19 hours ago, Logosone said:

You're a little confused yourself. Citizens in Switzerland are not required to have guns. The old Cantonal rules where you had to have a gun in order to marry were only regional rules that applied in a certain Canton. Swiss gun law was reformed in 1999 to remove these Canton peculiarities. In addition you can not just walk around with a gun in public in Switzerland, you need a special permit for that where you have to show you have a reasonable need to carry a gun. Otherwise you won't get the permit to carry the gun in public.

 

In Switzerland too you need a permit to have a gun (though not certain rifles), though admittedly it is extremely easy to get it. However, in Switzerland too, not just Finland or Sweden, does the law require gun owners to have weapons locked up when not in use.

Well, not so much confused as out-of-date. Still, thanks for the correction. And your data does completely vitiate pattayaspotter's point.

6 minutes ago, Amdesign said:

Can a graduate of Moscow University run for UK Prime Minister? ????

 

 

The answer to your question is an obvious "yes". Any citizen of the UK can become an MP. And any MP is eligible to be the PM. And it wouldn't be taken as writ that just because this person graduated from Moscow University that she would be anti-UK. 

2 hours ago, scammed said:

the right to self defense is universal, name me one country in the world

that doesnt give that basic right

But the right to own guns & postils  is definitely not universal. In those countries that do allow it, licenses are almost universally required.

35 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Well there goes Switzerland, Finland, and Sweden.

 Actually, I think you're a little confused about the facts. Only in Switzerland are citizens required to have guns. In Sweden you need to apply for a weapon license. And it's not easy to get one. You need to take a course for a year to qualify.. And you need to keep your weapons locked up when not in use. Rules are similarly strict for Finland.

22 hours ago, Amdesign said:

Here are the political parties represented in Duma (Russian parliament) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Duma Pro-Russian opposition parties are present in political life.

 

Navalny is not an 'opposition', he actually studied in Yale and thus pro-Western political blogger. Navalny is facing few criminal cases for defamation in Russia, including the one from WWII veteran (the hearing should be in few days). 

 

In the past, such 'poisoning' cases were used to escalate sanctions and media attacks against Russia, and give more publicity to outworn 'opposition leaders'. I remember the 2004 Ukrainian Yushenko 'poisoning' case, it was real media hysteria about 'Russia poisoned Ukrainian presidential candidate'... and then finally General Prosecutor of Ukraine said that possibly there was no poisoning, General Military Prosecutor of Ukraine said in 2019 'there are no proofs of poisoning'.

 

So before making any conclusions based on media, study the previous cases and try to find what was the real investigation outcome.

 

PS And don't call me 'Russian troll factory'... This will be flagged to moderator.

Why does studying at Yale and being a pro western blogger disqualify him from being in opposition? Because it's not possible to be pro-western and pro-Russian? You're not biased much, are you?  And as you failed to state, Navalny was running for president until the Russian government retried him on corruption charges and found him guilty. That disqualified him from running for President. And you're the one who talks about dodgy coincidences? But then not surprising since you falsely accused him of not willing to be retested for the presence of Dioxin in his body.

4 hours ago, rcummings said:

What makes the firing so strange is that usually, when a replacement is nominated, the current US Attorney stays in office until the nomination is confirmed. But Barr insisted that Berman step down right away. It's only because Berman resisted that Barr agreed to let Audrey Strauss, his deputy, replace him on an acting basis.  It also can't be because of incompetence, since Barr offered Berman another high-level position if he agreed to go without dispute.

And what makes it so bad is that the person he proposed to replace Bergman with is Jay Clayton. Clayton is head of the SEC and has zero experience as a prosecutor. Clayton claims it was at his own behest that he was appointed because he wanted to return home but continue in public service. So to gratify an unqualified person Barr nominated him to be US Attorney? Not just that, but during Clayton's tenure, the SEC investigated the lowest number of insider trading cases since the Reagan era. Clearly this guy was raring to go and drain the swamp. 

What makes the firing so strange is that usually, when a replacement is nominated, the current US Attorney stays in office until the nomination is confirmed. But Barr insisted that Berman step down right away. It's only because Berman resisted that Barr agreed to let Audrey Strauss, his deputy, replace him on an acting basis.  It also can't be because of incompetence, since Barr offered Berman another high-level position if he agreed to go without dispute.

49 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Government attorneys (AGs & DAs) investigate and prosecute civil and criminal matters...so don't know the point of your reply. The over-arching point is the Democrat government attorneys in both the federal Southern District of New York and the Manhatten state DAs office have been harassing the president with all manner of bogus civil and criminal investigations and charges in an effort to overturn the 2016 results.

Geoffrey Bergman, the previous US Attorney for the federal Southern District, is a Republican. And in fact he still would be the US Attorney if William Barr hadn't fired him.

Just now, spiekerjozef said:

That's why the US is not saying anything....

You give Trump too much credit. More likely it's due to his infatuation with or fear of Putin. Or maybe both.

20 hours ago, Damual Travesty said:

This statement is a LIE. The Attorney General of the United States has also spoken strongly on the matter. There are multiple examples of issues related to mail in voting. I am really getting tired of news people who make statements like this when they know they are false.

 

The attorney general of the United States is NOT a previous friend of Donald Trump, and if anything you would have expected him to be a never Trumper for serving in the G Bush administration in the same capacity.

 

As we live in an age where many websites are headquartered now in areas of Chinese Communist party control and are quite possibly now infiltrated by Communist party operatives it is necessary for me to be crystal clear in my source here for the Attorney general William Barr's statements. The accusation of making things up comes to quickly and can result in disappearance rather quickly. Hope you get a chance to read this:

https://nypost.com/2020/08/10/william-barr-lawmakers-backing-vote-by-mail-grossly-irresponsible/

https://www.newsweek.com/barr-mail-voting-election-1525057

 

There are plenty of cases all over the place on this issue. Despite all the news outlets stating there is no evidence. There is a war on folks. It's real. And blood is already being shed.

And if anyone in government can cite pardoning away justice on their resumé, it's Bill Barr. He was the guy who recommended to George H.W. Bush that the Iran Contra conspirators be pardoned.

"The most significant single act of Barr’s career in the Department of Justice was to advise President George H.W. Bush to pardon six officials from Ronald Reagan’s administration, including Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, for crimes associated with the Iran-Contra affair. At the time, Barr was — you guessed it — attorney general. His recommendation gave Bush the cover he needed to issue the pardons."

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-10/attorney-general-william-barr-used-pardons-to-protect-president

20 hours ago, Damual Travesty said:

The attorney general of the United States is NOT a previous friend of Donald Trump, and if anything you would have expected him to be a never Trumper for serving in the G Bush administration in the same capacity.

 

This statement is ridiculous unless you posit that Bill Barr is a time traveler and knew that someday Donald Trump would be President. He was as far right as he could be in government when he worked for the first George Bush.

8 minutes ago, candide said:

And of course, your figures are inaccurate.

And Trump's numbers got a big boost from a tax cut that resulted in no permanent benefit to the economy. Unless you define the economy as the top 10%.

49 minutes ago, Amdesign said:

I expected such question; but if You are aware about Ukrainian politics You would not have asked it.

FYI: General Militaty Procecutor Matios is NOT from Yanukiovich, he is from the team of Poroshenko, appointed in 2014 (after Yanukovich was forced to leave). And the statement is made in 2019, see the date of interview (in fact, this information is available in the link I posted, but You just don't intend to read?). Yes, RT would feature this interview, but CNN would not - are You surprised?

 

There are many other statements made by Ukrainian politicians, say by ex-minister of Interior Moskal' regarding that fake poisoning. They guy is not from Yanukovich team either.

what does it matter when he was interviewed? The report was manufactured under Yanukovych. Independent Austrian doctors found otherwise.

3 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

I take it from your post you're not a lawyer...the issue re Trump's tax returns that was decided recently by the Supreme Court was totally different than the issues in the current case. The SC issue was if the president was even subject to judicial process while in office...the current case concerns the breath and scope of the subpoena issued in the Manhattan DA's investigation. Ms. Berry's opinions and Mr. Bannon's legal embrolio have nothing to do with the Trump subpoena case.

Untrue. This case was also litigated before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court rules NY grand jury can subpoena Trump financial records, House remains on hold

 "The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled a New York grand jury can subpoena President Trump’s tax returns and financial records, but blocked a similar request from congressional investigators, sending both decisions back to lower courts and keeping the records under wraps for the foreseeable future.

In two 7-2 verdicts, the justices said the president was not immune from subpoenas and criminal investigations but ruled an investigation from Democrat-led House committees was too broad, and that it claimed limitless powers to pry into Trump’s financial dealings that the committees do not have.

“The President is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need,” the first verdict from Chief Justice John Roberts read."

https://nypost.com/2020/07/09/scotus-rules-ny-prosecutors-can-access-trumps-financial-records/

49 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

Just relax guys. Easy win upcoming for Trump in November. Find something else to think about.

It's always a little sad to see such a vacuous statement given a "like".

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

We're living through the greatest psy-op/smear campaign ever perpetrated on a President and the American people in the history of the United States.  Don't expect me to succumb to the brainwashing.  LOL

And what dark forces are behind this smear campaign?

I will give this much credit to Trump: when he headed the smear campaign known as "birtherism" he openly allied himself with it.