My father’s vasectomy was also botched. Had internal bleeding that was first classified as just normal bruising. It took them (and stubborn him of not going to the hospital) a month to determine it was internal. He had to go for a second operation and couldn’t work for a couple of months while his groin was iced.
He had to take pictures for paid leave. It looked like someone took a sledgehammer to his groin area.
You’d have to wonder how common botched vasectomies are when 3 people in a random internet thread, all from different corners of the world knew a person who’s operation went horribly wrong.
What I would hope it would do is make the nearly 100% male make-up of this thread realize that, if a vasectomy can prove so dangerous, imagine how dangerous a pregnancy can be. And how forcing someone to go through with it is insane. Which is why I now favor (since last night) introduction of forced vasectomy laws. Not because I remotely believe that should be a thing, but to prove a point that many (though admittedly not here) men simply will not understand unless they take this kind of legislative frying pan to the face. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You want to force a potentially dangerous medical procedure on women, two sides can play at that game. Mind you, this isn't going to happen, but it's the kind of hardball Democrats need to be ready to play if they expect to stop what is clearly (now that Missouri added themselves today) a coordinated effort to eliminate abortion rights being rolled out on a nearly daily basis the last two weeks. Let's see how long men would put up with such a thing before losing their minds about how unjust it is.
Forced vasectomies are, of course, an absurd idea. But not an ounce more absurd than forcing pre-teen rape victims to carry a pregnancy to term.
I know a guy who got a vasectomy and experienced some pain afterward, but I don't know if it was persistent or there were any serious medical complications behind the pain.
I would not advocate for a forced vasectomy law even if I knew for a fact it would never be enforced in even a single case before being inevitably repealed. I don't like the idea of doing something just to demonstrate that it (or a similar thing) was a bad idea.
Wait wait I've heard this one before, are these freighters carrying "weapons of mass destruction".
Do we have freighters with missiles too?
In other news Michael Flynn cooperated with Mueller in some of the investigation into Obstruction of Justice and provided evidence. This was apparently covered in the redacted portions and is of course damning evidence.
----
Additionally, there's a constitutional crisis ongoing with Trump's personal lawyers (including the AG and White House Counsel who are not fulfilling their responsibility to represent the US but are instead Trump yes men) are arguing that separation of powers don't exist and Presidents are above the law and above oversight by co-equal branches of Congress,
An interesting debate of Sargon of Akkad vs Oto, two right wings that differs a lot about immigration the role of the state. I an not agreeing with any side.
On March 24, 2017, Trenga was the first federal judge to rule in favor of the Trump administration's executive order that limits travel from six Muslim-majority countries.
On May 18th, 2019, Trenga incarcerated the famed whistle-blower Chelsea Manning after she once again refused to testify before a Federal grand jury by holding her in contempt and sending her back to prison a second time, also adding the threat of daily fines of up to $500 a day after 30 days and rising to $1000 a day after 60 days. This return to captivity occurred mere days after Manning was freed from sixty-two days of incarceration for allegedly committing the same offense before another Federal grand jury
___________
Absent from the "notable cases" on Wikipedia was his proceeding over the Michael Flynn case
> The lawsuit claimed the experiments were illegal in that they blatantly violated virtually every major standard developed since World War II for the protection of human study subjects used in scientific experiments.
> Given that the EPA long ago determined that any exposure to PM2.5 could cause death (as well as a host of other serious health consequences) within hours or days of inhalation, the experiments are fundamentally illegal. Federal regulations and the Nuremberg Code strictly prohibit scientists from treating human subjects like expendable guinea pigs. In the experiment in question, the study subjects were asked to risk their very lives for $12 per hour.
> Then again, the study subjects really weren’t “asked” to risk their lives, since the EPA researchers failed — and, in fact, refused — to warn them that PM2.5 could kill them. At the very least, exposing study subjects to a dangerous and deadly toxin without their consent is also known as “assault and battery.”
> To Judge Trenga, however, the important thing apparently was to nitpick to death the effort to stop the experiments with a narrow reading of the federal rules of civil procedure.
> Judge Trenga determined that the EPA’s decision to endanger the lives of its study subjects, including inducing them to sign a fraudulent consent form, did not constitute a “final agency action” under the Administrative Procedures Act. Judge Trenga also determined, as the American Tradition Institute was not being harmed by the experiments, it didn’t have standing to pursue the case.
Where are the conservatives and their bitching about 'activist judges'?
Good. The line and punishment is now set for everyone one of Trump’s stooges who are refusing to testify or comply with requests.
Well, you're half right here. Manning absolutely has no right ignore these court orders (and it's now turning out that Obama's act of mercy in commuting her sentence, while still the right thing to do, was wasted on someone who is proving they simply didn't deserve it with their continued actions). But as for setting a standard for officials in the Trump Administration?? Yeah, that ship has sailed. From TPM (this is probably one of the most radical positions ever taken by an American Presidency):
We’ll have more on this shortly. But I want to point out the common argument the President’s personal lawyers (yesterday) and the White House Counsel’s office (in today’s letter) are now making. They argue that the Congress has no legitimate oversight role with respect to the executive branch at all, a stunning argument that would clip the wings of Congress permanently. They are arguing first that the only legitimate document requests or subpoenas are those tied specifically and narrowly to shaping upcoming legislation. That’s an aspect of oversight but only a smallish part of it. Secondly, anything that is tied to wrongdoing or malfeasance or possibly crimes is “law enforcement”, which is the exclusive purview of the executive branch. In other words, from both sides of the equation, they argue that Congress has no oversight role at all.
They are advocating (and, in their words and deeds, actively seeking to make happen) the total nullification of Congress. No, this is not hyperbole. It's what they are claiming.
The lefitist government cut far more money from public university than Bolsonaro.
And if he is facist, please, answer. What is facism? What is the main points of facism? What fascist elements are present on his government?
The bottom part of the article where they are advocating for students to record, report and snitch on their teachers for "leftist indoctrination" is a pretty big one.
The lefitist government cut far more money from public university than Bolsonaro.
And if he is facist, please, answer. What is facism? What is the main points of facism? What fascist elements are present on his government?
The bottom part of the article where they are advocating for students to record, report and snitch on their teachers for "leftist indoctrination" is a pretty big one.
No, is not. Some professors say things like "holodomor never happened" and this should't be allowed in a classroom, just like the denial of other genocides
"The bill that the Republican-controlled Legislature overwhelmingly passed sought to prohibit abortions at every stage of pregnancy. It includes an exception for cases where a woman’s health is at “serious” risk, but lawmakers rejected a proposal to add exceptions for cases of rape or incest." source : https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/us/alabama-abortion-facts-law-bill.html
That is really awful. I don't even how to start.
1 - Anyone can pick an car and do an abortion in another state
2 - If the wife of this politics get impregnated by an criminal, i can bet that they will do an abortion on another state
There are an total of ZERO anti abortion laws being successful around the world. Womb control is just like gun control. Never works and always lead to "collateral effects"
@SorcererV1ct0r: Is Holodomor denial really a major current issue in Brazil? You keep bringing it up, and I didn't find anything Brazil-specific in a quick Google search.
The next poster is like my roommate who refuses to watch Game of a thrones to say “I like being one of the few people who has never watched an episode of GoT.”
Wrong thread, maybe? *shrug*
Truthfully, though, I have never watched an episode of Game of Thrones.
*************
The problem with Congressional subpeonas, especially of Executive Branch officials, is one of enforcement--Congress cannot actually *make* someone show up and testify. Even if they go to a Federal Court, that Court will typically say "that is a political question" and refuse to issue a ruling. Just because Congress asks for something doesn't mean they can get it by virtue of asking for it.
Is Holodomor denial really a major current issue in Brazil? You keep bringing it up, and I didn't find anything Brazil-specific in a quick Google search.
Was just an example. To show what he is combating. Like an old professor in high school who repeats almost every day "your city was build by slaves"(note : my city was founded 31 years after slavery ended, in 1919, before it was just an settlement that received 0 slaves) Is complicated to say exactly what is happening, because the international media distorts a lot of things, for example, the "you don't deserve to be raped" was not said in zero context. An congresswoman accused him of being an rapist in a debate. Or when he said that a civil war was needed, was during an corrupt scandal where an party was bribing the entire congress to dictate everything that they wanna.
Is Holodomor denial really a major current issue in Brazil? You keep bringing it up, and I didn't find anything Brazil-specific in a quick Google search.
Was just an example. To show what he is combating. Like an old professor in high school who repeats almost every day "your city was build by slaves"(note : my city was founded 31 years after slavery ended, in 1919, before it was just an settlement that received 0 slaves) Is complicated to say exactly what is happening, because the international media distorts a lot of things, for example, the "you don't deserve to be raped" was not said in zero context. An congresswoman accused him of being an rapist in a debate. Or when he said that a civil war was needed, was during an corrupt scandal where an party was bribing the entire congress to dictate everything that they wanna.
The print media I read included context. But no context exists that would make statements like those remotely ok.
Is Holodomor denial really a major current issue in Brazil? You keep bringing it up, and I didn't find anything Brazil-specific in a quick Google search.
Was just an example. To show what he is combating. Like an old professor in high school who repeats almost every day "your city was build by slaves"(note : my city was founded 31 years after slavery ended, in 1919, before it was just an settlement that received 0 slaves) Is complicated to say exactly what is happening, because the international media distorts a lot of things, for example, the "you don't deserve to be raped" was not said in zero context. An congresswoman accused him of being an rapist in a debate. Or when he said that a civil war was needed, was during an corrupt scandal where an party was bribing the entire congress to dictate everything that they wanna.
The print media I read included context. But no context exists that would make statements like those remotely ok.
Why insult an respectable man who is fighting to tougher sentences against rapists is remotely ok? But he answering ot it is not? Why the "bribecracy" is ok but his indignation is not ok? I only saw the media freaking you against the second...
The lefitist government cut far more money from public university than Bolsonaro.
And if he is facist, please, answer. What is facism? What is the main points of facism? What fascist elements are present on his government?
The bottom part of the article where they are advocating for students to record, report and snitch on their teachers for "leftist indoctrination" is a pretty big one.
Trump's shutting down media access is an attack on accountability. Trumps administration is refusing to comply with Congressional oversight and the basic concept of separation of powers in the Constitution. And he and his enablers are criticising judges that rule against him and are attacking the packing the judicial branch with extremists.
So the US agreed finally agreed to lift the steel tariffs against Canada today. They will take effect next week.
I kinda want to know what Canada has to give up for them to do that as the holding off ramifying the USMCA was Canada’s only chip to play and with the US and Mexico still not signing the thing, that seems premature.
Unless the retaliatory tariffs were hurting the US more than either side let on, especially with the trade war against China dragging on, I honestly do not see what Trump is getting out of this.
"Packing the judicial branch with extremists"? You mean "appointing people to open benches as per the Constitution"? How is that facist? Is he not supposed to appoint judges with whom you disagree? If not, why not?
Criticizing judges who rule against him? Petty and childish, to be certain, but how is that facist? Is the person occupying the office of POTUS not allowed to have, or voice, opinions? If not, why not?
The Executive Branch being at odds with the Legislative Branch...well, we can find examples of that in almost every Presidency, so why do you think their disagreements are now somehow different?
Shutting down media access....although questionable, how does that qualify as facist? Are journalists being put in jail for reporting on news events? I mean journalists other than the ones over at Democracy Now, who sometimes like to insert themselves into the news--at least the news upon which they report--by putting themselves into situations where they are likely to be arrested.
Are Democrats being arrested simply because they are Democrats? There *is* a political party which has recently used--misused?--the FBI to investigate its political opponents, but it was not Trump.
Disliking and disagreeing with a POTUS is insufficient to label that politician as a facist. A *real* facist would have you put in prison for openly disagreeing with their policies--no one is kicking in your front door and disappearing you in the middle of the night.
So the US agreed finally agreed to lift the steel tariffs against Canada today. They will take effect next week.
I kinda want to know what Canada has to give up for them to do that as the holding off ramifying the USMCA was Canada’s only chip to play and with the US and Mexico still not signing the thing, that seems premature.
Unless the retaliatory tariffs were hurting the US more than either side let on, especially with the trade war against China dragging on, I honestly do not see what Trump is getting out of this.
He's not "getting" anything, he simply keeps repeating his line that "China is paying for it" as if slapping tariffs on goods causes foreign countries to directly put money in the pocket of US government, rather than simply passing the cost onto consumers. His rhetoric on tariffs is like everything else he talks about on a daily basis. It's total bullshit, and since a sizable enough portion of the country is stupid enough to believe that is what is happening, he keeps saying it. If Trump's tariffs were working, we wouldn't be mailing out billions in dollars of welfare checks to red state farmers.
I had a right-wing economics teacher in high school and a left-wing economics professor at university and they both stated that tariffs are a bad idea.
I had a right-wing economics teacher in high school and a left-wing economics professor at university and they both stated that tariffs are a bad idea.
I think that they are right. You put an tariff on steel. One industry is benefited and all industries that use steel loses. Also, other countries can try to impose tariffs as an retaliation and it can hurt the international trade. Tariffs exist much more by lobby to benefit an small group than by an "economic strategy to improve the nation".
If Trump wanna make the steel industry more competitive, why not cut regulations and taxes?
So the US agreed finally agreed to lift the steel tariffs against Canada today. They will take effect next week.
I kinda want to know what Canada has to give up for them to do that as the holding off ramifying the USMCA was Canada’s only chip to play and with the US and Mexico still not signing the thing, that seems premature.
Unless the retaliatory tariffs were hurting the US more than either side let on, especially with the trade war against China dragging on, I honestly do not see what Trump is getting out of this.
He's not "getting" anything, he simply keeps repeating his line that "China is paying for it" as if slapping tariffs on goods causes foreign countries to directly put money in the pocket of US government, rather than simply passing the cost onto consumers. His rhetoric on tariffs is like everything else he talks about on a daily basis. It's total bullshit, and since a sizable enough portion of the country is stupid enough to believe that is what is happening, he keeps saying it. If Trump's tariffs were working, we wouldn't be mailing out billions in dollars of welfare checks to red state farmers.
My point is if Trump’s view is “Tariffs are good for America,” why is he removing illegal tariffs that he has been getting away with for the last year without getting something good for America (or himself) in return?
What did Canada have to give up besides saying they will pass the USMCA, something the US hasn’t even done, and Canada has not said they won’t do until the 1) tariffs are removed and 2) the US Congress doesn’t change any text in the agreement. Why do part 1, that you control, before part 2 that you don’t control? Wouldn’t it have been better to have the leverage to say “sign what congress passes and we’ll lift the steel tariffs?” incase Congress changes something Canada does not like?
Something doesn’t smell right (from a Canadian perspective) is all I am saying. Trump can’t sell this as win IMO so why do it?
Something else is being hidden from the North American public unless it is the retaliatory tariffs that made him cave and that is what is being hidden but I don’t see why it’d take a year.
Disliking and disagreeing with a POTUS is insufficient to label that politician as a facist. A *real* facist would have you put in prison for openly disagreeing with their policies--no one is kicking in your front door and disappearing you in the middle of the night.
You make some good points but context is everything you have to look at the context and totality of what's going on.
I notice you didn't mention his flagrant law breaking and refusal to follow the Constitution and allow Congressional oversight.
700 former prosecutors say he should be indicted of the obstruction of justice charges we can see from the parts of the Mueller report we've been allowed to see. Barr has been hiding the rest.
It's not that I don't like him, although he is a repugnant individual, it's his actions themselves that are the problem.
Also, Trump openly desires more complete media control, prosecution of political enemies, less independence for the judiciary, etc. We aren't living in a fascist system, but the man is dispositionally and/or ideologically fascistic.
Trump administration prepares to release Central American migrants 'across the entire nation' (but mainly targeted at blue areas in red states)
Sooo the wanna be dictator abandoning his constitutional duty to enforce immigration. It is the federal government's responsibility to enforce immigration laws, not the states. So Trump's going to give up and do a little of the old "Catch and release". You know so he'll have to waste taxpayer money to catch them again later.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican and ardent enabler of Trump, said he didn't know much beyond news reports about plans to release migrants in his state. But he said that if true, it would be a big problem.
"We cannot accommodate in Florida the dumping of unlawful migrants into our state. I think it will tax our resources, our schools, the healthcare, law enforcement, state agencies," he said after a bill-signing ceremony Friday, according to the Miami Herald.
Think of the tax resources!
Trump is basically trying to invent a terrorist attack on American soil by releasing hundreds of desperate immigrants and then using that to gin up support for his racist approved immigration policies. The President has lost mind and is so desperate to distract from his failures in trade, business, and his illegal acts that he's trying to attack america.
BTW a fourth child just died this year due to Trump's family separation policy which separating families like this would qualify as genocide under the geneva conventions. He was 2 and 1/2 years old.
BTW a fourth child just died this year due to Trump's family separation policy which separating families like this would qualify as genocide under the geneva conventions. He was 2 and 1/2 years old.
Wrong.
He did not die because he was separated from his family, actually none of these kids died because they were separated from their family.
He died because his parents made the risk of travelling close to 3,000 km (1864 miles) to the United States. He got ill along the way due to either poor nutrition, exposure, fatigue or all of the above.
All 4 kids would have died regardless of whose custody they were in.
Comments
What I would hope it would do is make the nearly 100% male make-up of this thread realize that, if a vasectomy can prove so dangerous, imagine how dangerous a pregnancy can be. And how forcing someone to go through with it is insane. Which is why I now favor (since last night) introduction of forced vasectomy laws. Not because I remotely believe that should be a thing, but to prove a point that many (though admittedly not here) men simply will not understand unless they take this kind of legislative frying pan to the face. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You want to force a potentially dangerous medical procedure on women, two sides can play at that game. Mind you, this isn't going to happen, but it's the kind of hardball Democrats need to be ready to play if they expect to stop what is clearly (now that Missouri added themselves today) a coordinated effort to eliminate abortion rights being rolled out on a nearly daily basis the last two weeks. Let's see how long men would put up with such a thing before losing their minds about how unjust it is.
Forced vasectomies are, of course, an absurd idea. But not an ounce more absurd than forcing pre-teen rape victims to carry a pregnancy to term.
I would not advocate for a forced vasectomy law even if I knew for a fact it would never be enforced in even a single case before being inevitably repealed. I don't like the idea of doing something just to demonstrate that it (or a similar thing) was a bad idea.
Most abortions are not medically necessary.
I had my snip at 25 and never regretted it. One of me in the world is probably already too many.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/16/politics/us-claims-iran-ships/index.html
Wait wait I've heard this one before, are these freighters carrying "weapons of mass destruction".
Do we have freighters with missiles too?
In other news Michael Flynn cooperated with Mueller in some of the investigation into Obstruction of Justice and provided evidence. This was apparently covered in the redacted portions and is of course damning evidence.
----
Additionally, there's a constitutional crisis ongoing with Trump's personal lawyers (including the AG and White House Counsel who are not fulfilling their responsibility to represent the US but are instead Trump yes men) are arguing that separation of powers don't exist and Presidents are above the law and above oversight by co-equal branches of Congress,
Education is the biggest enemy of fascism and these people are protesting Bolsanaro's cuts to public education.
Brazil’s Bolsonaro dismisses ‘imbecile’ students as he faces biggest protests yet
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/16/brazils-bolsonaro-dismisses-imbecile-students-as-he-faces-biggest-rallies-yet
I thought that was a picture of Trump's inauguration there for a second...
---
https://actionnetwork.org/fundraising/chelsea-manning-needs-legal-funds-to-resist-a-grand-jury-subpoena
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Trenga
Appointed 2008 by GW Bush.
On March 24, 2017, Trenga was the first federal judge to rule in favor of the Trump administration's executive order that limits travel from six Muslim-majority countries.
On May 18th, 2019, Trenga incarcerated the famed whistle-blower Chelsea Manning after she once again refused to testify before a Federal grand jury by holding her in contempt and sending her back to prison a second time, also adding the threat of daily fines of up to $500 a day after 30 days and rising to $1000 a day after 60 days. This return to captivity occurred mere days after Manning was freed from sixty-two days of incarceration for allegedly committing the same offense before another Federal grand jury
___________
Absent from the "notable cases" on Wikipedia was his proceeding over the Michael Flynn case
https://www.courthousenews.com/ex-flynn-associate-pleads-not-guilty-to-conspiracy/
Throwing out a human rights and Nuremberg violation case against the EPA doing potentially deadly human experiments.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/13/milloy-federal-judge-overturns-epa-human-experimen/
> The lawsuit claimed the experiments were illegal in that they blatantly violated virtually every major standard developed since World War II for the protection of human study subjects used in scientific experiments.
> Given that the EPA long ago determined that any exposure to PM2.5 could cause death (as well as a host of other serious health consequences) within hours or days of inhalation, the experiments are fundamentally illegal. Federal regulations and the Nuremberg Code strictly prohibit scientists from treating human subjects like expendable guinea pigs. In the experiment in question, the study subjects were asked to risk their very lives for $12 per hour.
> Then again, the study subjects really weren’t “asked” to risk their lives, since the EPA researchers failed — and, in fact, refused — to warn them that PM2.5 could kill them. At the very least, exposing study subjects to a dangerous and deadly toxin without their consent is also known as “assault and battery.”
> To Judge Trenga, however, the important thing apparently was to nitpick to death the effort to stop the experiments with a narrow reading of the federal rules of civil procedure.
> Judge Trenga determined that the EPA’s decision to endanger the lives of its study subjects, including inducing them to sign a fraudulent consent form, did not constitute a “final agency action” under the Administrative Procedures Act. Judge Trenga also determined, as the American Tradition Institute was not being harmed by the experiments, it didn’t have standing to pursue the case.
Where are the conservatives and their bitching about 'activist judges'?
Good. The line and punishment is now set for everyone one of Trump’s stooges who are refusing to testify or comply with requests.
Well, you're half right here. Manning absolutely has no right ignore these court orders (and it's now turning out that Obama's act of mercy in commuting her sentence, while still the right thing to do, was wasted on someone who is proving they simply didn't deserve it with their continued actions). But as for setting a standard for officials in the Trump Administration?? Yeah, that ship has sailed. From TPM (this is probably one of the most radical positions ever taken by an American Presidency):
We’ll have more on this shortly. But I want to point out the common argument the President’s personal lawyers (yesterday) and the White House Counsel’s office (in today’s letter) are now making. They argue that the Congress has no legitimate oversight role with respect to the executive branch at all, a stunning argument that would clip the wings of Congress permanently. They are arguing first that the only legitimate document requests or subpoenas are those tied specifically and narrowly to shaping upcoming legislation. That’s an aspect of oversight but only a smallish part of it. Secondly, anything that is tied to wrongdoing or malfeasance or possibly crimes is “law enforcement”, which is the exclusive purview of the executive branch. In other words, from both sides of the equation, they argue that Congress has no oversight role at all.
They are advocating (and, in their words and deeds, actively seeking to make happen) the total nullification of Congress. No, this is not hyperbole. It's what they are claiming.
The lefitist government cut far more money from public university than Bolsonaro.
And if he is facist, please, answer. What is facism? What is the main points of facism? What fascist elements are present on his government?
The bottom part of the article where they are advocating for students to record, report and snitch on their teachers for "leftist indoctrination" is a pretty big one.
No, is not. Some professors say things like "holodomor never happened" and this should't be allowed in a classroom, just like the denial of other genocides
"The bill that the Republican-controlled Legislature overwhelmingly passed sought to prohibit abortions at every stage of pregnancy. It includes an exception for cases where a woman’s health is at “serious” risk, but lawmakers rejected a proposal to add exceptions for cases of rape or incest."
source : https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/us/alabama-abortion-facts-law-bill.html
That is really awful. I don't even how to start.
1 - Anyone can pick an car and do an abortion in another state
2 - If the wife of this politics get impregnated by an criminal, i can bet that they will do an abortion on another state
There are an total of ZERO anti abortion laws being successful around the world. Womb control is just like gun control. Never works and always lead to "collateral effects"
Wrong thread, maybe? *shrug*
Truthfully, though, I have never watched an episode of Game of Thrones.
*************
The problem with Congressional subpeonas, especially of Executive Branch officials, is one of enforcement--Congress cannot actually *make* someone show up and testify. Even if they go to a Federal Court, that Court will typically say "that is a political question" and refuse to issue a ruling. Just because Congress asks for something doesn't mean they can get it by virtue of asking for it.
Was just an example. To show what he is combating. Like an old professor in high school who repeats almost every day "your city was build by slaves"(note : my city was founded 31 years after slavery ended, in 1919, before it was just an settlement that received 0 slaves) Is complicated to say exactly what is happening, because the international media distorts a lot of things, for example, the "you don't deserve to be raped" was not said in zero context. An congresswoman accused him of being an rapist in a debate. Or when he said that a civil war was needed, was during an corrupt scandal where an party was bribing the entire congress to dictate everything that they wanna.
The print media I read included context. But no context exists that would make statements like those remotely ok.
Why insult an respectable man who is fighting to tougher sentences against rapists is remotely ok? But he answering ot it is not? Why the "bribecracy" is ok but his indignation is not ok? I only saw the media freaking you against the second...
Trump's shutting down media access is an attack on accountability. Trumps administration is refusing to comply with Congressional oversight and the basic concept of separation of powers in the Constitution. And he and his enablers are criticising judges that rule against him and are attacking the packing the judicial branch with extremists.
All signs of a shift towards fascism over here.
I kinda want to know what Canada has to give up for them to do that as the holding off ramifying the USMCA was Canada’s only chip to play and with the US and Mexico still not signing the thing, that seems premature.
Unless the retaliatory tariffs were hurting the US more than either side let on, especially with the trade war against China dragging on, I honestly do not see what Trump is getting out of this.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tariff-steel-aluminum-deal-canada-trump-1.5140031
Criticizing judges who rule against him? Petty and childish, to be certain, but how is that facist? Is the person occupying the office of POTUS not allowed to have, or voice, opinions? If not, why not?
The Executive Branch being at odds with the Legislative Branch...well, we can find examples of that in almost every Presidency, so why do you think their disagreements are now somehow different?
Shutting down media access....although questionable, how does that qualify as facist? Are journalists being put in jail for reporting on news events? I mean journalists other than the ones over at Democracy Now, who sometimes like to insert themselves into the news--at least the news upon which they report--by putting themselves into situations where they are likely to be arrested.
Are Democrats being arrested simply because they are Democrats? There *is* a political party which has recently used--misused?--the FBI to investigate its political opponents, but it was not Trump.
Disliking and disagreeing with a POTUS is insufficient to label that politician as a facist. A *real* facist would have you put in prison for openly disagreeing with their policies--no one is kicking in your front door and disappearing you in the middle of the night.
He's not "getting" anything, he simply keeps repeating his line that "China is paying for it" as if slapping tariffs on goods causes foreign countries to directly put money in the pocket of US government, rather than simply passing the cost onto consumers. His rhetoric on tariffs is like everything else he talks about on a daily basis. It's total bullshit, and since a sizable enough portion of the country is stupid enough to believe that is what is happening, he keeps saying it. If Trump's tariffs were working, we wouldn't be mailing out billions in dollars of welfare checks to red state farmers.
I think that they are right. You put an tariff on steel. One industry is benefited and all industries that use steel loses. Also, other countries can try to impose tariffs as an retaliation and it can hurt the international trade. Tariffs exist much more by lobby to benefit an small group than by an "economic strategy to improve the nation".
If Trump wanna make the steel industry more competitive, why not cut regulations and taxes?
My point is if Trump’s view is “Tariffs are good for America,” why is he removing illegal tariffs that he has been getting away with for the last year without getting something good for America (or himself) in return?
What did Canada have to give up besides saying they will pass the USMCA, something the US hasn’t even done, and Canada has not said they won’t do until the 1) tariffs are removed and 2) the US Congress doesn’t change any text in the agreement. Why do part 1, that you control, before part 2 that you don’t control? Wouldn’t it have been better to have the leverage to say “sign what congress passes and we’ll lift the steel tariffs?” incase Congress changes something Canada does not like?
Something doesn’t smell right (from a Canadian perspective) is all I am saying. Trump can’t sell this as win IMO so why do it?
Something else is being hidden from the North American public unless it is the retaliatory tariffs that made him cave and that is what is being hidden but I don’t see why it’d take a year.
You make some good points but context is everything you have to look at the context and totality of what's going on.
I notice you didn't mention his flagrant law breaking and refusal to follow the Constitution and allow Congressional oversight.
700 former prosecutors say he should be indicted of the obstruction of justice charges we can see from the parts of the Mueller report we've been allowed to see. Barr has been hiding the rest.
It's not that I don't like him, although he is a repugnant individual, it's his actions themselves that are the problem.
Sooo the wanna be dictator abandoning his constitutional duty to enforce immigration. It is the federal government's responsibility to enforce immigration laws, not the states. So Trump's going to give up and do a little of the old "Catch and release". You know so he'll have to waste taxpayer money to catch them again later.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican and ardent enabler of Trump, said he didn't know much beyond news reports about plans to release migrants in his state. But he said that if true, it would be a big problem.
"We cannot accommodate in Florida the dumping of unlawful migrants into our state. I think it will tax our resources, our schools, the healthcare, law enforcement, state agencies," he said after a bill-signing ceremony Friday, according to the Miami Herald.
Think of the tax resources!
Trump is basically trying to invent a terrorist attack on American soil by releasing hundreds of desperate immigrants and then using that to gin up support for his racist approved immigration policies. The President has lost mind and is so desperate to distract from his failures in trade, business, and his illegal acts that he's trying to attack america.
BTW a fourth child just died this year due to Trump's family separation policy which separating families like this would qualify as genocide under the geneva conventions. He was 2 and 1/2 years old.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/17/border-patrol-cbp-release-central-american-migrants-across-entire-nation/3710025002/
Wrong.
He did not die because he was separated from his family, actually none of these kids died because they were separated from their family.
He died because his parents made the risk of travelling close to 3,000 km (1864 miles) to the United States. He got ill along the way due to either poor nutrition, exposure, fatigue or all of the above.
All 4 kids would have died regardless of whose custody they were in.