enkers @ Enkers @sh.itjust.works

Posts

1

Comments

1,494

Joined

2 yr. ago

I don't think that's an extreme misrepresentation. Trump himself told them exactly what he was going to do, so there was certainly at least some amount of head-burrying-in-sand going on. The main message that was present on Lemmy but not in legacy media was that "Yes, he is in fact going to do what he says he will."

There were two possibilities: either you thought he was a doddering idiot that wasn't going to follow through on anything he said, in which case why in the nine hells would you choose him as your president? Or, he was going to do exactly what he said, in which case, why in the nine hells would you choose him as your president?

The problem is that most of the people who voted for him were being selectively optimistic about what he would and wouldn't do. They let him be everything to everyone, and just hand-waved the glaring problems away.

I don't know how you can fix this massive self delusion issue without fixing education and teaching people to think critically, but education has been under attack for nearly as long as I can recall in the US.

That said, I agree this whole "I told you so" attitude isn't particularly useful, it certainly is cathartic, though.

Sure, but now the shit-taker wants a favour from the shit-reciever who is having none of it until the shit is cleaned up. So now we get to watch the shit-taker squirm and writhe while they try to figure out how to untake their shit without looking like the complete idiot that they clearly are.

I never said that. PP would quite obviously be worse, and that's why we'll give the keys to Karney. But this path leads to more wealth inequality which will eventually result in populism taking over.

I mean, he wouldn't answer the question regarding his investments in Brookfield during the debate, so I think the answer is fairly obvious:

When you want to find the rich people that are profiting from offshore tax havens, here is one right here. He's literally stealing Canadian tax dollars for personal gain, and were going to give him the keys to the kingdom because he's not PP. Bloody hell.

I feel like someone was having a giggle, then it went a bit too far.

I mean... maybe? Could an EO be used to just dismiss an existing case? Maybe. It's kinda make believe land over there right now, so it's hard to say what is and isn't in the realm of possibility.

And I don't know the legal system well enough to say for sure how he could go about it. Presumably some bureaucracy would have to be intervened in to stop the case from proceeding normally. Whether or not he could do that legally seems to be a bit contentious:

https://hls.harvard.edu/today/what-power-does-the-president-have-over-the-federal-bureaucracy/

However, there's also the question of could he just have some cronies walk in to the place with a bunch of dudes in black suits and do it anyways? I think the DoJ would be pretty pissed if he tried that, but he's already been flirting with contempt of court and we haven't seen any judge pull the trigger on that yet, so we'll see, I guess.

There's also the fact that nobody's given him incentive to do it yet. They'll probably wait and see, as Trump would likely need a sizeable reason to step in, so why pay potentially more on Trump whithout knowing what the damages will even be, right?

That's impossible! I've got a dinosaur puzzle that clearly shows a Stegosaurus figting a T-rex.

I think you've got keep in mind that the cogs of the justice system turn slowly.

This is the district level damages decision which will finalize a ruling that was made nearly a year ago. After that, it can be appealed which can be heard by the circuit courts, and then finally the Supreme court, which is ostensibly where Trump has the most sway.

If there's no play here, it's because it still hasn't got far enough through the system for him to want to interfere at this point.

She's so alluring ❤️

🤔

Even their humans look like animals. It's just further proof of Disney's furry adgenda. Like who would draw this stuff otherwise:

I'm on to you, Disney!

Joggoly Poff!

Just a reminder that corporations aren't your friends, and especially not Open AI. The data you give them can and will be used against you.

If you find confiding in an LLM helps, run one locally. Get LM Studio, and try various models from hugging face.

So if this chronology is accurate, basically the commission unilaterally decided to not have the green party there, then tried to blame it on a technicality? Not a good look.

It seems that there are facts that are in contention about whether or not the green party was fielding the necessary number of candidates. They said they did, and the commission said they didn't. Hopefully there'll be some third party verification going on here to get to the bottom of this.

Looks like they added some additional info and posted it as a new article:

https://www.greenparty.ca/en/news/the-green-party-reveals-its-chronology-of-events-in-its-communications-with-the-leaders-debates-commission-2

Hot damn, that certainly stinks of foul play, and conveniently for the commission, there's not even a fall guy.

God, who cares. This is a political debate, not a beauty pageant. The fact is his policy sucks, and that's what matters.

I was a bit too young to be very involved in politics then so I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, but it's funny, because behind closed doors, I've had several people tell me that Rae's policies were unpopular precisely because they were the ones we needed.

Interesting take. I feel like PP's handlers more or less got the muzzle on ok, tbh. I thought he was more reserved than I expected him to be, even though he spent most of his talking time just trying to bash the Liberals.

I've got to say, I'm an NDP supporter, but if anything, I thought it was Singh who did the most talking over others, and for the most part it didn't do him too many favours, even though I do agree with the points he was trying to make.

I wish he would've saved those tactics for the most poignant moments only.

IMO Carney was the clear loser who failed to address allegations about his personal ties to industries he intends to bolster.

As to Singh, asides from talking over others too much, I thought his criticisms were largely on point.

Not sure why, tbh. I thought the BQ did well in the debate. They were QC-first as expected, but they also showed willingness to be part of a united front against US demands, which makes sense; they know if we fall, they do to. They also largely did their best to hold the Liberals accountable, and called them out where appropriate.

While they focused mainly on QC issues, I felt they were invested in Canada's success as a whole.

Blanchet honestly made me feel a bit jealous that I didn't live in Québec and he wasn't going to bat for me.

That's fine, but then they shouldn't try and misrepresent that they're actually fielding those candidates just to meet the qualifications to be part of the debate.