A protester who called for Americans to 'eat the babies' to fight climate change at AOC's town hall was revealed as a member of a pro-Trump fringe group
The group, which promotes a host of conspiracy theories, also linked to a post on its website calling the reduction of carbon emissions a "mass-murder policy."
Matthew Sweet, a British journalist who wrote a book investigating LaRouche, called the group a "bizarre political cult" and pointed out that it had staged several other demonstrations similar to the woman's interruption on Thursday night.
Kurt Volker's (recently resigned Special Envoy to Ukraine) texts that he turned over to the House yesterday absolutely obliterate any of the pathetic defenses the White House was coming up with on Ukraine. They are a documented record that the entire apparatus of US foreign policy was being steered toward securing Trump's re-election. Everything they denied is in there, and it's only from ONE official who got his ass out the moment this became public. Again, they have betrayed this country:
Huh. So, basically what you're telling me is that a politician lied?
I'm absolutely swooning with astonishment here!
You're really underselling it. "Huh, so basically what you're telling me is that a politician committed treason? I'm absolutely swooning with astonishment here!"
Gave that the proper context for you. I also don't get why everyone is seemingly okay with politicians lieing at all though. A powerful person who has a direct hand in shaping a countries' laws SHOULD BE TRUSTWORTHY AND HELD TO THE HIGHEST STANDARD. Its both amazing and terrifiying what people are okay with.
A protester who called for Americans to 'eat the babies' to fight climate change at AOC's town hall was revealed as a member of a pro-Trump fringe group
The group, which promotes a host of conspiracy theories, also linked to a post on its website calling the reduction of carbon emissions a "mass-murder policy."
Matthew Sweet, a British journalist who wrote a book investigating LaRouche, called the group a "bizarre political cult" and pointed out that it had staged several other demonstrations similar to the woman's interruption on Thursday night.
I read THOUSANDS of Twitter comments from the right last night admonishing AOC for not "condemning" the remarks, when she was obviously simply trying to show compassion to someone she thought was suffering from mental issues. Then, it turns out the person was literally a right-wing ringer, and the comments today are STILL saying AOC was the one in the wrong. As if there is a reasonable response to be made about someone screaming about eating children. 35% of this country is in a cult. If Trump set up a giant bowl of cyanide-laced grape kool-aid on the National Mall, they would drive across the country to drink it as long as there was an engraving on the side of the bowl that said "liberals suck."
Apparently Trump is now claiming that pressuring the Ukrainian government into investigating Biden wasn't corrupt because one of his people quietly reassured another that it wasn't corrupt by saying there was no "quid pro quo."
The same transcripts say otherwise, with multiple people on Trump's own team emphasizing that Trump explicitly expected Ukraine to take action before he would support them. Volker said that investigation was the top priority here: "Most impt is for Zelensky to say that he will support investigation."
Even an exchange between Bill Taylor and Gordon Sondland, the very same one that uses the phrase "no quid pro quo," makes that very clear:
Bill Taylor: As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.
Gordon Sondland: Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo's of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign I suggest we stop the back and forth by text If you still have concerns I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly
Taylor says he's concerned about corrupt intent and Sondland reassures him that there's no corruption... only to say Trump is just very invested in improving Ukrainian government "transparency and reforms" despite the fact that "transparency and reforms" weren't mentioned elsewhere. And then Sondland asks Taylor not to text him about the question again and tells him to talk to someone else.
Sondland is trying to absolve Trump of any corrupt intent by saying Trump's real motive is something they haven't even discussed! It's incredible.
This is the best defense the administration can make? "One of my guys sent a text saying it was A-okay?"
Apparently Trump is now claiming that pressuring the Ukrainian government into investigating Biden wasn't corrupt because one of his people quietly reassured another that it wasn't corrupt by saying there was no "quid pro quo."
The same transcripts say otherwise, with multiple people on Trump's own team emphasizing that Trump explicitly expected Ukraine to take action before he would support them. Volker said that investigation was the top priority here: "Most impt is for Zelensky to say that he will support investigation."
Even an exchange between Bill Taylor and Gordon Sondland, the very same one that uses the phrase "no quid pro quo," makes that very clear:
Bill Taylor: As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.
Gordon Sondland: Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo's of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign I suggest we stop the back and forth by text If you still have concerns I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly
Taylor says he's concerned about corrupt intent and Sondland reassures him that there's no corruption... only to say Trump is just very invested in improving Ukrainian government "transparency and reforms" despite the fact that "transparency and reforms" weren't mentioned elsewhere. And then Sondland asks Taylor not to text him about the question again and tells him to talk to someone else.
Sondland is trying to absolve Trump of any corrupt intent by saying Trump's real motive is something they haven't even discussed! It's incredible.
This is the best defense the administration can make? "One of my guys sent a text saying it was A-okay?"
It is no different functionally than a mafia lieutenant telling a soldier "this conversation never happened". It was said specifically BECAUSE they knew it was exactly what they were saying it wasn't. Anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty knows this. The moment Bill Taylor basically says "what the hell are we doing here??" he is essentially told to stop contacting him. It is, like the secret server, consciousness of guilt.
A great question was asked by a reporter of Trump either yesterday or today as he continues to say it's all about getting to the bottom of "corruption". He asked him if he could provide any other examples of investigations he had asked for of people who WEREN'T his political opponents. Trump's answer?? "We'll have to get back to you on that." What also undercuts this absurd excuse is that it's becoming clear that what they wanted more than anything was an official ANNOUNCEMENT of an investigation by Ukraine, to the point where they seemed to be ready to help them draft the wording:
The US Ambassador to the EU is Sondland. This, again, proves exactly what @semiticgod was saying in his previous post. That text he sends to Taylor is to create a sort of plausible deniability paper trail before going off the grid because, even in the moment, he is worried about there being an electronic record of the discussion.
You're really underselling it. "Huh, so basically what you're telling me is that a politician committed treason? I'm absolutely swooning with astonishment here!"
Gave that the proper context for you. I also don't get why everyone is seemingly okay with politicians lieing at all though. A powerful person who has a direct hand in shaping a countries' laws SHOULD BE TRUSTWORTHY AND HELD TO THE HIGHEST STANDARD. Its both amazing and terrifiying what people are okay with.
Huh. I just HAD to check. I'm like that. And I seem unable to find that sweet spot, where I claimed that it was allright for politicians to lie. Perhaps you could be so kind as to point it out to me?
A protester who called for Americans to 'eat the babies' to fight climate change at AOC's town hall was revealed as a member of a pro-Trump fringe group
The group, which promotes a host of conspiracy theories, also linked to a post on its website calling the reduction of carbon emissions a "mass-murder policy."
Matthew Sweet, a British journalist who wrote a book investigating LaRouche, called the group a "bizarre political cult" and pointed out that it had staged several other demonstrations similar to the woman's interruption on Thursday night.
Kind of figured it was a Troll job. What's really concerning and head turning is this...
"The group, which was founded as a Marxist group by Lyndon LaRouche in the 1960s, transformed into a right-wing conspiracy-theorist movement in the 1970s."
How do you go from Political left to Political right? Maybe they became paid provocateurs?
A protester who called for Americans to 'eat the babies' to fight climate change at AOC's town hall was revealed as a member of a pro-Trump fringe group
The group, which promotes a host of conspiracy theories, also linked to a post on its website calling the reduction of carbon emissions a "mass-murder policy."
Matthew Sweet, a British journalist who wrote a book investigating LaRouche, called the group a "bizarre political cult" and pointed out that it had staged several other demonstrations similar to the woman's interruption on Thursday night.
Kind of figured it was a Troll job. What's really concerning and head turning is this...
"The group, which was founded as a Marxist group by Lyndon LaRouche in the 1960s, transformed into a right-wing conspiracy-theorist movement in the 1970s."
How do you go from Political left to Political right? Maybe they became paid provocateurs?
Lyndon LaRouche is ground-zero for what would now be put into the Alex Jones/InfoWars category. He essentially laid the groundwork for moving conspiracy theories to the forefront of American right-wing politics. This, like talk radio and FOX News, is impossible to separate from Trump's rise to power.
Over the years, he made many attempts to get his candidates to win primaries for local races in Democratic politics. Every time the party itself loudly rejected him, viewing the runs as nothing more than attempts at sabotage. Point being, if you are a person who believes in black helicopters and chemtrails, Lyndon LaRouche is your patron saint. Qanon isn't a thing without him. He made the X-Files look sane.
people that were upset at AOC, what do you think of the Trump supporter that said we should eat babies for climate change?
Do you denounce this person? Like everytime a terrorist attack happens and it's from a muslim, they always get a totally unrelated muslim and asked them if they denounce the terrorist.
Same thing here, do you denounce the baby eating trump supporter?
Also, the CIA's top lawyer targeted Trump with a 'criminal referral' on the whistleblower complaint about the Trump Ukraine call. Barr got involved and covered it up again these guys are totally lawless.
A protester who called for Americans to 'eat the babies' to fight climate change at AOC's town hall was revealed as a member of a pro-Trump fringe group
The group, which promotes a host of conspiracy theories, also linked to a post on its website calling the reduction of carbon emissions a "mass-murder policy."
Matthew Sweet, a British journalist who wrote a book investigating LaRouche, called the group a "bizarre political cult" and pointed out that it had staged several other demonstrations similar to the woman's interruption on Thursday night.
Kind of figured it was a Troll job. What's really concerning and head turning is this...
"The group, which was founded as a Marxist group by Lyndon LaRouche in the 1960s, transformed into a right-wing conspiracy-theorist movement in the 1970s."
How do you go from Political left to Political right? Maybe they became paid provocateurs?
The farther to the right or left you go, the more the mass of your bullshit warps political space-time and you end up curling the ends of the line around until they meet. After all, is there really any difference between a planned economy run by a politburo and a planned economy run by a cartel?
That's why I'm always amused by arguments claiming Hitler was really left-wing or Stalin was really right-wing. It doesn't matter which way they started moving along that line, they both ended up in the black hole of totalitarianism.
I wouldn't call myself a Trump supporter, both because I'm not eligible to vote for him and I think that's exactly his personality why he shouldn't be a president. President's job is unite the country, not to stir the flames by trolling his opposition even if they deserve it. Nevertheless, I do appreciate his bluntness and disdain for PC speech.
Now, in case it wasn't clear, no Trump supporter was advocating to eat babies. But someone clearly sick of moral authoritarians' hypocrisy (or ignorant idiocy) was trying to exaggerate those traits of them in hopes they would recognize where such path leads.
But it seems like those on the left think it was a genuine suggestion coming from the right :facepalm:
Kind of figured it was a Troll job. What's really concerning and head turning is this...
"The group, which was founded as a Marxist group by Lyndon LaRouche in the 1960s, transformed into a right-wing conspiracy-theorist movement in the 1970s."
How do you go from Political left to Political right? Maybe they became paid provocateurs?
Well, as you said, the "bomb Russia" was a dead giveaway. If you want to clear the planet of some humans, start with China and India, lol.
It's not a matter of "evening the scales." It's that being a police officer should be a matter of responsibility, not license. Every time they kill should be under greater scrutiny and extrajudicial executions should have harsher sentences, similar to hate crime enhancements. A reason for this is the fact that it's so effortless for many officers to get a slap on the wrist at best after killing someone who presented no actual danger to anyone. It's not revenge for Eric Garner's murderers walking or Michael Brown's murder. It's intended to make it harder for police to commit such crimes without consequence.
Isn't it weird how many people insist that police - individuals who often have access to military equipment of all things - should not be held to a greater responsibility for the force they can deploy and use? I can't imagine why someone would actually think that this is a good idea.
As far as facial recognition goes, it's bad. Surveillance states are bad. They don't make us safer - they put people into danger.
I dont necessarily disagree with you, but I do think that some people who wanted harsher sentences (and before that, a murder conviction rather than a manslaughter conviction) were doing so with the understanding that far too many police officers are let off entirely or given unfair sentencing.
In either way, I feel like we're talking past each other so I'm rather done with this situation now that both her conviction and sentencing have been announced.
In other news, the Sanders campaign has acknowledged what we probably all basically knew (or maybe, suspected?) - he had a heart attack earlier in the week.
First - I 10000000% hope he recovers entirely, and it sounds like he will.
Second - While it was always perhaps inevitable, age is going to have to be addressed in the primary moving forward. We cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the idea that if either Sanders or Biden is elected that neither of them will have a particularly high likelihood of serving two terms and/or being an effective surrogate for the party in the 2028 elections if they do manage to serve two terms.
Kind of figured it was a Troll job. What's really concerning and head turning is this...
"The group, which was founded as a Marxist group by Lyndon LaRouche in the 1960s, transformed into a right-wing conspiracy-theorist movement in the 1970s."
How do you go from Political left to Political right? Maybe they became paid provocateurs?
It happens. Mussolini was a socialist in WW1, and was largely the father of fascism by the 1930s.
I don't think anyone on the left thinks it was a genuine suggestion. I saw plenty of people saying "I'll eat my shoe if it wasn't a set-up", which it was. I DID see AOC being criticized for not condemning the eating of babies, and none of it was sarcastic.
There were only two possible reasons for that scenario. Either the person was suffering from severe mental problems, or it was a plant to make her look bad. Neither required the kind of response that was demanded of her.
Now, in case it wasn't clear, no Trump supporter was advocating to eat babies. But someone clearly sick of moral authoritarians' hypocrisy (or ignorant idiocy) was trying to exaggerate those traits of them in hopes they would recognize where such path leads.
But it seems like those on the left think it was a genuine suggestion coming from the right :facepalm:
Do you have a cite for that? I've been seeing a lot of comments that it was a troll, with a few speculating it was a clumsy attempt at a false flag, but I haven't seen anyone claiming it was a genuine suggestion from the right. Before she was identified I did see a few comments claiming she was "a typical AOC supporter", but even those seemed tongue in cheek.
Allegedly he is alright, but if we learnt anything from the last election, any type of health scare can be a huge distraction.
IMO he should drop out immediately and focus on his health and well being first. It has nothing to do with his ideology or following. If this happened to any other candidate, I would be saying the same thing. The less distractions a candidate can put forward, the easier it will be to defeat Trump.
@Ardanis: The complaint from the left was not that this Trump supporter personally believed in eating babies--the complaint was that this person posed as a liberal to deceive people into thinking liberals were that crazy. The issue is the sheer cynical deception of the whole ploy.
Strawmanning the opposition is one thing (anyone can do that purely by accident), but when you're infiltrating another group and lying about your own beliefs just to make them look bad, that's a whole other animal. You have to be self-consciously dishonest to put that much work into lying to people.
Apparently Trump is now claiming that pressuring the Ukrainian government into investigating Biden wasn't corrupt because one of his people quietly reassured another that it wasn't corrupt by saying there was no "quid pro quo."
The same transcripts say otherwise, with multiple people on Trump's own team emphasizing that Trump explicitly expected Ukraine to take action before he would support them. Volker said that investigation was the top priority here: "Most impt is for Zelensky to say that he will support investigation."
Even an exchange between Bill Taylor and Gordon Sondland, the very same one that uses the phrase "no quid pro quo," makes that very clear:
Bill Taylor: As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.
Gordon Sondland: Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo's of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign I suggest we stop the back and forth by text If you still have concerns I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly
Taylor says he's concerned about corrupt intent and Sondland reassures him that there's no corruption... only to say Trump is just very invested in improving Ukrainian government "transparency and reforms" despite the fact that "transparency and reforms" weren't mentioned elsewhere. And then Sondland asks Taylor not to text him about the question again and tells him to talk to someone else.
Sondland is trying to absolve Trump of any corrupt intent by saying Trump's real motive is something they haven't even discussed! It's incredible.
This is the best defense the administration can make? "One of my guys sent a text saying it was A-okay?"
The same transcripts do not say otherwise. They do not say anything other than no attempts at blackmail would be allowed.
It also makes clear that the Biden investigation was not his only concern. Not only that, he showed no intent to have them interfere in elections. In fact, he said the opposite. He didn't want election interference, and he wanted assurance it wouldn't happen again. He didn't ask for a sham investigation, or go the D route and ask for opposition research. He asked for what we should all want, unbiased truth.
As we all know, the D's were working with the Ukrainians to try to sabotage Trump during the 2016 election. I could go on for paragraphs about the silence on this matter- and the oh so convenient moral outrage of today- but i'll spare you. Once upon a time, I was told quite often that it was clear that cooperating with foreign countries to interfere in elections was a clear moral wrong- indeed, even treason. Since the Ukrainians were committing an act I was told, and am told today, in no uncertain terms is undemocratic and potentially treasonous, it seems to be perfectly common sense that we need to ascertain what their intentions really are, and at the very least, get an assurance that they do not intend to do so again. If their intent is to clearly meddle in our democratic processes, I don't see why a measure such as withholding aid should be off the table.
I would also add the small caveat that this is not the defense of the administration, but a document released by Adam Schiff and two other Democrats, which they say are snippets of the whole. Since Adam Schiff has already been caught lying on this matter, i'm content to take his statements with a grain of salt as it is. Not that I doubt necessarily the actual content, just that it's probably not the whole story, but definitely the worst parts.
This is all good, if it wasn't what Trump's team wanted the Ukrainians to say. This is political spin at its finest as the Burisma file wasn't the only file left dormant for so long yet it's being singled out by the Republicans here.
Talking about "snippets of the whole" when the Administration has been caught funneling the real transcript of the call down a secret code-word server, less than 24 hours after you ethusiastically praised them for their transparency. And you think Volker have up those texts because he thinks Trump is INNOCENT?? Right-wing Youtube is a hell of a drug. Those texts quite literally confirm the exact thing you were hanging your hat on having not happend, which was that the military aid was being withheld for playing ball on the investigation. And for the dozenth time, CONGRESS appropriated the money to Ukraine. It isn't Trump's to distribute as he sees fit. And again, the willful obtuseness that has to be put into effect about the intent of the end of that conversation is just mind-blowing, which essentially boils down to "you weren't supposed to say that out loud, now cease all traceable communication." Never mind Pompeo lying about being on the call. Nevermind the God Emperor himself not being able to cite a SINGLE other example of asking for a corruption investigation when asked. Nevermind sending his personal defense attorney accountable to no authority or voter to seal the deal.
I mean look, I already know what the strategy is in his defense. It's "yeah it was illegal, so what, liberals suck". I get it. But you know what?? He's going to be impeached anyway. Removed?? No, almost certainly not. But the pussyfooting around is over.
In the end, what's interesting is that Biden wasn't going to be the nominee anyway. No one is really defending his son cashing in on nepotism. It's kinda gross. But definitely not as gross as Ivanka having West Wing meetings with Chinese officials as an actual member of the government and getting handed patents days later. Sure as hell nowhere in the realm of Jared's loans from Qatar or the outright bribery taking place everyday at Trump's hotels around the world. This concern about "corruption" is the most patently absurd thing I've ever heard, and even the most hardcore Trump supporter knows it. And isn't it interesting that apparently on the Chinese phone call, Trump not only mentioned Biden, but Warren as well. It's an outright fucking miracle. Millions of people in Ukraine and billions in China, yet Trump seems to have narrowed down the source of the corruption in both countries to 2 of the 3 people who have a chance of taking him on in 2020.
Talking about "snippets of the whole" when the Administration has been caught funneling the real transcript of the call down a secret code-word server, less than 24 hours after you ethusiastically praised them for their transparency. And you think Volker have up those texts because he thinks Trump is INNOCENT?? Right-wing Youtube is a hell of a drug. Those texts quite literally confirm the exact thing you were hanging your hat on having not happend, which was that the military aid was being withheld for playing ball on the investigation. And for the dozenth time, CONGRESS appropriated the money to Ukraine. It isn't Trump's to distrbute as he sees fit. And again, the willful obtuseness that has to be put into effect about the intent of the end of that conversation is just mind-blowing, which essentially boils down to "you weren't supposed to say that out loud, now cease all traceable communication." Never mind Pompeo lying about being on the call. Nevermind the God Emperor himself not being able to cite a SINGLE other example of asking for a corruption investigation when asked. Nevermind sending his personal defense attorney accountable to no authority or voter to seal the deal.
Everything comes back to context. When one reads the Call memo, Trump's comments on the call memo. Trump's later comment about wanting China and Ukraine to investigate, The whistleblower account, the attempt hide away many of these details in a super secret database, the continual stonewalling of congress, the concerns of Trump's own officials, and the constant lying by the administration - it's pretty hard not to see the angle where abuse of power has occurred.
The polls are also pretty steadily moving towards impeachment. Or, at the least, that the president abused his power through a blatant conflict of interest.
The right's defense so far seems to be:
Move the goalposts to Trump asking specifically for a prid pro quo
Attempt to spin this into Trump fighting corruption (The cognitive dissonance of which is incredible, considering the amount of corruption in his administration).
It's possible (hell, probable) that this defense will be enough to stop a conviction in the senate. It's going to be really bad as an electoral strategy for 2020, both for Trump and vulnerable senators.
Speaking to this last point, I really do think the October debates for the Democrats will be the most important single debate in 2020 (including general election ones, perhaps). I can pretty much guarantee you that a huge amount of time will be devoted to the impeachment scandal. If the front runners can talk on the issue effectively, and weaponize it politically... then that portends very very poorly for Trump. If their messaging on it is lackluster, then Trump might be able to skirt the issue in 2020.
What's really interesting is that Elizabeth Warren is ready to basically get in a steel cage match with social media companies over influence, and is the only candidate doing so. So we're gonna find out VERY quickly once she becomes the nominee (and with Bernie's health and Biden's drop, I see nothing preventing it) just how much of that loud as a bomb concern on the right about the issue was total BS.
As we all know, the D's were working with the Ukrainians to try to sabotage Trump during the 2016 election.
What? Yeah no we all don't know that. That's fake news. Trump was the one with international conflicts and shady deals with mafia figures. After he went bankrupt the 6th time he couldn't get loans in the states. Yet somehow his kids literally said they got all the money they need from Russia. Anyway...
Do you know Trump was working with Putin to sabotage the 2016 election AND is working with Ukraine to sabotage the 2020 election? That's what he's going to be impeached for.
Did you know the Saudi government have rented a whole floor in Trump tower? That's why he belongs to them. Foreign officials are renting rooms and not even showing up in blatant naked corruption. Hopefully he gets impeached for that too.
'We’re looking at... raw bribery': Trump hotel taking bookings from foreign officials who never stay in rooms, investigation told
As we all know, the D's were working with the Ukrainians to try to sabotage Trump during the 2016 election. I could go on for paragraphs about the silence on this matter- and the oh so convenient moral outrage of today- but i'll spare you. Once upon a time, I was told quite often that it was clear that cooperating with foreign countries to interfere in elections was a clear moral wrong- indeed, even treason. Since the Ukrainians were committing an act I was told, and am told today, in no uncertain terms is undemocratic and potentially treasonous, it seems to be perfectly common sense that we need to ascertain what their intentions really are, and at the very least, get an assurance that they do not intend to do so again. If their intent is to clearly meddle in our democratic processes, I don't see why a measure such as withholding aid should be off the table.
Is there any evidence of problematic involvement by Ukraine? I certainly agree that if there is that should be investigated, but I wouldn't class a simple accusation by Trump as evidence. Here's an article concluding there was no interference by Ukraine. At the moment I've seen nothing substantive to suggest that conclusion is incorrect and I'm therefore currently assuming this is just another example of Trump's normal playbook - to muddy the waters by accusing opponents of whatever dodgy dealing or wrongdoing he is engaging in himself.
In the UK, Johnson has published proposals for a Brexit deal.
Those proposals only relate to the Irish issue, so it's not clear whether the other aspects of the detailed deal agreed by Theresa May are being accepted or not. Even if they are, there are 2 aspects to the proposed Irish arrangements that will almost certainly be rejected by the EU:
- the arrangements are subject to a veto by the Northern Ireland assembly before they are introduced and every 4 years thereafter.
- Northern Ireland and Ireland would be in different customs zones, which traditionally would require some form of border checks (which are not allowed by the Good Friday Agreement). Johnson has said those would not be required at the border as a result of using Trusted Trader schemes, electronic checks, exemptions for small traders etc. All those ideas were discussed over the course of a couple of years after the 2016 referendum and it was the inability to demonstrate they could work which led to the backstop (which would only have activated if those alternatives did in fact not work).
I think the jury is still out on whether Johnson really wants a deal, or is deliberately putting forward something unacceptable in order to provide a path to a no deal. At the moment I can't see a deal being agreed though whether Johnson really wants one or not, which means that Johnson will be required by the recent Benn Act to send a letter to the EU asking for an extension. Despite saying that he will do that, he is also insisting that the UK will actually leave the EU on 31 October. I can think of 3 general methods to achieve that:
1) get the EU to block an extension (as that requires unanimity, he only needs one country to object to prevent it happening).
2) use some sleight of hand to prevent the letter to the EU taking effect (like sending a covering letter saying please ignore the enclosure).
3) use a legal trick to bypass the legislation.
The courts have already said they would act against option 2). I'm pretty sure the same would hold with option 3) - the government could try to push through some conflicting legislation under delegated powers, but in that instance the courts would look at the intention of Parliament to decide what should be done to resolve the conflict (and that intention is crystal clear).
Option 1) is the only thing I can think of with any possibility of success. I've seen a suggestion there have been talks with Hungary - which would be a logical country to approach as they are in dispute with the EU over various things at the moment. On the fact of it, it seems unlikely they would really be willing to make their existing disputes worse in order to help a UK government that will be subject to an election within months. However, we'll find out in the next few weeks whether Johnson really did have a cunning plan all along, or has just been running a giant bluff ...
Hungary would also be giving their citizens in the UK a headache and making 26 other countries annoyed in the process, so it seems unlikely. One does wonder if soliciting a foreign power to act against the will of parliament would be entirely legal... Government lawyers have said that they will abide by the provisions of the Benn Act so it seems likely that Johnson is trying to make it seem that he is not to blame for the extension so he can fight an election without getting savaged by the Brexit Party.
Ontario Schools will be closing on Monday because of CUPE ( Union ) Workers not having a contract. The workers that are walking out are support staff at this time. ( Caretakers, Secretaries and EAs )
The Ontario government is saying that they want to make additional cuts to funding and want to cut workers benefits by half. The average salary of a Ontario School Board Support Staff Employee is $38 000 CDN per Year.
Edit: Just for those that don't know. 1 Canadian Dollar equals 0.75 United States Dollar.
You make a better living being on Welfare and in Government Housing.
Comments
https://amp.businessinsider.com/pro-trump-group-behind-aoc-protester-calling-to-eat-babies-2019-10
Trump fans are nuts.
The group, which promotes a host of conspiracy theories, also linked to a post on its website calling the reduction of carbon emissions a "mass-murder policy."
Matthew Sweet, a British journalist who wrote a book investigating LaRouche, called the group a "bizarre political cult" and pointed out that it had staged several other demonstrations similar to the woman's interruption on Thursday night.
You're really underselling it. "Huh, so basically what you're telling me is that a politician committed treason? I'm absolutely swooning with astonishment here!"
Gave that the proper context for you. I also don't get why everyone is seemingly okay with politicians lieing at all though. A powerful person who has a direct hand in shaping a countries' laws SHOULD BE TRUSTWORTHY AND HELD TO THE HIGHEST STANDARD. Its both amazing and terrifiying what people are okay with.
I read THOUSANDS of Twitter comments from the right last night admonishing AOC for not "condemning" the remarks, when she was obviously simply trying to show compassion to someone she thought was suffering from mental issues. Then, it turns out the person was literally a right-wing ringer, and the comments today are STILL saying AOC was the one in the wrong. As if there is a reasonable response to be made about someone screaming about eating children. 35% of this country is in a cult. If Trump set up a giant bowl of cyanide-laced grape kool-aid on the National Mall, they would drive across the country to drink it as long as there was an engraving on the side of the bowl that said "liberals suck."
The same transcripts say otherwise, with multiple people on Trump's own team emphasizing that Trump explicitly expected Ukraine to take action before he would support them. Volker said that investigation was the top priority here: "Most impt is for Zelensky to say that he will support investigation."
Even an exchange between Bill Taylor and Gordon Sondland, the very same one that uses the phrase "no quid pro quo," makes that very clear: Taylor says he's concerned about corrupt intent and Sondland reassures him that there's no corruption... only to say Trump is just very invested in improving Ukrainian government "transparency and reforms" despite the fact that "transparency and reforms" weren't mentioned elsewhere. And then Sondland asks Taylor not to text him about the question again and tells him to talk to someone else.
Sondland is trying to absolve Trump of any corrupt intent by saying Trump's real motive is something they haven't even discussed! It's incredible.
This is the best defense the administration can make? "One of my guys sent a text saying it was A-okay?"
It is no different functionally than a mafia lieutenant telling a soldier "this conversation never happened". It was said specifically BECAUSE they knew it was exactly what they were saying it wasn't. Anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty knows this. The moment Bill Taylor basically says "what the hell are we doing here??" he is essentially told to stop contacting him. It is, like the secret server, consciousness of guilt.
A great question was asked by a reporter of Trump either yesterday or today as he continues to say it's all about getting to the bottom of "corruption". He asked him if he could provide any other examples of investigations he had asked for of people who WEREN'T his political opponents. Trump's answer?? "We'll have to get back to you on that." What also undercuts this absurd excuse is that it's becoming clear that what they wanted more than anything was an official ANNOUNCEMENT of an investigation by Ukraine, to the point where they seemed to be ready to help them draft the wording:
The US Ambassador to the EU is Sondland. This, again, proves exactly what @semiticgod was saying in his previous post. That text he sends to Taylor is to create a sort of plausible deniability paper trail before going off the grid because, even in the moment, he is worried about there being an electronic record of the discussion.
Huh. I just HAD to check. I'm like that. And I seem unable to find that sweet spot, where I claimed that it was allright for politicians to lie. Perhaps you could be so kind as to point it out to me?
That would be swell.
Kind of figured it was a Troll job. What's really concerning and head turning is this...
"The group, which was founded as a Marxist group by Lyndon LaRouche in the 1960s, transformed into a right-wing conspiracy-theorist movement in the 1970s."
How do you go from Political left to Political right? Maybe they became paid provocateurs?
Lyndon LaRouche is ground-zero for what would now be put into the Alex Jones/InfoWars category. He essentially laid the groundwork for moving conspiracy theories to the forefront of American right-wing politics. This, like talk radio and FOX News, is impossible to separate from Trump's rise to power.
Over the years, he made many attempts to get his candidates to win primaries for local races in Democratic politics. Every time the party itself loudly rejected him, viewing the runs as nothing more than attempts at sabotage. Point being, if you are a person who believes in black helicopters and chemtrails, Lyndon LaRouche is your patron saint. Qanon isn't a thing without him. He made the X-Files look sane.
Thanks for the rundown @jjstraka34
Protests in Iraq are intensifying.
Don't know if this was translated properly but....
Do you denounce this person? Like everytime a terrorist attack happens and it's from a muslim, they always get a totally unrelated muslim and asked them if they denounce the terrorist.
Same thing here, do you denounce the baby eating trump supporter?
Also, the CIA's top lawyer targeted Trump with a 'criminal referral' on the whistleblower complaint about the Trump Ukraine call. Barr got involved and covered it up again these guys are totally lawless.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/cia-s-top-lawyer-made-criminal-referral-whistleblower-s-complaint-n1062481
The farther to the right or left you go, the more the mass of your bullshit warps political space-time and you end up curling the ends of the line around until they meet. After all, is there really any difference between a planned economy run by a politburo and a planned economy run by a cartel?
That's why I'm always amused by arguments claiming Hitler was really left-wing or Stalin was really right-wing. It doesn't matter which way they started moving along that line, they both ended up in the black hole of totalitarianism.
Now, in case it wasn't clear, no Trump supporter was advocating to eat babies. But someone clearly sick of moral authoritarians' hypocrisy (or ignorant idiocy) was trying to exaggerate those traits of them in hopes they would recognize where such path leads.
But it seems like those on the left think it was a genuine suggestion coming from the right :facepalm:
Well, as you said, the "bomb Russia" was a dead giveaway. If you want to clear the planet of some humans, start with China and India, lol.
I dont necessarily disagree with you, but I do think that some people who wanted harsher sentences (and before that, a murder conviction rather than a manslaughter conviction) were doing so with the understanding that far too many police officers are let off entirely or given unfair sentencing.
In either way, I feel like we're talking past each other so I'm rather done with this situation now that both her conviction and sentencing have been announced.
In other news, the Sanders campaign has acknowledged what we probably all basically knew (or maybe, suspected?) - he had a heart attack earlier in the week.
First - I 10000000% hope he recovers entirely, and it sounds like he will.
Second - While it was always perhaps inevitable, age is going to have to be addressed in the primary moving forward. We cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the idea that if either Sanders or Biden is elected that neither of them will have a particularly high likelihood of serving two terms and/or being an effective surrogate for the party in the 2028 elections if they do manage to serve two terms.
It happens. Mussolini was a socialist in WW1, and was largely the father of fascism by the 1930s.
There were only two possible reasons for that scenario. Either the person was suffering from severe mental problems, or it was a plant to make her look bad. Neither required the kind of response that was demanded of her.
Do you have a cite for that? I've been seeing a lot of comments that it was a troll, with a few speculating it was a clumsy attempt at a false flag, but I haven't seen anyone claiming it was a genuine suggestion from the right. Before she was identified I did see a few comments claiming she was "a typical AOC supporter", but even those seemed tongue in cheek.
Allegedly he is alright, but if we learnt anything from the last election, any type of health scare can be a huge distraction.
IMO he should drop out immediately and focus on his health and well being first. It has nothing to do with his ideology or following. If this happened to any other candidate, I would be saying the same thing. The less distractions a candidate can put forward, the easier it will be to defeat Trump.
Strawmanning the opposition is one thing (anyone can do that purely by accident), but when you're infiltrating another group and lying about your own beliefs just to make them look bad, that's a whole other animal. You have to be self-consciously dishonest to put that much work into lying to people.
The same transcripts do not say otherwise. They do not say anything other than no attempts at blackmail would be allowed.
It also makes clear that the Biden investigation was not his only concern. Not only that, he showed no intent to have them interfere in elections. In fact, he said the opposite. He didn't want election interference, and he wanted assurance it wouldn't happen again. He didn't ask for a sham investigation, or go the D route and ask for opposition research. He asked for what we should all want, unbiased truth.
As we all know, the D's were working with the Ukrainians to try to sabotage Trump during the 2016 election. I could go on for paragraphs about the silence on this matter- and the oh so convenient moral outrage of today- but i'll spare you. Once upon a time, I was told quite often that it was clear that cooperating with foreign countries to interfere in elections was a clear moral wrong- indeed, even treason. Since the Ukrainians were committing an act I was told, and am told today, in no uncertain terms is undemocratic and potentially treasonous, it seems to be perfectly common sense that we need to ascertain what their intentions really are, and at the very least, get an assurance that they do not intend to do so again. If their intent is to clearly meddle in our democratic processes, I don't see why a measure such as withholding aid should be off the table.
This is all good, if it wasn't what Trump's team wanted the Ukrainians to say. This is political spin at its finest as the Burisma file wasn't the only file left dormant for so long yet it's being singled out by the Republicans here.
The Ukrainians have been saying this now https://www.thedailybeast.com/ukraine-likely-to-reopen-probe-of-hunter-biden-firm-sources and it now taints their investigations. Have they been saying this to curry favour with the Trump administration? Their investigation into these things are now tainted because of Trump's nose in it.
I mean look, I already know what the strategy is in his defense. It's "yeah it was illegal, so what, liberals suck". I get it. But you know what?? He's going to be impeached anyway. Removed?? No, almost certainly not. But the pussyfooting around is over.
In the end, what's interesting is that Biden wasn't going to be the nominee anyway. No one is really defending his son cashing in on nepotism. It's kinda gross. But definitely not as gross as Ivanka having West Wing meetings with Chinese officials as an actual member of the government and getting handed patents days later. Sure as hell nowhere in the realm of Jared's loans from Qatar or the outright bribery taking place everyday at Trump's hotels around the world. This concern about "corruption" is the most patently absurd thing I've ever heard, and even the most hardcore Trump supporter knows it. And isn't it interesting that apparently on the Chinese phone call, Trump not only mentioned Biden, but Warren as well. It's an outright fucking miracle. Millions of people in Ukraine and billions in China, yet Trump seems to have narrowed down the source of the corruption in both countries to 2 of the 3 people who have a chance of taking him on in 2020.
Everything comes back to context. When one reads the Call memo, Trump's comments on the call memo. Trump's later comment about wanting China and Ukraine to investigate, The whistleblower account, the attempt hide away many of these details in a super secret database, the continual stonewalling of congress, the concerns of Trump's own officials, and the constant lying by the administration - it's pretty hard not to see the angle where abuse of power has occurred.
The polls are also pretty steadily moving towards impeachment. Or, at the least, that the president abused his power through a blatant conflict of interest.
The right's defense so far seems to be:
Move the goalposts to Trump asking specifically for a prid pro quo
Attempt to spin this into Trump fighting corruption (The cognitive dissonance of which is incredible, considering the amount of corruption in his administration).
It's possible (hell, probable) that this defense will be enough to stop a conviction in the senate. It's going to be really bad as an electoral strategy for 2020, both for Trump and vulnerable senators.
Speaking to this last point, I really do think the October debates for the Democrats will be the most important single debate in 2020 (including general election ones, perhaps). I can pretty much guarantee you that a huge amount of time will be devoted to the impeachment scandal. If the front runners can talk on the issue effectively, and weaponize it politically... then that portends very very poorly for Trump. If their messaging on it is lackluster, then Trump might be able to skirt the issue in 2020.
What? Yeah no we all don't know that. That's fake news. Trump was the one with international conflicts and shady deals with mafia figures. After he went bankrupt the 6th time he couldn't get loans in the states. Yet somehow his kids literally said they got all the money they need from Russia. Anyway...
Do you know Trump was working with Putin to sabotage the 2016 election AND is working with Ukraine to sabotage the 2020 election? That's what he's going to be impeached for.
Did you know the Saudi government have rented a whole floor in Trump tower? That's why he belongs to them. Foreign officials are renting rooms and not even showing up in blatant naked corruption. Hopefully he gets impeached for that too.
'We’re looking at... raw bribery': Trump hotel taking bookings from foreign officials who never stay in rooms, investigation told
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-hotel-washington-dc-bribery-investigation-rooms-a9143236.html
Is there any evidence of problematic involvement by Ukraine? I certainly agree that if there is that should be investigated, but I wouldn't class a simple accusation by Trump as evidence. Here's an article concluding there was no interference by Ukraine. At the moment I've seen nothing substantive to suggest that conclusion is incorrect and I'm therefore currently assuming this is just another example of Trump's normal playbook - to muddy the waters by accusing opponents of whatever dodgy dealing or wrongdoing he is engaging in himself.
Those proposals only relate to the Irish issue, so it's not clear whether the other aspects of the detailed deal agreed by Theresa May are being accepted or not. Even if they are, there are 2 aspects to the proposed Irish arrangements that will almost certainly be rejected by the EU:
- the arrangements are subject to a veto by the Northern Ireland assembly before they are introduced and every 4 years thereafter.
- Northern Ireland and Ireland would be in different customs zones, which traditionally would require some form of border checks (which are not allowed by the Good Friday Agreement). Johnson has said those would not be required at the border as a result of using Trusted Trader schemes, electronic checks, exemptions for small traders etc. All those ideas were discussed over the course of a couple of years after the 2016 referendum and it was the inability to demonstrate they could work which led to the backstop (which would only have activated if those alternatives did in fact not work).
I think the jury is still out on whether Johnson really wants a deal, or is deliberately putting forward something unacceptable in order to provide a path to a no deal. At the moment I can't see a deal being agreed though whether Johnson really wants one or not, which means that Johnson will be required by the recent Benn Act to send a letter to the EU asking for an extension. Despite saying that he will do that, he is also insisting that the UK will actually leave the EU on 31 October. I can think of 3 general methods to achieve that:
1) get the EU to block an extension (as that requires unanimity, he only needs one country to object to prevent it happening).
2) use some sleight of hand to prevent the letter to the EU taking effect (like sending a covering letter saying please ignore the enclosure).
3) use a legal trick to bypass the legislation.
The courts have already said they would act against option 2). I'm pretty sure the same would hold with option 3) - the government could try to push through some conflicting legislation under delegated powers, but in that instance the courts would look at the intention of Parliament to decide what should be done to resolve the conflict (and that intention is crystal clear).
Option 1) is the only thing I can think of with any possibility of success. I've seen a suggestion there have been talks with Hungary - which would be a logical country to approach as they are in dispute with the EU over various things at the moment. On the fact of it, it seems unlikely they would really be willing to make their existing disputes worse in order to help a UK government that will be subject to an election within months. However, we'll find out in the next few weeks whether Johnson really did have a cunning plan all along, or has just been running a giant bluff ...
The Ontario government is saying that they want to make additional cuts to funding and want to cut workers benefits by half. The average salary of a Ontario School Board Support Staff Employee is $38 000 CDN per Year.
Edit: Just for those that don't know. 1 Canadian Dollar equals 0.75 United States Dollar.
You make a better living being on Welfare and in Government Housing.