placeholder

He won a plurality, not a majority.

Because Trump is so beloved in the UK that his support will be a plus for the reform party?

Clearly, you don't understand how parliamentary government works.

I trust you meant that as a joke? Or are you channeling the spirit Donald Rumsfeld?

Just because they quit their jobs doesn't mean they've had their memories wiped.

Funny how Trump supporters praise him for not having started a war and yet make threats to wage it once again. More hubris.

No. Irrelevant because the issue is how Trump has boosted the electoral fortunes in Canada of those who strongly oppose him and his threats. Or do you believe it would be relevant in the case of Trump's electoral victory to call him a clown? I don't. He may be one, but it's not relevant.

What does your post have to do with the fact that Robert Kennedy is now proposing to suppress suppress public comments. Your post would only make sense if you believe that all Americans are lefties. He is suppressing the ability to speak freely about the actions and plans proposed by his department weather that speech comes from lefties or righties or those in between. A right that those lefties who used to head the department didn't suppress.

If you don't want me talking to you about all that crap, keep out of the conversation.

Given that your original comment was completely irrelevant to the significance of his victory,, it's clear that you missed the point

Wow! Someone else who needs a remedial reading lesson. In another thread I just explained to someone what the significance of conditional clauses governed by "if" mean and what they do not mean. It means that what is written is not advanced as a fact, but merely as a possibility.

Your certainty is unwarranted by the facts of the case.

Now I have to give you a remedial reading lesson. But before I do that, I'd like to point out that would be typical for a right-winger to stop with that first sentence and not explain why you need a remedial reading lesson. Here's what I wrote: Given that it occurred in a Federal prison while Trump was President, it seems likely that if there was foul play there's a good chance Trump was behind it. You don't seem to understand the significance of "if there was foul play". I did not claim that it was likely that there was foul play on the part of Trump. In fact as I have pointed out in this very thread Trump supporters who push a conspiracy theory have repeatedly gotten the facts wrong. There is no good evidence that Epstein's death was due to anything other than suicide and incompetence on the part of a very badly run prison.

Childish? First, The White House excludes journalists who's organizations use Gulf of Mexico instead of Gulf of America. That's not childish? Now Kennedy, who claims that the Department he heads has historically ignored the criticisms of Americans like him, now is excluding criticisms from everybody. "Snowflakism" is right on the money. But if you think "suppression of free speech" is a more appropriate label, by all means go with that instead.

As usual, you're missing the point. Being anti-Trump is that an effective electoral stance in Canada. And of course you're missing the larger implications. In a parallel topic posted recently, lots of right wingers denied that Trump's hostility to Canada I've had any effect on the political fortunes of the Liberals in Canada. What makes Yagoda's hubris particularly foolish is the spparent belief on his part that a trade war with Canada won't also hurt the US economy. Most Americans don't share Trump's ridiculous hostility towards Canada. And I doubt they're going to want to see their standard of living lowered for the sake of it.

I guess you were sleeping during the Clinton years: Not only was unemployment low, but in the final years of his term there was actually a budget surplus. Thanks in part to substantial tax increases which Republicans claimed would sink the economy.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Friday released a policy prohibiting public comments during his department’s rulemaking process, ending more than 50 years of the public’s involvement in crafting his department’s rules. In the policy statement placed in the Federal Register, Kennedy’s office appeared to argue that rescinding the policy goes back to the original intent of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Although the APA exempts the requirement for public comment on matters “relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts,” there has been a waiver, referred to as the Richardson waiver, on this exemption since 1971, allowing for interested parties to take part in the rulemaking process. https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5170090-rfk-jr-hhs-public-comment-rulemaking-ends/ Looks like snowflakism is contagious in the Trump Administration.

Really? The FBI just conducted a raid on its NY office? So far, it seems that this piece of info is confined to info wars. Maybe you could point to some more careful right wing source like Fox News to back up your claim?

In all of the civil suits lodged against Epstein's estate, there is no mention of a client list. This seems to be more wishful thinking on the part of conspiracy addicts.

Given that it occurred in a Federal prison while Trump was President, it seems likely that if there was foul play there's a good chance Trump was behind it.

Have you actually read or listened to what Bondi said? She claimed a source told her that there were thousands of pages of documents. It's an allegation. Not an established fact.

Clueless

And you are the guy who raises irrelevant issues. I won't issue you an order to leave since unlike you I don't imagine I have the authority to do so

First you make the trivial claim but because the Ukraine war is not the Hamas war the two can't be compared. Now you're claiming that because someone asks you to explain and what significant ways those two wars are different your reply is the request for a specific answer about a specific issue is the same as asking for an explanation for everything. This is coming from someone who claims to have an IQ between 127 and 143.

I pointed out that you claime that the two wars are different. You offered no evidence or reasoning to explan in what significant ways they differ. What makes this really funny is that one of the things that IQ's test for is the ability to understand analogies. Imagine an IQ test taker being asked to choose which option is analagous to the example being offered and the answer offered by the test taker is "None of them are analagous because they're different."