleged) transgressions
4- Obama gets his 3rd term
5- Repubs spent all the time/$ on Hildebeast opposition research and now have to scramble to attack "Groper" Joe
#6
Well Warthog, we don't actually see any of the Obama team rucking up and moving off to other jobs do we? Little to report on the Obama library either.
Your theory has been in my top 3-5 for quite some time. He did move to increase his own post-presidential retirement pay however. He's probably keeping all options open.
#8
#6: Couldn't the next president issue an executive order to reduce/annul the previous president's retirement pay? Couldn't the next president also issue an executive order to remove the Secret Service protection from the previous president? I thought the precedent had already been set on these executive orders.
[TOWNHALL] Speaking on a radio show Tuesday, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who suspended his campaign last week following a loss in Indiana, said that he's open to restarting his campaign if he manages to win Nebraska. He also declined to endorse presumptive nominee Donald Trump, at least for the time being.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/11/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#6
I hate Trump but Cruz should know this is not a good idea. Go back and keep putting sand in the establishment gears in the senate like Texas sent you there to do.
#7
When you throw in the towel you can't just pick it up again. The tactic of winning on the second round of voting was clever but would always have tarnished his Presidency.
It was not his time and now he's burning down any chance of a future run.
"We launched this campaign intending to win. The reason we suspended our campaign was that with the Indiana loss, I felt there was no path to victory," he said Tuesday on Glenn Beck's radio program. "If that changes, we will certainly respond accordingly."
That doesn't sound like "If we win Nebraska we're back in!", it sounds like "If catastrophe happens or the convention wants a compromise Candidate, I'll throw my hat back in."
How exactly is that unreasonable? Yes it was in response to a question on Nebraska from Beck( though I don't know the tone or if it was said jokingly, since audio isn't linked), but still. That seems a reasonable statement.
Posted by: Charles ||
05/11/2016 20:00 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Hillary Clinton
