- Reaction score
- 31,099
- Points
- 1,090
Most politicians can say nothing in a lot less time
They have, I've seen a bunch of them...mostly former RSM's.Its a poll from Fox News - if they ran a poll on Fox News, 'Do you believe Man walked on the earth at the same time as Dinosaurs?', I have little doubt that over 35% of respondents would say 'Yes, I do believe that'.
And that's kinda my point. Observers say the US system of checks and balances can be to the point of gridlock, but everybody seems to be sitting on their hands. I read somewhere that he is basing the scope of his EOs on some 'national emergency' legislation the Executive was granted some years ago. If so, be careful what you wish for.Ironic that the US system was purposefully set up to guard against that very thing.
Understood, but I'm not hearing about anything about EOs being debated, confirmed or whatever, even if they are ultimately passed. Maybe they are and I'm just not seeing it.The opposing party doesn't have a veto-proof majority in both bodies. If Democrats won't join Republicans to curb Democratic presidential overreach, no-one should expect Republicans to reciprocate.
Most at least try to give some appearance or nod to some manner of bipartisan cooperation, even if they don't mean it.If anyone was wondering about the Presidential Address don't worry you are missing nothing. Going exactly as expected, an old dude rambling and Republicans going absolutely feral over every word.
Unironically this has manifested into reality:
EOs aren’t subject to any debate or legislative review. They’re simply the President, in a formal way, issuing written direction purporting to be based on existing executive authority. The challenge is when EOs exceed that lawful authority, and that’s where we see matters go to the courts. The EO claiming to eliminate birthright citizenship, for instance, s immediately attracted court challenges on 14th amendment grounds.And that's kinda my point. Observers say the US system of checks and balances can be to the point of gridlock, but everybody seems to be sitting on their hands. I read somewhere that he is basing the scope of his EOs on some 'national emergency' legislation the Executive was granted some years ago. If so, be careful what you wish for.
Understood, but I'm not hearing about anything about EOs being debated, confirmed or whatever, even if they are ultimately passed. Maybe they are and I'm just not seeing it.
Most at least try to give some appearance or nod to some manner of bipartisan cooperation, even if they don't mean it.
See here. Presidents have been (arguably) misusing emergency declaration powers since the 1976 act was passed. It's a known problem; there are articles out there by people arguing for reform.And that's kinda my point. Observers say the US system of checks and balances can be to the point of gridlock, but everybody seems to be sitting on their hands. I read somewhere that he is basing the scope of his EOs on some 'national emergency' legislation the Executive was granted some years ago. If so, be careful what you wish for.
A guest on a news show recently emphasized that all you need to produce an EO is "a piece of paper and a sharpie". That understates the research and preparation done beforehand, but his point was that compared to the legal effort of challenging an EO, producing one is nothing. Then the opposing team goes judge-shopping for stays and nationwide injunctions (another power, this time of the courts, that some reformers want to curb). Eventually matters trickle through courts and are decided on the merits. Another point he made was that these processes explain what we observe: administrations launch a barrage of EOs early knowing that most will take time to resolve, but that they are going to win some - many, if their research is good - of them. A third point was that the stays and injunctive relief mean very little despite the braying of media that the executive is being pwned by the courts. What matters is what eventually happens in the higher courts, particularly the USSC.Understood, but I'm not hearing about anything about EOs being debated, confirmed or whatever, even if they are ultimately passed. Maybe they are and I'm just not seeing it.
In case you're interested, text of The Speech here (also archived here) ....If anyone was wondering about the Presidential Address don't worry you are missing nothing. Going exactly as expected, an old dude rambling and Republicans going absolutely feral over every word.
Unironically this has manifested into reality:
Assessment of Potential Russian Disinformation or Misinformation Influences:
Rating: 7/10
Indicators of Potential Russian Disinformation:
Other Notable Elements:
- Narrative Alignment with Russian Objectives:
- The text includes claims about the Ukraine war, suggesting massive casualties ("millions of Ukrainians and Russians have been needlessly killed or wounded") and pushing the idea that the U.S. involvement is misguided or manipulated. This aligns with Russian disinformation strategies aimed at reducing Western support for Ukraine and promoting a negotiated settlement favorable to Russia.
- Undermining Western Leaders and Institutions:
- The text contains heavy criticism of the Biden administration and European allies, particularly around military and financial support to Ukraine. This aligns with Russian messaging designed to sow discord among NATO and Western countries.
- Promoting Specific Political Figures as Peace Negotiators:
- The portrayal of "TRUMP" as the only viable leader to bring peace to Ukraine and to negotiate with Russia could be interpreted as an effort to influence American politics. Russian disinformation has previously aimed to bolster certain political figures perceived as more favorable to Russian interests.
- Claims of Corruption and Missing Funds:
- The assertion that half of U.S. funds sent to Ukraine are “MISSING” is a frequent Russian propaganda theme. It reinforces narratives of corruption in Ukraine and seeks to reduce public support for aid.
- Exaggerated or False Claims:
- Statements about the "golden age" of America and wildly optimistic claims of economic and political successes could serve to contrast with the alleged failures of current Western policies, a tactic often used in disinformation to create polarized perceptions.
Overall Conclusion:The text is highly politically charged and contains elements that align with known Russian disinformation strategies. The likelihood of influence or alignment with Russian disinformation narratives is high, though the extensive length and broad range of topics also suggest it is tailored to a specific political agenda beyond just foreign influence.
- Polarizing Language: The text employs divisive language, positioning political opponents as enemies, which is a known strategy to amplify societal divisions.
- Emotional Manipulation: Stories of violence and tragedy are used to appeal to fear and resentment, which is often a tactic in propaganda to shift public opinion.
Don't forget Kennedy's influence:
![]()
RFK Jr. canceled flu vaccine meetings. What does that mean for fall shots?
Epidemiologist Michael Osterholm, the head of the University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, joined Morning Edition host Cathy Wurzer to talk about the implications of axing the meeting.www.mprnews.org
Look at it this way -- when we are all wiped out down here by small pox and crippled by Polio - the CAF can pick up a shit ton of high end military gear - and make us the 13th Province.Don't forget Kennedy's influence:
![]()
RFK Jr. canceled flu vaccine meetings. What does that mean for fall shots?
Epidemiologist Michael Osterholm, the head of the University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, joined Morning Edition host Cathy Wurzer to talk about the implications of axing the meeting.www.mprnews.org
She is going this route because the ‘facts’ are not in her side - fentanyl is pouring into the US from Mexico. Trumps thumping of the chest about this issue is real when it concerns Mexico. They have to take the quiet, meek approach because they don’t have a leg to stand on.What's interesting is comparing Canada’s and Mexico's approaches when dealing with the Trump Administration.
![]()
‘Cool head’: How Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum is handling Trump and tariffs
Unlike Canada’s Trudeau, Sheinbaum has been more diplomatic while insisting on protecting Mexican interests. Here’s why.www.aljazeera.com
IMO, Mexico is looking to steal Canadian business and jobs. I believe their tactics for dealing with the Trump Administration will be far more effective.
# of seizures is not necessarily a reflection of how large or small a problem is. Rather, it's a reflection of how many resources have been allocated to tackling the problem.She is going this route because the ‘facts’ are not in her side - fentanyl is pouring into the US from Mexico. Trumps thumping of the chest about this issue is real when it concerns Mexico. They have to take the quiet, meek approach because they don’t have a leg to stand on.
We, Canada need to point out the incredible stupidity of Trumps approach with us.
The two cases are not comparable in my humble opinion.
And seizures are a US responsibility. They haven’t really redirected anything north. That should tell everyone how serious this problem really is at our border.# of seizures is not necessarily a reflection of how large or small a problem is. Rather, it's a reflection of how many resources have been allocated to tackling the problem.
And aside from mentioning cartels operating inn Canada they haven’t made much noise about that either. The goal posts keep moving.Canada has been an organized crime haven for ages, it's well documented:
![]()
Port of Montreal: a long history of crime—and a lack of adequate responses
Organized crime and the inability on the part of elected leaders and bureaucrats to take the issue seriously has made Canada the source for stolen vehicle used car lots around the Middle East and Africa.www.hilltimes.com
It's just that not much has been done about it.
I don’t think they give a f**k about our political direction. Trump hasn’t really been flattering to the CPC. He could care less who is in power.That being said, this isn't really about Fentanyl though. In our case, it's about getting rid of the Libs and getting the Chinese influence out of the Canadian Government. The Americans want a change of political direction in Ottawa and they are going to Squeeze Canadians to do it.
Why would the US spend their own resources when they can coerce us to? The entire Trump Admin argument is that they shouldn't be be spending money subsidizing others security so in what World would it make more sense for them to spend more and allocate more resources if that's their objective?And seizures are a US responsibility. They haven’t really redirected anything north. That should tell everyone how serious this problem really is at our border.
The Americans have been making noise about this and other security issues for years/decades. We have been long considered Defence & Security laggards and our actions have always been reactionary and doing the absolute bare minimum.And aside from mentioning cartels operating inn Canada they haven’t made much noise about that either. The goal posts keep moving.
That's because every Party in Canada is complicit in the above. Our intransigence to their concerns is universal and isn't a Liberal or Conservative or NDP issue.I don’t think they give a f**k about our political direction. Trump hasn’t really been flattering to the CPC. He could care less who is in power.
You should buy it, it's a major dissatisfier in Washington.I can buy the Chinese Angle but even then.
Again. That argument shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the border works. If they think there is such a massive amount coming in they should be allocating more resources to the northern border but they are not. Because they know we are not the problem. Securing their border is there responsibility if that is the case. The border issue is just an excuse to be able to declare an emergency to get his tariffs out legally.Why would the US spend their own resources when they can coerce us to? The entire Trump Admin argument is that they shouldn't be be spending money subsidizing others security so in what World would it make more sense for them to spend more and allocate more resources if that's their objective?
Sure. That isn’t the argument though.The Americans have been making noise about this and other security issues for years/decades. We have been long considered Defence & Security laggards and our actions have always been reactionary and doing the absolute bare minimum.
I’ve said it before. It does not matter what we do. These tariffs were happening regardless of any of that.We aren't in sync with them with a number of security issues and it's not just fentanyl either. Arctic Security, BMD, Military Spending, Foreign Policy, etc.
That’s not what your premise was or what you said. You said it was about getting rid of the libs.That's because every Party in Canada is complicit in the above. Our intransigence to their concerns is universal and isn't a Liberal or Conservative or NDP issue.
I said I buy it. But it is likely not enough of a reason to declare an emergency legallyYou should buy it, it's a major dissatisfier in Washington.
Don't try to put logic or reality into what Trump says or does.Again. That argument shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the border works. If they think there is such a massive amount coming in they should be allocating more resources to the northern border but they are not. Because they know we are not the problem. Securing their border is there responsibility if that is the case. The border issue is just an excuse to be able to declare an emergency to get his tariffs out legally.
Sure. That isn’t the argument though.
I’ve said it before. It does not matter what we do. These tariffs were happening regardless of any of that.
That’s not what your premise was or what you said. You said it was about getting rid of the libs.
I said I buy it. But it is likely not enough of a reason to declare an emergency legally