And Trump is setting things up so that when his party gets trashed
in the mid-term elections he can blame it on non-existant Canadian
election interference..

The Canadian Fentanyl Menace didn't work so well, though.

No, that didn't last long at all.. He's back saying how Canada has
been ripping off the USA in a trade surplus of $90 Billion a year
for the past 50 years and that Canada relies on the USA for 95%
of our trade..

I won't get too far into how inaccurate all those figures are
but when he first said them quite a while back the trade numbers
were looked at and, if you remove the Oil that the USA buys from
Canada at below market values, Canada actually has a trade deficit
with the USA even with the huge market there compared to in Canada.

I find it amazing that a President on his word alone can do
something like end the oil embargo with Russia without it going
through some other gov't body to approve it.. the same for
starting a war with another country on his own.. It's scary..

---
þ SLMR Rob þ This message typed before a live studio audience þ

--- Scorpio BBS
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

I find it amazing that a President on his word alone can do
something like end the oil embargo with Russia without it going
through some other gov't body to approve it.. the same for
starting a war with another country on his own.. It's scary..

Long term, I am not certain he can end the embargo. There have been several questions regarding whether or not it is legal. I do not think anyone has tried to challenge it in court yet, and Congress has not remained in session long enough lately to challenge it. I suspect that once it is challenged, it will be overridden.

He gets around the "starting a war" by supposedly ending it every so many days (close to the number that requires Congressional approval) and then restarting it a few days later. He is not the only one to start wars without Congressional approval, either. They have got around it by calling it a "police action" or some other phrase that doesn't include "war" so that is, unfortunately, nothing new to be scared about if you were not before. :(

Mike



--- ScorpioWeb v0.39a (Linux/x86_64)
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

Rob Mccart wrote to KURT WEISKE <=-

I find it amazing that a President on his word alone can do
something like end the oil embargo with Russia without it going
through some other gov't body to approve it.. the same for
starting a war with another country on his own.. It's scary..

We have a series of checks and balances that relies on the honor
system. I wouldn't be surprised if an extragovernmental power has
kompromat on members of both parties and is using it to forward an
agenda.

Or, occam's razor - politicians on both parties are more concerned with
power, ego and money than the health of the nation as a whole.

I wonder when I see these geriatric politicians worth millions of
dollars. Wouldn't they want to spend time with their kids and grandkids
in a life of leisure? Chuck Grassley just signed on to run for another
term! He's 93 years old!




... ZIMA TASTES BETTER WHEN IT'S ILLEGAL
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
* Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)

I find it amazing that a President on his word alone can do
something like end the oil embargo with Russia without it going
through some other gov't body to approve it.. the same for
starting a war with another country on his own.. It's scary..

Long term, I am not certain he can end the embargo. There have

>been several questions regarding whether or not it is legal. I do
>not think anyone has tried to challenge it in court yet, and Congress
>has not remained in session long enough lately to challenge it.
>I suspect that once it is challenged, it will be overridden.

I wonder if anything will happen before Russia manages to sell a
lot of oil to the USA?

He gets around the "starting a war" by supposedly ending it every

>so many days (close to the number that requires Congressional
>approval) and then restarting it a few days later.

Ha.. right. I was thinking the timing was just to get it in the
news again but I hadn't thought about the Congress aspect of it.

He is not the only one to start wars without Congressional approval,

>either. They have got around it by calling it a "police action" or
>some other phrase that doesn't include "war" so that is, unfortunately,
>nothing new to be scared about if you were not before. :(

Right.. A 'Police action'.. That's what they called the Vietnam war
as well when the USA got involved. At least this time there are
not hundreds of thousands of USA troops on the ground taking fire
'Policing' the place..

---
þ SLMR Rob þ Thank you for using Taco Bell long distance... þ

--- Scorpio BBS
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

The one thing that helps Republicans here is not so much

> that the state is pro-Republican but they are so pro-life.
>That is one of the reasons the Democrats completely lost Kentucky.

Right.. I think a lot of Southern states tend to look at things
the same way.

We do still have a Democrat governor, but that is because he comes

>across as Christian and downplays any differences he might have
>with them politically. If he had run his campaign like they do
>it in Louisville, he'd have lost the rest of the state.

Yes, even here where we can flip between Left and Right parties more
readily than you seem to there I've always said that the best
situation is to elect someone in the middle.. a Left leaning Right
or a Right leaning Left.. They tend to do a lot less damage..

Where I live though we have had a Conservative (think Republican)
MP almost forever. I think only one Liberal elected in the last
40 years or so. That happens when most of your permanent residents
are rural, farmers and such. They tend to be less Liberal..

He certainly is working at getting rid of his new Press
Secretary as quickly as he can after she got caught lying
(about credentials).. Do as I say, not as I do ? B)

I was not sure why he canned her but that was sure quick. They

>announced her on Tuesday, and she was fired by Friday evening. ;)

As I understand it she was introduced as a working lawyer and
then they found out she had never passed the bar. I'm not sure
why it would matter or be better if the Press Secretary had been
a lawyer so I suspect it was just that she made untrue claims
which was enough to annoy a lot of people, many of whom may
have been looking for Any reason to make anything that Trump
wanted look bad..

As I pointed out before, though, remember that the US press has

>predicted an awful, awful lot of midterm flips in recent years
>that came nowhere near happening. So I won't believe any of their
>predictions until I see them, even with this one being more likely
>than before. People being angry at Trump, and the Democrats
>actually running capable candidates are two very different things.

It will be interesting... The world waits with bated breath.. B)

You may have heard that there was a movement to have a referendum
in Alberta to try to have the Province leave Canada and become
their own country. As predicted, about 80% of voters chose to
stay in Canada which cancelled a later vote to decide, which was
expected but still it's good to have that out of the way..

To be clear, this was a vote to decide if they should have
a referendum later on separation..

---
þ SLMR Rob þ ... Oregano: the ancient Italian art of pizza folding þ

--- Scorpio BBS
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

Rob Mccart wrote to KURT WEISKE <=-

I find it amazing that a President on his word alone can
do something like end the oil embargo with Russia without
it going through some other gov't body to approve it.. the
same for starting a war with another country on his own..
It's scary..

We have a series of checks and balances that relies on the
honor
system. I wouldn't be surprised if an extragovernmental power
has
kompromat on members of both parties and is using it to
forward an
agenda.

There is a conspiracy theory, which is supported by at least one alleged Epstein survivor, that the whole Epstein sex ring was exactly that... a huge blackmail ring for trapping the political and powerful. They claim that it is still going on with a new "Epstein" and lady-friend running the show.

Since I have seen all of that on social media, I don't know how much weight to put behind it still going on, but they are not the only ones to speculate -- or claim outright -- that it was a blackmail ring.

Mike

--- ScorpioWeb v0.39a (Linux/x86_64)
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

The one thing that helps Republicans here is not so much

> that the state is pro-Republican but they are so pro-life.
>That is one of the reasons the Democrats completely lost
>Kentucky.

Right.. I think a lot of Southern states tend to look at things
the same way.

Yes, most if not all of them.

We do still have a Democrat governor, but that is because he
comes

>across as Christian and downplays any differences he might
>have with them politically. If he had run his campaign
>like they do it in Louisville, he'd have lost the rest of
>the state.

Yes, even here where we can flip between Left and Right parties
more readily than you seem to there I've always said that the
best situation is to elect someone in the middle.. a Left
leaning Right or a Right leaning Left.. They tend to do a lot
less damage..

As we have discussed before, having third parties that can actually compete forces your left and right parties to work together with someone else to get anything done. As we don't have that here... the Democrats and Republicans have worked very hard to prevent that... we don't seem to flip as easily or as often.

Where I live though we have had a Conservative (think
Republican) MP almost forever. I think only one Liberal elected
in the last 40 years or so. That happens when most of your
permanent residents are rural, farmers and such. They tend to
be less Liberal..

Same here in the states.

As I understand it she was introduced as a working lawyer and
then they found out she had never passed the bar. I'm not sure
why it would matter or be better if the Press Secretary had
been a lawyer so I suspect it was just that she made untrue
claims which was enough to annoy a lot of people, many of whom
may have been looking for Any reason to make anything that
Trump wanted look bad..

That is also my understanding and I am not sure why it would matter for a Press Secretary. I would not swear to it, but I *think* she may have mentioned being a lawyer during her first press conference. If that is the case, then someone in the press probably did their job and researched it.

She was not embedded deep enough into the inner circle to get away with that. ;)

You may have heard that there was a movement to have a
referendum in Alberta to try to have the Province leave Canada
and become their own country. As predicted, about 80% of voters
chose to stay in Canada which cancelled a later vote to decide,
which was expected but still it's good to have that out of the
way..

To be clear, this was a vote to decide if they should have
a referendum later on separation..

Understood, I was keeping an eye on that. For whatever reason, youtube suggests to me some Canadian news outlets and their posts, so I had watched a video or two about it. It sounded like a small minority that wanted it voted on. From one of the persons they interviewed, they did not really care if it lost, they just wanted the publicity to remind the politicians in the eastern half of the country that they exist and want a say in what happens vs. it seeming like things are already decided by the east before the rest of the country gets a token say about it.

Also saw a video where someone was interviewing Joly. Didn't hear the question as they didn't include it, but it must have had something to do with what would happen if Trump was "replaced tomorrow." She said that not a whole lot would happen because:

(1) Most Democrats also seem to favor the USA not being the international policeman that they have been in the past

(2) Most Democrats also seem to favor at least some of the tariffs that have been put into place, although she was not certain that they approved of the ones placed against Canada -- so those could lessen or go away.

I am not sure about how Democrats feel, but I do agree regarding her first point. It would be nice to let some of the world decide what they want and not always be interfering with it. I would however point out that apparently Trump doesn't mind playing police -- and maybe crooked police -- when it comes to the Middle East, so we are not completely trying to get away from that role (unfortunately).

Mike

--- ScorpioWeb v0.39a (Linux/x86_64)
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

I caught a bit about that a few days ago and apparently they picked
out some negative comments from Canada a year or so ago on some of
the things he was doing and are using that as proof.

Yeah, Peter Navarro, a few weeks back threw out that they'd be keeping

> an eye out for Canadian meddling in border state elections. No proof,
> no allegations - just enough to get in the mind of MAGA.

Yes, they are now using newer instances but, as you suggest, there's
not much proof to go on. Saying anything against Trump's Tariff wars
(and Real wars) apparently contitutes interference in the mid-terms.

I hear he has changed his story a bit suggesting he is not expecting
things to go well.. He was on the news today saying that the
mid-terms when the President is in his final term Always go against
the president, 'He doesn't know why'..

Another case of 'If I lose it's not my fault!'.. B)

---
þ SLMR Rob þ Do I BELIEVE in the Bible?! HELL man, I've SEEN one!! þ

--- Scorpio BBS
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

Or, occam's razor - politicians on both parties are more concerned with

> power, ego and money than the health of the nation as a whole.

I wonder when I see these geriatric politicians worth millions of

> dollars. Wouldn't they want to spend time with their kids and grandkids
> in a life of leisure? Chuck Grassley just signed on to run for another
> term! He's 93 years old!

I guess it's a case of having Power and Prestige.. they want to hang
onto it as long as possible.. likely because a lot of the older ones
don't have much else to do in their lives anymore..

---
þ SLMR Rob þ If you smoke after sex, you're doing it too fast þ

--- Scorpio BBS
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

Mike Powell wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-

There is a conspiracy theory, which is supported by at least one
alleged Epstein survivor, that the whole Epstein sex ring was exactly that... a huge blackmail ring for trapping the political and powerful. They claim that it is still going on with a new "Epstein" and
lady-friend running the show.

I'm sure of it. Just because one guy was incarcerated and killed (we
don't believe he took his own life, do we?) doesn't mean the system
went away.

Having politicians on both sides of the aisle compromised would
definitely explain the state of things nowadays.


... Go slowly all the way round the outside
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
* Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)

I hear he has changed his story a bit suggesting he is not
expecting things to go well.. He was on the news today saying
that the mid-terms when the President is in his final term
Always go against the president, 'He doesn't know why'..

Another case of 'If I lose it's not my fault!'.. B)

Probably, but he isn't necessarily wrong here. There have been Presidents that were supposedly "loved" by many (and still are!) whose party lost in the final mid-terms, if not even sooner.

The Democrats lost Congress 2 years into Clinton's first term and never got it back.

The Democrats lost the House 2 years into Obama's first term and never got it back. They lost the mid-term Senate (and therefore all of Congress) during his final term.

I tend to remember that as those were the four most recent years where, if the Democrats had actually meant to defend a woman's right to choose as they claimed and campaigned on, they would have passed (a) law(s) making it so. Instead, they ignored Ruth Bader Ginsberg's warnings about Roe v. Wade being on shaky ground from the start, keeping the issue alive knowing that they could just trot it out again next time, and knowing that if anything happened to overturn it, they could blame someone else while escaping any blame whatsoever for it.

Mike

--- ScorpioWeb v0.39a (Linux/x86_64)
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

Mike Powell wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-

There is a conspiracy theory, which is supported by at
least one alleged Epstein survivor, that the whole Epstein
sex ring was exactly that... a huge blackmail ring for
trapping the political and powerful. They claim that it is
still going on with a new "Epstein" and lady-friend
running the show.

I'm sure of it. Just because one guy was incarcerated and
killed (we
don't believe he took his own life, do we?) doesn't mean the
system
went away.

No I don't believe he killed himself, especially not now.

Having politicians on both sides of the aisle compromised
would
definitely explain the state of things nowadays.

Unfortunately, I would also suspect that someone is still pulling some strings. Sad/sick thing is what they all apparently had to be into in order to get caught up in the scheme.


--- ScorpioWeb v0.39a (Linux/x86_64)
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

Yes, even here where we can flip between Left and Right parties
more readily than you seem to there I've always said that the
best situation is to elect someone in the middle.. a Left
leaning Right or a Right leaning Left.. They tend to do a lot
less damage..

As we have discussed before, having third parties that can actually

>compete forces your left and right parties to work together with
>someone else to get anything done. As we don't have that here...
>the Democrats and Republicans have worked very hard to prevent
>that... we don't seem to flip as easily or as often.

I think all areas here have at least 4 parties to choose from,
many areas more than that. There were 5 in the recent Quebec elections.

To be clear, this was a vote to decide if they should have
a referendum later on separation..

Understood, I was keeping an eye on that. For whatever reason,

>youtube suggests to me some Canadian news outlets and their posts,
>so I had watched a video or two about it. It sounded like a small
>minority that wanted it voted on. From one of the persons they
>interviewed, they did not really care if it lost, they just wanted
>the publicity to remind the politicians in the eastern half of the
>country that they exist and want a say in what happens vs. it
>seeming like things are already decided by the east before the
>rest of the country gets a token say about it.

Some areas in Alberta had a huge percentage of people wanting to
leave Canada but it's the total numbers that decide for the province.
It ended up closer to 75% against leaving Canada.

And, yes, things are decided before the voting gets out west.
Ontario and Quebec alone control enough voting districts to choose
for the whole country if they have a good majority voting one way.

Also saw a video where someone was interviewing Joly. Didn't hear

>the question as they didn't include it, but it must have had
>something to do with what would happen if Trump was "replaced
>tomorrow." She said that not a whole lot would happen..

(1) Most Democrats also seem to favor the USA not being the

>international policeman that they have been in the past

I can understand that but the USA's 'Policing' is often not totally
altruistic. They want to control what happens in other countries
to keep problems there from affecting the USA later..
There's nothing really wrong with that if they don't get carried
away but it has been the situation in the past I believe.

(2) Most Democrats also seem to favor at least some of the tariffs

>that have been put into place, although she was not certain that
>they approved of the ones placed against Canada -- so those could
>lessen or go away.

Yes, some tariffs make sense and again, Canada has always been more
of a business partner than a foreign country the USA deals with a bit.

Again.. in reasonable amounts and situations tariffs are not a terrible
thing but using them as a weapon is maybe not the best idea..

---
þ SLMR Rob þ Forgive your enemies... They _HATE_ that þ

--- Scorpio BBS
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

And, yes, things are decided before the voting gets out west.
Ontario and Quebec alone control enough voting districts to
choose for the whole country if they have a good majority
voting one way.

This is why some people like the electoral college. It prevents a few states + Chicago from deciding everything. Those who assume they would always like what those few states + Chicago chose are the ones who don't like it.

(1) Most Democrats also seem to favor the USA not being the

>international policeman that they have been in the past

I can understand that but the USA's 'Policing' is often not
totally altruistic. They want to control what happens in other
countries to keep problems there from affecting the USA later..
There's nothing really wrong with that if they don't get
carried away but it has been the situation in the past I
believe.

It was a short answer. I wonder if Joly would have touched on that part more... not totally altruistic... if she'd had more time.

(2) Most Democrats also seem to favor at least some of the
tariffs

>that have been put into place, although she was not certain
>that they approved of the ones placed against Canada -- so
>those could lessen or go away.

Yes, some tariffs make sense and again, Canada has always been
more of a business partner than a foreign country the USA deals
with a bit.

Again.. in reasonable amounts and situations tariffs are not a
terrible thing but using them as a weapon is maybe not the best
idea..

Agreed.

Mike

--- ScorpioWeb v0.39a (Linux/x86_64)
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

I'm sure of it. Just because one guy was incarcerated and
killed (we don't believe he took his own life, do we?) doesn'
mean the system went away.

Having politicians on both sides of the aisle compromised
would definitely explain the state of things nowadays.

Unfortunately, I would also suspect that someone is still

>pulling some strings. Sad/sick thing is what they all apparently
>had to be into in order to get caught up in the scheme.

From what I have seen none of those 'abused' women were little
kids and it appeared they all wanted to be there at the time and
what went on was no surprise to them. No doubt if the lady looked
like she *Could* be 18, no one at the party would question it.

---
þ SLMR Rob þ Sex is the most fun you can have without smiling þ

--- Scorpio BBS
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

... He was on the news today saying
that the mid-terms when the President is in his final term
Always go against the president, 'He doesn't know why'..

Another case of 'If I lose it's not my fault!'.. B)

Probably, but he isn't necessarily wrong here. There have been

>Presidents that were supposedly "loved" by many (and still are!)
>whose party lost in the final mid-terms, if not even sooner.

Yes, especially when the President is on his last term. There's a
huge push on then to entice the electrorate to change their minds
and vote for someone else to swing the power back, or to convince
people unhappy with things the President had done that their new
replacement candidate would be better..

---
þ SLMR Rob þ What's another word for thesaurus? þ

--- Scorpio BBS
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

I'm sure of it. Just because one guy was incarcerated and
killed (we don't believe he took his own life, do we?)
doesn' mean the system went away.

Having politicians on both sides of the aisle compromised
would definitely explain the state of things nowadays.

Unfortunately, I would also suspect that someone is still

>pulling some strings. Sad/sick thing is what they all
>apparently had to be into in order to get caught up in the
>scheme.

From what I have seen none of those 'abused' women were little
kids and it appeared they all wanted to be there at the time
and what went on was no surprise to them. No doubt if the lady
looked like she *Could* be 18, no one at the party would
question it.

I have no way of verifying their story, but there has been one ~30 something year old recently that claims that she was being shared around since she was ~2 years old, and that she was shared around "Presidentially." She managed to get out before she got "too old" to be interesting, which would have put in in what she claimed was the "snuff" party category.

Seeing as she is now around but apparently above 30, "Presidentially" could mean Trump but could also include Clinton.

Most of the ones we've seen in photos do appear to be ~18 and could have even lied about their age if asked. But at least Jeffrey and his lady friend knew they were not.

Mike

--- ScorpioWeb v0.39a (Linux/x86_64)
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

And, yes, things are decided before the voting gets out west.
Ontario and Quebec alone control enough voting districts to
choose for the whole country if they have a good majority
voting one way.

This is why some people like the electoral college. It prevents a

>few states + Chicago from deciding everything. Those who assume they
>would always like what those few states + Chicago chose are the ones
>who don't like it.

We have pretty much the same system here where each 'riding' elects
who they want and the total wins for any party are tabulated nation
wide, but with so much of the population in Ontario and Quebec, there
often aren't enough ridings (federal electoral districts) left in
the country to change things.

i.e. Ontario has 123 ridings and Quebec has 78..
Meanwhile in the 'biggest' Western provinces..
Alberta has just 37 ridings and British Columbia has 43.

Think of Alberta as the Texas of Canada and B.C. as California.. B)

---
þ SLMR Rob þ Microsoft: Quality is Job 1.11 þ

--- Scorpio BBS
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

From what I have seen none of those 'abused' women were little
kids and it appeared they all wanted to be there at the time
and what went on was no surprise to them. No doubt if the lady
looked like she *Could* be 18, no one at the party would
question it.

I have no way of verifying their story, but there has been one ~30

>something year old recently that claims that she was being shared
>around since she was ~2 years old, and that she was shared around
>"Presidentially." She managed to get out before she got "too old"
>to be interesting, which would have put in in what she claimed was
>the "snuff" party category.

Okay, I hadn't run across information like that. No wonder he died
in prison, whether by his hand or anothers..

Seeing as she is now around but apparently above 30, "Presidentially"

>could mean Trump but could also include Clinton.

Interesting.. You'd wonder why names were not 'dropped' to get back
at these people.. Of course I guess without proof it would be a
risky, maybe dangerous, thing to do..

Most of the ones we've seen in photos do appear to be ~18 and could

>have even lied about their age if asked. But at least Jeffrey and
>his lady friend knew they were not.

That I expected..

---
þ SLMR Rob þ Nearing Mars now - Hey! What's that bri&^$% NO OBSERVER þ

--- Scorpio BBS
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

I have no way of verifying their story, but there has been
one ~30

>something year old recently that claims that she was being
>shared around since she was ~2 years old, and that she was
>shared around "Presidentially." She managed to get out
>before she got "too old" to be interesting, which would have
>put in in what she claimed was the "snuff" party category.

Okay, I hadn't run across information like that. No wonder he
died in prison, whether by his hand or anothers..

There have been rumors of both very young girls and also of the "snuff" parties. Those are usually attached to other rich people (including one whole family (*)) and not politicians. Most of those have come from people reading the files that are available and drawing their own conclusions (correct or otherwise).

(*) I cannot remember the name at the moment, but some of the stories remind me of the short story "The Most Dangerous Game," i.e. they are made out to be the types that would participate in such things.

Seeing as she is now around but apparently above 30,
"Presidentially"

>could mean Trump but could also include Clinton.

Interesting.. You'd wonder why names were not 'dropped' to get
back at these people.. Of course I guess without proof it would
be a risky, maybe dangerous, thing to do..

Could indeed be risky. Could also be fake. We may never know.

Most of the ones we've seen in photos do appear to be ~18
and could

>have even lied about their age if asked. But at least
>Jeffrey and his lady friend knew they were not.

That I expected..

I think the thing here is that even if they did claim the girls were over 18, some of the names that have been thrown around as "on the list" are supposedly smart men who should have well known better... a Rhodes Scholar, a self-proclaimed "SMARTEST PRESIDENT EVER," one of the men behind one of the largest software empires of our time, and several other intellectuals/"thought leaders" of our society. The assumption (or at least my own) would be that they should have been smart enough to figure it out on their own.

Mike

--- ScorpioWeb v0.39a (Linux/x86_64)
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)