Good Lord. Over 950,000 FOLLOWERS of this asshat? I'm so fucking happy that I'm training my daughter to be skeptical and think for herself. It seems to be sinking in too, believe it or not...
Good Lord. Over 950,000 FOLLOWERS of this asshat? I'm so fucking happy that I'm training my daughter to be skeptical and think for herself. It seems to be sinking in too, believe it or not...
He's really not that bad. Beyond the occasional edgy joke or meme he's no different than your average news guy.
I used to follow him, when I was less comfortable with my position in the new political framework. I don't see his work as valuable anymore though, beyond as a gateway to begin to see some of the absurdities of the modern establishment.
With any particular individual, I recommend you view them at length and take their measure for yourself and ignore what others want you to think.
Good Lord. Over 950,000 FOLLOWERS of this asshat? I'm so fucking happy that I'm training my daughter to be skeptical and think for herself. It seems to be sinking in too, believe it or not...
He's known for doing no research and getting basic facts wrong.
Tulsi Gabbard will win 2024 United States Presidential Election as a Dem. This 'how far left can we go' and 'Fake News Memes' edgy wannabe social media tripe will die out. Then the world can get back to actually trying to fight real issues like climate change, Universal health care and social income gaps.
Trumpists should feel free to vote for her in the general, she's got a great chance! Or she doesn't and that should be your protest vote to stick it to the man and show that you are unhappy with Trump's corruption and literal self-dealing.
She's the answer for never-Trumper Republicans. She's making her case on Fox News, a cess pool of propaganda, to Tucker Carlson, an elite with hundreds of millions of dollars who pretends to be a man of the people while lying his ass off everyday.
Dem voters should just vote Bernie, who will be the Democratic nominee.
Good Lord. Over 950,000 FOLLOWERS of this asshat? I'm so fucking happy that I'm training my daughter to be skeptical and think for herself. It seems to be sinking in too, believe it or not...
If I wasn't skeptical in the first place, I would be either a crying leftard snowflake or singing the Soviet March instead of following him. (Following as in subscribed to his channel for interesting news, obviously.)
Tulsi Gabbard will win 2024 United States Presidential Election as a Dem. This 'how far left can we go' and 'Fake News Memes' edgy wannabe social media tripe will die out. Then the world can get back to actually trying to fight real issues like climate change, Universal health care and social income gaps.
That's not going to happen unless Trump, Bernie or Biden wins in 2020. Any other result makes her a remote long shot as a Democrat.
Good Lord. Over 950,000 FOLLOWERS of this asshat? I'm so fucking happy that I'm training my daughter to be skeptical and think for herself. It seems to be sinking in too, believe it or not...
If I wasn't skeptical in the first place, I would be either a crying leftard snowflake or singing the Soviet March instead of following him. (Following as in subscribed to his channel for interesting news, obviously.)
Not true, you can be a conservative without the vitriol spewed by the alt-right. My skepticism trumps all party lines. Neither side is 100% correct on all issues. Furthermore, even being 'right' doesn't make you immune to backlash from people who don't agree with you and you may find yourself outnumbered. You can be right all the way to irrelevance or you can 'gasp' compromise and get at least some of the things you want. That sentiment is totally lost in this day and age...
He's known for doing no research and getting basic facts wrong.
Sounds like what progressive preachers do a lot
You hit the nail on the head there!
The absolute glee on the faces of CNN reporters faces whenever the stock market goes down is absolutely telling. They seem to like it when millions of Americans lose money just because it might affect Trump's reelection. They tell you all the facts about why it's happening and how it's all Trump's fault. Oh how the sky is falling, until a couple of days later when it recovers (and then some, usually). Disgusting...
And yes, I watch CNN so I know what I'm talking about.
Good Lord. Over 950,000 FOLLOWERS of this asshat? I'm so fucking happy that I'm training my daughter to be skeptical and think for herself. It seems to be sinking in too, believe it or not...
He's known for doing no research and getting basic facts wrong.
Tulsi Gabbard will win 2024 United States Presidential Election as a Dem. This 'how far left can we go' and 'Fake News Memes' edgy wannabe social media tripe will die out. Then the world can get back to actually trying to fight real issues like climate change, Universal health care and social income gaps.
Trumpists should feel free to vote for her in the general, she's got a great chance! Or she doesn't and that should be your protest vote to stick it to the man and show that you are unhappy with Trump's corruption and literal self-dealing.
She's the answer for never-Trumper Republicans. She's making her case on Fox News, a cess pool of propaganda, to Tucker Carlson, an elite with hundreds of millions of dollars who pretends to be a man of the people while lying his ass off everyday.
Dem voters should just vote Bernie, who will be the Democratic nominee.
Actually, she is sticking it to PC culture as well. The only reason she is on Fox is because CNN and the likes have blackballed her. Hillary said 'Nyet' and CNN bent over.
Not true, you can be a conservative without the vitriol spewed by the alt-right. My skepticism trumps all party lines. Neither side is 100% correct on all issues. Furthermore, even being 'right' doesn't make you immune to backlash from people who don't agree with you and you may find yourself outnumbered. You can be right all the way to irrelevance or you can 'gasp' compromise and get at least some of the things you want. That sentiment is totally lost in this day and age...
I think part of the vitriol is due to the fact some people are eager to be loudly offended by what's perfectly fine for the rest of us, and I can't really blame somebody gladly giving them more reasons to be offended (they clearly like it, so why the hell not).
The reason why it's lost today is the internet. We don't really start political discussions with strangers in the streets or grocery stores, do we, but now that we've got unlimited broadband it's far too easy to get triggered by what happens outside of our daily environment and get into argument with people we don't need to be on good terms with (like family, friends, neighbours or co-workers). Still, I'm optimistic it's slowly working itself out - spending a couple years on political forums and arguing with the same users tends to illustrate we may have different preferences but still somehow co-exist in peace.
Good Lord. Over 950,000 FOLLOWERS of this asshat? I'm so fucking happy that I'm training my daughter to be skeptical and think for herself. It seems to be sinking in too, believe it or not...
He's known for doing no research and getting basic facts wrong.
Tulsi Gabbard will win 2024 United States Presidential Election as a Dem. This 'how far left can we go' and 'Fake News Memes' edgy wannabe social media tripe will die out. Then the world can get back to actually trying to fight real issues like climate change, Universal health care and social income gaps.
Trumpists should feel free to vote for her in the general, she's got a great chance! Or she doesn't and that should be your protest vote to stick it to the man and show that you are unhappy with Trump's corruption and literal self-dealing.
She's the answer for never-Trumper Republicans. She's making her case on Fox News, a cess pool of propaganda, to Tucker Carlson, an elite with hundreds of millions of dollars who pretends to be a man of the people while lying his ass off everyday.
Dem voters should just vote Bernie, who will be the Democratic nominee.
Actually, she is sticking it to PC culture as well. The only reason she is on Fox is because CNN and the likes have blackballed her. Hillary said 'Nyet' and CNN bent over.
Why is anybody even remotely interested in what Hillary Clinton has to say anymore? If I was CNN and wanted to promote the Democratic Party candidates, I wouldn't touch her with a 500 kilometer cattle prod!
Not true, you can be a conservative without the vitriol spewed by the alt-right. My skepticism trumps all party lines. Neither side is 100% correct on all issues. Furthermore, even being 'right' doesn't make you immune to backlash from people who don't agree with you and you may find yourself outnumbered. You can be right all the way to irrelevance or you can 'gasp' compromise and get at least some of the things you want. That sentiment is totally lost in this day and age...
I think part of the vitriol is due to the fact some people are eager to be loudly offended by what's perfectly fine for the rest of us, and I can't really blame somebody gladly giving them more reasons to be offended (they clearly like it, so why the hell not).
The reason why it's lost today is the internet. We don't really start political discussions with strangers in the streets or grocery stores, do we, but now that we've got unlimited broadband it's far too easy to get triggered by what happens outside of our daily environment and get into argument with people we don't need to be on good terms with (like family, friends, neighbours or co-workers). Still, I'm optimistic it's slowly working itself out - spending a couple years on political forums and arguing with the same users tends to illustrate we may have different preferences but still somehow co-exist in peace.
I really hope you're right. I'm just afraid that for every you and me (and others on this thread) there are hundreds of people that lock themselves into like-minded groups that just feed themselves the same crap day in and day out. There isn't anything other than their own open minds encouraging them to expose themselves to alternate views. Personally, I think open minds are getting more and more rare...
He's known for doing no research and getting basic facts wrong.
Sounds like what progressive preachers do a lot
You hit the nail on the head there!
The absolute glee on the faces of CNN reporters faces whenever the stock market goes down is absolutely telling. They seem to like it when millions of Americans lose money just because it might affect Trump's reelection. They tell you all the facts about why it's happening and how it's all Trump's fault. Oh how the sky is falling, until a couple of days later when it recovers (and then some, usually). Disgusting...
And yes, I watch CNN so I know what I'm talking about.
CNN are absolutely not 'progressive preachers'.
Should they be celebrating the rigged system that someone is gaming for billions based on foreknowledge of Trump tweets? Most Americans can't afford a $400 emergency like car trouble much less worry about the stupid stock market.
Something this serious should not have any witty name calling and accusations in the text. When speaking about the bill, these reps need to clarify WHY having it at this resort is unacceptable.
They also have to explain and promote an alternative so it isn’t just an attack on Trump, which, as history has shown, can be easily brushed aside. The words “The Trump Administration does not have Congress’s consent to hold the G7 meeting at any property owned by Trump,” needs to be in the forefront.
The Childress presented here should be below every elected official and I don’t need a whataboutism to counter this point.
Something this serious should not have any witty name calling and accusations in the text. When speaking about the bill, these reps need to clarify WHY having it at this resort is unacceptable.
They also have to explain and promote an alternative so it isn’t just an attack on Trump, which, as history has shown, can be easily brushed aside. The words “The Trump Administration does not have Congress’s consent to hold the G7 meeting at any property owned by Trump,” needs to be in the forefront.
The Childress presented here should be below every elected official and I don’t need a whataboutism to counter this point.
There are two bills being worked on to defund it right now, at least according to what I read in The Hill. One in the House and one in the Senate. What makes you think an acronym that is more serious is going to change anything?? If people can't see WHY this is a problem, explaining it to them is either futile or impossible. Moreover, MY Senator here in North Dakota said this about Trump having it at his resort:
So, I mean, they are going to pass it in the House, and then McConnell is going to stick it in a drawer and never vote on it, because people like Kevin Cramer believe that naked corruption is NOBLE as long as you do it in broad daylight.
But if they want suggestions, they can start off by asking the White House to actually name the other 12 locations they supposedly scouted, which they can't, because there is a zero percent chance that actually took place. So this is essentially a no-bid contract. The taxpayer funds will be used to undoubtedly make "security" upgrades at the resort, which will really just be a taxpayer funded renovation for his resort. But again, if people are too dumb to wrap their heads around why this is a serious problem, a stupid acronym may be the ONLY thing that gets their attention. If you spend some time down here, you'll find it's not a serious or smart country, at least at large.
I also could not more fundamentally disagree with the reading of "without the consent of Congress" meaning that it is allowed by default unless Congress explicitly forbids it. It is clearly the total opposite, which is that it is just flat-out not allowed UNLESS Congress carves out an exception. We don't write laws and then have the lawmakers who passed them gavel back into session each time someone breaks them to personally weigh each one on it's own merits. That would be insane. That is why we have courts. This is not a law, per se, but one could easily argue it's even MORE binding than a law. It was written into the Constitution explicitly to prevent bribery by foreign countries.
Something this serious should not have any witty name calling and accusations in the text. When speaking about the bill, these reps need to clarify WHY having it at this resort is unacceptable.
They also have to explain and promote an alternative so it isn’t just an attack on Trump, which, as history has shown, can be easily brushed aside. The words “The Trump Administration does not have Congress’s consent to hold the G7 meeting at any property owned by Trump,” needs to be in the forefront.
The Childress presented here should be below every elected official and I don’t need a whataboutism to counter this point.
There are two bills being worked on to defund it right now, at least according to what I read in The Hill. One in the House and one in the Senate. What makes you think an acronym that is more serious is going to change anything?? If people can't see WHY this is a problem, explaining it to them is either futile or impossible. Moreover, MY Senator here in North Dakota said this about Trump having it at his resort:
So, I mean, they are going to pass it in the House, and then McConnell is going to stick it in a drawer and never vote on it, because people like Kevin Cramer believe that naked corruption is NOBLE as long as you do it in broad daylight.
But if they want suggestions, they can start off by asking the White House to actually name the other 12 locations they supposedly scouted, which they can't, because there is a zero percent chance that actually took place. So this is essentially a no-bid contract. The taxpayer funds will be used to undoubtedly make "security" upgrades at the resort, which will really just be a taxpayer funded renovation for his resort. But again, if people are too dumb to wrap their heads around why this is a serious problem, a stupid acronym may be the ONLY thing that gets their attention. If you spend some time down here, you'll find it's not a serious or smart country, at least at large.
I don’t know what the Senate and Moscow Mitch has anything to do with it.
Congress just have to pass a resolution that Trump doesn’t have their consent to hold it at one of his properties. It’s already a law, so an actual bill isn’t needed.
I also could not more fundamentally disagree with the reading of "without the consent of Congress" meaning that it is allowed by default unless Congress explicitly forbids it. It is clearly the total opposite, which is that it is just flat-out not allowed UNLESS Congress carves out an exception. We don't write laws and then have the lawmakers who passed them gavel back into session each time someone breaks them to personally weigh each one on it's own merits. That would be insane. That is why we have courts. This is not a law, per se, but one could easily argue it's even MORE binding than a law. It was written into the Constitution explicitly to prevent bribery by foreign countries.
You have to treat Trump like a toddler.
If a toddler proclaims he wants to have ice cream for dinner, if you don’t tell him no, and remove the tub from his grubby little hands, he is going to presume he has consent to have ice cream.
~
It’s also worth noting that no one in Doral was actually told or consulted about holding the event there and they are now all scrambling to get things prepared in less than a years time.
I can't see how a resolution of Congress would have any effect either legally or morally. Trump is perfectly prepared to ignore the views of the whole of Congress - as he's currently doing over Syria for example. I imagine he would take great delight in ignoring a resolution of the House of Representatives, while attempting to make political capital out of it.
There's an existing law, so a legal challenge to his behavior can be mounted in the courts - and there are various cases about emoluments in process at the moment (including one important case in the Appeals Court due for review in December).
The other option for Congress would be to consider this as part of the impeachment investigation, though personally I think the issues are better dealt with legally than politically.
I can't see how a resolution of Congress would have any effect either legally or morally. Trump is perfectly prepared to ignore the views of the whole of Congress - as he's currently doing over Syria for example. I imagine he would take great delight in ignoring a resolution of the House of Representatives, while attempting to make political capital out of it.
There's an existing law, so a legal challenge to his behavior can be mounted in the courts - and there are various cases about emoluments in process at the moment (including one important case in the Appeals Court due for review in December).
The other option for Congress would be to consider this as part of the impeachment investigation, though personally I think the issues are better dealt with legally than politically.
The other 8 world leaders (and countries) would follow Congress’s lead.
If Congress says, the summit is not being held in Doral due to the emolument clause, and this other location is where the event is going to held, every single last one of them will show up at the alternative location as every member respects each other’s laws and democratic practices.
Congress just needs to stand up and declare that they, and the american public are not ok with the summit being held in Doral. Congress needs to take the lead here. They hold the funding. Denying the city of Doral any funding for the event and supplying to another location will force their point home. They should not have to worry about the other nations being confused, because they’ve all dealt with Trump - they know.
Conservative party leader Andrew Sheer tried to defend allegations on Saturday that Warren Kinsella's ( Former Liberal Strategist) Daisy Group consulting firm produced a social media campaign to "seek and destroy" Maxime Bernier's People's Party of Canada for an unnamed client. A source with knowledge of the project tells CBC News ( Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) that client was the Conservative Party of Canada.
As a complete layman and neophyte to your political system, it seems to me that Trudeau was ripe to be defeated and then his various opposition parties started cannibalizing themselves. He definitely lost his shine, far moreso due to the Attorney General scandal than the blackface.
I can't see how a resolution of Congress would have any effect either legally or morally. Trump is perfectly prepared to ignore the views of the whole of Congress - as he's currently doing over Syria for example. I imagine he would take great delight in ignoring a resolution of the House of Representatives, while attempting to make political capital out of it.
There's an existing law, so a legal challenge to his behavior can be mounted in the courts - and there are various cases about emoluments in process at the moment (including one important case in the Appeals Court due for review in December).
The other option for Congress would be to consider this as part of the impeachment investigation, though personally I think the issues are better dealt with legally than politically.
The other 8 world leaders (and countries) would follow Congress’s lead.
If Congress says, the summit is not being held in Doral due to the emolument clause, and this other location is where the event is going to held, every single last one of them will show up at the alternative location as every member respects each other’s laws and democratic practices.
Congress just needs to stand up and declare that they, and the american public are not ok with the summit being held in Doral. Congress needs to take the lead here. They hold the funding. Denying the city of Doral any funding for the event and supplying to another location will force their point home. They should not have to worry about the other nations being confused, because they’ve all dealt with Trump - they know.
I'm skeptical if that would happen even if it were Congress as a whole speaking. If it's simply the House of Representatives (as it would be on this issue) it seems very unlikely that other countries would take the risk of snubbing Trump - they would need to be extremely confident he would lose the election ...
I can't see how a resolution of Congress would have any effect either legally or morally. Trump is perfectly prepared to ignore the views of the whole of Congress - as he's currently doing over Syria for example. I imagine he would take great delight in ignoring a resolution of the House of Representatives, while attempting to make political capital out of it.
There's an existing law, so a legal challenge to his behavior can be mounted in the courts - and there are various cases about emoluments in process at the moment (including one important case in the Appeals Court due for review in December).
The other option for Congress would be to consider this as part of the impeachment investigation, though personally I think the issues are better dealt with legally than politically.
The other 8 world leaders (and countries) would follow Congress’s lead.
If Congress says, the summit is not being held in Doral due to the emolument clause, and this other location is where the event is going to held, every single last one of them will show up at the alternative location as every member respects each other’s laws and democratic practices.
Congress just needs to stand up and declare that they, and the american public are not ok with the summit being held in Doral. Congress needs to take the lead here. They hold the funding. Denying the city of Doral any funding for the event and supplying to another location will force their point home. They should not have to worry about the other nations being confused, because they’ve all dealt with Trump - they know.
I'm skeptical if that would happen even if it were Congress as a whole speaking. If it's simply the House of Representatives (as it would be on this issue) it seems very unlikely that other countries would take the risk of snubbing Trump - they would need to be extremely confident he would lose the election ...
He's backed off, for now anyway. At this point, the whole thing just looks like it was another massive distraction from the impeachment issue. Of course, he's playing the martyr on Twitter, saying he was doing it to save the country money. I don't know how far gone you have to be to believe that to be true.
The Presidency of the United States is an awesome responsibility, and it's been turned into a daily shit-show for the last 1000 days. How about we just get an adult back behind that desk who has a greater emotional maturity than that of a toddler??
Ok, I know everyone hates her guts, but this is legitimately hilarious and more of this kind of sense of humor probably would have served her well in the general election. But as the song says, freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose:
Ok, I know everyone hates her guts, but this is legitimately hilarious and more of this kind of sense of humor probably would have served her well in the general election. But as the song says, freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose:
This reminds me of Bob Dole after he lost in '96. He was on SNL or some show like that and was hilarious. I was like, where was that a few months ago? Mr. Sourpuss actually has a sense of humour? Who knew...?
Canadian election today and the pundits are saying it is too close to call which means it’s probably going to be a minority government.
It’ll be interesting for who though. If the Conservatives pull it off, expect the left to unite to either force a new election or to form their own government.
But it is more likely a Liberal minority will form as the left and right parties will cannibalize each other votes. I can see many ridings where the liberals are going to win them without obtaining a majority of the votes.
If this happens expect their platform and budget to swing more left as they’ll need to secure either the NDP or Green Party.
to stay in power over the Conservatives.
Neither the Green nor the NDP have the support to form their own government (even together) but neither would probably work with a Conservative government. Liberals might, but not if they think they can actually stay in power.
Also, some Canadian political graffiti for you all:
Some timbits of information:
Canadian election cycle is only 40 days of campaigning. No idea how Americans can do it for a couple of years straight. Shorter campaigns keep the BS to a minimum IMO.
There have been reports of robocalls in New Brunswick to vote tomorrow. This is a bad thing, but hopefully no one fell for it.
Sadly, in Ottawa one polling station wasn’t able to open because a person didn’t show up for their job. This is unacceptable. There were other minor delays (power outages) in other ridings but that is slightly more acceptable as we are on paper ballots.
How the ballots work is also pretty cool. Each ballot is initialed by two reps on the back. The voter is shown the ballot and instructed to make any mark inside the circle of the Candidate of their choice. (You could write F* U Trudeau if you were bold enough and it’d still count). Once the voter secretly marks their ballot, they return to the rep, where part of the ballot is torn off and put aside, while the voter places their ballot in the box. These torn off pieces are counted when the ballots are counted to make sure no stuffing had occurred. It’s a very simple way to make sure votes are counted accurately without relying on unreliable technology.
My ballot had a Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Green, People’s Party, Independent, and Communist party candidate. It’s first past the post so a candidate does not need a majority just more votes than all the other candidates.
Comments
Good Lord. Over 950,000 FOLLOWERS of this asshat? I'm so fucking happy that I'm training my daughter to be skeptical and think for herself. It seems to be sinking in too, believe it or not...
He's really not that bad. Beyond the occasional edgy joke or meme he's no different than your average news guy.
I used to follow him, when I was less comfortable with my position in the new political framework. I don't see his work as valuable anymore though, beyond as a gateway to begin to see some of the absurdities of the modern establishment.
With any particular individual, I recommend you view them at length and take their measure for yourself and ignore what others want you to think.
He's known for doing no research and getting basic facts wrong.
Trumpists should feel free to vote for her in the general, she's got a great chance! Or she doesn't and that should be your protest vote to stick it to the man and show that you are unhappy with Trump's corruption and literal self-dealing.
She's the answer for never-Trumper Republicans. She's making her case on Fox News, a cess pool of propaganda, to Tucker Carlson, an elite with hundreds of millions of dollars who pretends to be a man of the people while lying his ass off everyday.
Dem voters should just vote Bernie, who will be the Democratic nominee.
Sounds like what progressive preachers do a lot
That's not going to happen unless Trump, Bernie or Biden wins in 2020. Any other result makes her a remote long shot as a Democrat.
Not true, you can be a conservative without the vitriol spewed by the alt-right. My skepticism trumps all party lines. Neither side is 100% correct on all issues. Furthermore, even being 'right' doesn't make you immune to backlash from people who don't agree with you and you may find yourself outnumbered. You can be right all the way to irrelevance or you can 'gasp' compromise and get at least some of the things you want. That sentiment is totally lost in this day and age...
You hit the nail on the head there!
The absolute glee on the faces of CNN reporters faces whenever the stock market goes down is absolutely telling. They seem to like it when millions of Americans lose money just because it might affect Trump's reelection. They tell you all the facts about why it's happening and how it's all Trump's fault. Oh how the sky is falling, until a couple of days later when it recovers (and then some, usually). Disgusting...
And yes, I watch CNN so I know what I'm talking about.
Actually, she is sticking it to PC culture as well. The only reason she is on Fox is because CNN and the likes have blackballed her. Hillary said 'Nyet' and CNN bent over.
The reason why it's lost today is the internet. We don't really start political discussions with strangers in the streets or grocery stores, do we, but now that we've got unlimited broadband it's far too easy to get triggered by what happens outside of our daily environment and get into argument with people we don't need to be on good terms with (like family, friends, neighbours or co-workers). Still, I'm optimistic it's slowly working itself out - spending a couple years on political forums and arguing with the same users tends to illustrate we may have different preferences but still somehow co-exist in peace.
Why is anybody even remotely interested in what Hillary Clinton has to say anymore? If I was CNN and wanted to promote the Democratic Party candidates, I wouldn't touch her with a 500 kilometer cattle prod!
Like I said, he's really no different than your average news.
He has one good niche, which is in finding obscure news stories. Ones that fit his narrative admittedly, but still using actual sources nonetheless.
I really hope you're right. I'm just afraid that for every you and me (and others on this thread) there are hundreds of people that lock themselves into like-minded groups that just feed themselves the same crap day in and day out. There isn't anything other than their own open minds encouraging them to expose themselves to alternate views. Personally, I think open minds are getting more and more rare...
CNN are absolutely not 'progressive preachers'.
Should they be celebrating the rigged system that someone is gaming for billions based on foreknowledge of Trump tweets? Most Americans can't afford a $400 emergency like car trouble much less worry about the stupid stock market.
https://theweek.com/articles/872459/what-suspicious-pattern-trump-trades-really-reveals
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/466554-dems-introduce-thug-act-to-block-funding-for-g-7-at-trump-hotel?amp
Something this serious should not have any witty name calling and accusations in the text. When speaking about the bill, these reps need to clarify WHY having it at this resort is unacceptable.
They also have to explain and promote an alternative so it isn’t just an attack on Trump, which, as history has shown, can be easily brushed aside. The words “The Trump Administration does not have Congress’s consent to hold the G7 meeting at any property owned by Trump,” needs to be in the forefront.
The Childress presented here should be below every elected official and I don’t need a whataboutism to counter this point.
There are two bills being worked on to defund it right now, at least according to what I read in The Hill. One in the House and one in the Senate. What makes you think an acronym that is more serious is going to change anything?? If people can't see WHY this is a problem, explaining it to them is either futile or impossible. Moreover, MY Senator here in North Dakota said this about Trump having it at his resort:
So, I mean, they are going to pass it in the House, and then McConnell is going to stick it in a drawer and never vote on it, because people like Kevin Cramer believe that naked corruption is NOBLE as long as you do it in broad daylight.
But if they want suggestions, they can start off by asking the White House to actually name the other 12 locations they supposedly scouted, which they can't, because there is a zero percent chance that actually took place. So this is essentially a no-bid contract. The taxpayer funds will be used to undoubtedly make "security" upgrades at the resort, which will really just be a taxpayer funded renovation for his resort. But again, if people are too dumb to wrap their heads around why this is a serious problem, a stupid acronym may be the ONLY thing that gets their attention. If you spend some time down here, you'll find it's not a serious or smart country, at least at large.
That's totally completely utterly corrupt. Noble act to steal directly from the treasury my ass.
I don’t know what the Senate and Moscow Mitch has anything to do with it.
Congress just have to pass a resolution that Trump doesn’t have their consent to hold it at one of his properties. It’s already a law, so an actual bill isn’t needed.
You have to treat Trump like a toddler.
If a toddler proclaims he wants to have ice cream for dinner, if you don’t tell him no, and remove the tub from his grubby little hands, he is going to presume he has consent to have ice cream.
~
It’s also worth noting that no one in Doral was actually told or consulted about holding the event there and they are now all scrambling to get things prepared in less than a years time.
~
“Grisham said the White House is also exploring a host committee for the G7, including the potential for receiving donations in order to help offset costs. She added this was also done in 2004”
Now that is a new money grubbing low.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/10/19/politics/white-house-trump-doral-resort-g7-cost/index.html?r=https://www.google.ca/
There's an existing law, so a legal challenge to his behavior can be mounted in the courts - and there are various cases about emoluments in process at the moment (including one important case in the Appeals Court due for review in December).
The other option for Congress would be to consider this as part of the impeachment investigation, though personally I think the issues are better dealt with legally than politically.
The other 8 world leaders (and countries) would follow Congress’s lead.
If Congress says, the summit is not being held in Doral due to the emolument clause, and this other location is where the event is going to held, every single last one of them will show up at the alternative location as every member respects each other’s laws and democratic practices.
Congress just needs to stand up and declare that they, and the american public are not ok with the summit being held in Doral. Congress needs to take the lead here. They hold the funding. Denying the city of Doral any funding for the event and supplying to another location will force their point home. They should not have to worry about the other nations being confused, because they’ve all dealt with Trump - they know.
Conservative party leader Andrew Sheer tried to defend allegations on Saturday that Warren Kinsella's ( Former Liberal Strategist) Daisy Group consulting firm produced a social media campaign to "seek and destroy" Maxime Bernier's People's Party of Canada for an unnamed client. A source with knowledge of the project tells CBC News ( Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) that client was the Conservative Party of Canada.
I'm skeptical if that would happen even if it were Congress as a whole speaking. If it's simply the House of Representatives (as it would be on this issue) it seems very unlikely that other countries would take the risk of snubbing Trump - they would need to be extremely confident he would lose the election ...
He's backed off, for now anyway. At this point, the whole thing just looks like it was another massive distraction from the impeachment issue. Of course, he's playing the martyr on Twitter, saying he was doing it to save the country money. I don't know how far gone you have to be to believe that to be true.
The Presidency of the United States is an awesome responsibility, and it's been turned into a daily shit-show for the last 1000 days. How about we just get an adult back behind that desk who has a greater emotional maturity than that of a toddler??
This reminds me of Bob Dole after he lost in '96. He was on SNL or some show like that and was hilarious. I was like, where was that a few months ago? Mr. Sourpuss actually has a sense of humour? Who knew...?
It’ll be interesting for who though. If the Conservatives pull it off, expect the left to unite to either force a new election or to form their own government.
But it is more likely a Liberal minority will form as the left and right parties will cannibalize each other votes. I can see many ridings where the liberals are going to win them without obtaining a majority of the votes.
If this happens expect their platform and budget to swing more left as they’ll need to secure either the NDP or Green Party.
to stay in power over the Conservatives.
Neither the Green nor the NDP have the support to form their own government (even together) but neither would probably work with a Conservative government. Liberals might, but not if they think they can actually stay in power.
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/election-2019/canadian-federal-election-live-riding-map-results
edit: this one maybe a better one to follow: https://globalnews.ca/news/6023150/live-canada-election-results-2019-real-time-results-in-the-federal-election/
Also, some Canadian political graffiti for you all:
Some timbits of information:
Canadian election cycle is only 40 days of campaigning. No idea how Americans can do it for a couple of years straight. Shorter campaigns keep the BS to a minimum IMO.
There have been reports of robocalls in New Brunswick to vote tomorrow. This is a bad thing, but hopefully no one fell for it.
Sadly, in Ottawa one polling station wasn’t able to open because a person didn’t show up for their job. This is unacceptable. There were other minor delays (power outages) in other ridings but that is slightly more acceptable as we are on paper ballots.
How the ballots work is also pretty cool. Each ballot is initialed by two reps on the back. The voter is shown the ballot and instructed to make any mark inside the circle of the Candidate of their choice. (You could write F* U Trudeau if you were bold enough and it’d still count). Once the voter secretly marks their ballot, they return to the rep, where part of the ballot is torn off and put aside, while the voter places their ballot in the box. These torn off pieces are counted when the ballots are counted to make sure no stuffing had occurred. It’s a very simple way to make sure votes are counted accurately without relying on unreliable technology.
My ballot had a Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Green, People’s Party, Independent, and Communist party candidate. It’s first past the post so a candidate does not need a majority just more votes than all the other candidates.