Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1878972428682142140
Cabinet Press Release on Recent Comments by President-elect Donald Trump
Greenland's independence
Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders – and the development and future of Greenland will only be determined by the Greenlanders. The struggle for independence is the responsibility of the Greenlanders. We must decide and shape our own future. We know our rights as independent people.
International cooperation
States and countries are welcome to express interest in further cooperation with Greenland. We are open to closer and more ambitious cooperation with our neighboring countries in the pursuit of Greenland's independence. Greenland looks forward to discussions with the United States on economic cooperation, in the field of mining in Greenland, and on other opportunities related to the development of the country's important mineral resources and sectors.
The Trump administration
will work with Greenland today, today and in the future as one of the United States' closest partners. Greenland has had a defense cooperation with the United States for more than 80 years, and the cooperation has benefited both countries and their borders. The Cabinet is looking forward to building relations with President-elect Donald Trump and his administration.
Political developments in the field of fisheries in the Arctic
Greenland is aware of the change in the political position in the field of fisheries in the Arctic. We understand and accept that Greenland is a decisive and important country in the US security interests. This is the reason why the Americans have an important military base in northern Greenland. Greenland looks forward to cooperating with the US government and NATO allies to ensure security and stability in the Arctic.
That's not my argument, and there's no need to try and convince me or anyone else that Raskin wanted to disqualify Trump, because of course he did. When I said "someone like Trump," I meant "someone who has done what Trump has done," because of course they wouldn't be writing a bill that mentioned Trump by name and was all about him specifically. I wasn't saying that this was all a coincidence. My actual argument is that Raskin was not talking about doing what Trump tried to do - stage a coup to stop the rightful winner of the election from taking power. He was talking about using the legal process, in accordance with the Constitution, to disqualify Trump from being eligible to run for president, which no less a body than the Supreme Court said Congress had the constitutional right to do. Regardless of whether or not you feel that doing such a thing is fair or ought to be allowed, the fact is that it is objectively not the same thing as staging a coup with brute force and overturning the results of an election that has already happened.
Actually Congressional Democrat representatives were threatening not to certify Trump's victory
So... Was it here or the other forum someone said the election wouldn't be certified?
Because it is was.
And without a problem. Or a riot. Or anyone dying.
That's been blatantly taken out of context. Raskin was talking about the possibility of passing legislation at the federal level that would prohibit someone like Trump from being on the ballot, which is no more than what the Supreme Court themselves said was the appropriate course of action. That last point deserves emphasis - the SC did not rule in Trump v. Anderson that Trump had a guaranteed right to run for president and nobody was allowed to stop him. They ruled that only Congress had the power to determine eligibility for federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the states. In any case, Raskin certainly wasn't saying that they were going to refuse to certify Trump's victory.
https://twitter.com/IanJaeger29/status/1854178329110118757
I'm not surprised.
He Tom, do you think we should just let Russia absorb any country that speaks Russian? Maybe the entire former USSR? Why not, right?
Guess there'd be little problem having the USA absorbed into Mexico then, since "many of them already speak Spanish". Or more logically, England.
I just hear more whining. If Trump is getting the support from Zelensky on this, it will be Trump who ultimately gets the credit for peace in Ukraine. People are not going to go to your internet posts and read them and agree with you that the president of Ukraine was forced into it or doesn't know how peace was made. Zelensky will tell them that Trump brokered the peace between Ukraine and Russia. It will be Donald Trump, and not Joe Biden or any other western politician, who gets credit when peace is made.
But the question is... what is the peace? If the peace is unconditional surrender of Ukraine, would you consider that to be good?
Also, didn't Trump say he could end the war in a day?
Oh, I have no doubt that it will be Trump who gets the "credit" for handing over to Putin however much of Ukraine he wants.
https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1875998322412199989
https://twitter.com/BehizyTweets/status/1875327488253215201
No, more like the parts people are saying is 'Deep State' is just normal backroom politics that changes with the times. This stuff has always been there, ita just been amplified to mythical levels by the internet.
As will be discussed, a decision to deploy the CF internationally is an exercise of the federal Crown prerogative. No statute acts to limit the executive's authority in this area. While decisions to deploy the CF are, in theory, subject to the review of the courts, the courts have held that they are decisions made on matters of high policy. This means that the courts have declined to second-guess Crown prerogative decisions under applications for judicial review. Further, no Charter claims flowing from CF deployments have been successful to date.
...
As a preliminary matter, the Crown prerogative at issue in the case of an executive decision to deploy the CF outside of Canada in support of a military operation is a prerogative exercised by the federal, as opposed to a provincial, executive:
"The Queen is expressly declared to be Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of and in Canada (Constitution [Constitution Act, 1867] s.15.). Since exclusive legislative authority in relation to militia, military and naval service and defence is conferred on the Parliament of Canada, (s.91(7)) the applicable prerogative powers appear to be exercisable by the Crown in right of Canada.131"
...
There is a wealth of case law establishing that the power to deploy the CF on military operations outside of Canada is within the contents of the Crown prerogative. From the House of Lords decision in Chandler v. D.P.P:132
"It is in my opinion clear that the disposition and armament of the armed forces are, and for centuries have been, within the exclusive discretion of the Crown (…)133"
In addition, the academics have consistently reinforced this common law position. From Lordon:
"The Crown has certain prerogative powers or duties to act in defence of the realm, including the power to station and control the armed forces.134"
Also: How exactly would trump even BUY canada? And what benefits would they have going from a self governing country to ... a state, under America, with shitty healthcare, lax environmental laws, and incredibly poor labor protections?
It's a good thing this can't happen unless the Canadian parliament reinstituted conscription. And Canada declares war or other alliances come into effect.
QuoteI'm pretty sure in WWII Hitler took over countries by force and didn't "offer to buy" and suggest that they would be in a better situation if they joined with him.What Pete said.