kimmy

Agreed. Agreed. You might not have an issue with where Hillary got money, but Trump himself certainly did, and said so loudly and in no uncertain terms during the campaign. Can you at least agree that it's extremely hypocritical for the Trumps to accept donations and gifts from the Saudis after blasting Hillary for the exact same thing just a few months before? Can you agree that it's funny how Republican-boosters who howled in outrage that Obama bowed to the Saudi king haven't said a single peep about Trump doing the same last week? The claim that less than 10% of Clinton Foundation revenue went to charity is a falsehood based on a half-truth. It is true that less than 10% of Clinton Foundation revenue was given out as charitable grants. It is false that the rest of the money was spent on overhead, salaries, or pocketed by the Clintons. The "misunderstanding" (a deliberate one, I think, in many cases) comes from the implication that giving grants is the only charitable thing a charitable foundation does and the rest must therefore be waste. Many Republicans promoted that interpretation during the campaign. But grants aren't the whole story. Imagine a guy gets called into the accounting office at work. "You submitted an expense claim for $580 for your trip, but you only spent $42 on gas! Less than 10% of these so-called expenses went to gas! Are you trying to rip us off?" Well, that implication is grossly unfair, because gas isn't the only expense. There's hotels and food, as well. In the case of the Clinton Foundation, they distributed a small percentage via grants, but spent a far larger portion on providing direct services. For more on that topic, if you're interested... http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/ https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478 -k

"Saudi Arabia giving $25 million, Qatar, all of these countries. You talk about women and women's rights? So these are people that push gays off business - off buildings. These are people that kill women and treat women horribly. And yet you take their money." -Donald Trump, during the October debate. "Saudi Arabia and many of the countries that gave vast amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation want women as slaves and to kill gays. Hillary must return all money from such countries!" -Donald Trump in June 2016. I wonder if Trump will be telling Ivanka to return all that money? I wonder if Trump will be returning that crazy gold necklace they gave him? During the election, Trump and his supporters thought accepting money from the Saudis was disgusting and hypocritical. Now it's apparently to be applauded. To be clear, I don't object to the Saudis donating money to the charity. I just think it's hilarious how stuff that Trump and his supporters criticized and ridiculed in the recent past is stuff that Trump himself is doing right now, while his supporters make any excuse for him. In the same file: -bowing to the Saudi king -first lady "insulted" the hosts by not covering her hair. -won't say the words "radical Islamic terror" -wasting taxpayer money on expensive vacations -spends too much time golfing when there's so much work to be done -attacking Syria without approval from Congress -mishandling sensitive data -k

Given Russia's cozy relationship with Syria and Iran, I doubt Israel shares your confidence that this information won't end up in the hands of their enemies. They shared this data in the highest confidence, with the request that it be shared with no one, not even US allies. And the President, according to H.R. McMaster, gave it to the Russians without even knowing where it came from. We won't know the fallout from this. If Israeli undercover agents get killed, we won't know that. If an important source of Israeli information gets silenced, we won't know that. If Israel stops sharing some of their data, we won't know that either. Sometime down the road people might point back to this and say "see? nothing happened!" because the results, whatever they are, will never be public knowledge. But just because the consequences of this won't be publicly visible, doesn't mean that there won't be consequences. This was an utterly foolish action by Trump. It's absurd that people are trying to defend it. If Obama had done this Republicans would be calling him a threat to Israel's existence, a traitor, and probably demanding prison or a firing squad. But apparently it's not even the dumbest thing Trump did last week, so this colossal screw-up is on the back-burner for now. -k

Given that Trump himself, as well as other sources like NSA chief H.R. McMaster have confirmed everything today, complaining that it came from "unverified sources" just isn't going to fly. -k

I'm a big girl with her own rifle. Israel is the west's key ally in a hostile region full of Islamists. I still haven't hear an answer... I think it's hilarious that the American right have turned a guy who literally shit his pants to avoid military service, and has more illegitimate kids than a whole NBA team, into a folk hero. Family values! woo! All along you've insisted that you weren't a Trump supporter, you just opposed Hillary because she's a secret Muslim Brotherhood sleeper-agent or something. Yet here we are, 6 months past the election, and the alternative to Trump is Pence or Ryan, not Hillary. And you still can't bring yourself to even concede that the big orange clown screwed up. -k

Yes, many ethnic Russians in Crimea didn't mind being "liberated". But the question was in regard to "the right", not the popularity, of the invasion. And what do draft dodgers or the death penalty have to do with anything? Trump himself said that Snowden should be executed for giving "serious information" to the Russians, and then goes and gives "serious information" to the Russians himself. Paul Ryan said that people who can't be trusted with sensitive information should have access to sensitive information, but has nothing much to say about his President giving Codeword-level intel to the Russians. Repubicans and Republican-supporters everywhere, including many here at MLW, felt that being careless in handling of classified info disqualified someone from being President... yet are willing to go to the wall to defend their big orange hero who has been caught flagrantly mishandling the highest level of classified intel. It's becoming increasingly clear that the Republicans and their boosters will say anything to stick up for their idol, in spite of him being caught red-handed doing stuff they felt their opponents should be jailed or executed for. None of you guys can even bring yourselves to even acknowledge that he made a mistake. -k

oh? Who is Trump liberating, and from whom? -k

Mike Pence is a Bible-thumping, gay-hating Dominionist theocrat, and I'd still feel a lot better about him being President than Trump. As much as I disagree with Pence's views, at least he's sane and isn't going to cause the collapse of western civilization through sheer incompetence and senility. -k

Which actions, specifically? The Muslim ban? Trumpcare? The "wall"? So far, it appears that Trump's actions amount to enacting a healthcare bill that's so unpopular that they're deleting webpages so that people won't be able to read what he actually promised. -k

And how long until Congress decides that Trump is a danger to the United States and makes Pence the President of the whole thing? -k

While I think he's a loathesome individual, I also think it's become apparent that his sheer incompetence makes him a danger to the people he's supposed to serve, as well as us Canadians by extension. I ask the question again: are you sure you're ok with Trump betraying Israel to its enemies? -k

Trudeau isn't the guy who just betrayed a key ally to its enemies. Real talk, how long until Pence or Ryan are President? -k

Perhaps Trump will be bringing some kosher Trump Steaks with him on his big visit. You're the forum's most dedicated opponent of Islam. Are you sure you are ok that the orange idol has betrayed Israel to its Muslim enemies? -k

It's not Canada that you (or Trump) need worry about. The security of Israel is regarded as an absolute litmus test among many Republicans. We shall see whether their loyalty to the orange idol wins out over that tenet of Republican ideology. -k

Giving Israel's Codeword-level security information to Russia (and Syria and Iran). -k

Trump's America will need help as well, because they won't be able to count on Israel sharing its intelligence anymore. Are you guys sure you're ok with Trump selling out Israel to his Russian buddies? -k

So you think it's ok that Trump betrayed Israel to the ally of Syria and Iran? -k

So all that stuff Republicans have been spouting for years about the damage Obama was doing to American-Israeli relations, that was just for show? Because the great orange god did more harm to American-Israeli relations in one day than Obama did in 8 years. -k

I just don't get it. I mean... I'm not a Native American... if I wear my silver-and-turquoise necklace am I a bad person? If I enjoy rock music and I'm not black... am I a bad person? If I prefer Arabic numerals to Roman numerals, am I a bad person? I just don't get it. -k

One of the recurring Republican talking points of the past few years is what a terrible job Obama was doing with American-Israeli relations. They made a big deal about it during the election. They made a big deal about Trump going to the airport to give Bibi a warm welcome on the tarmac. "Obama wouldn't stand with Israel, but we will!" That was the talk. Well, Obama may have lectured the Israelis about settlements, but he never went out and blabbed top-secret Israeli intelligence to Israel's enemies. Russia may not be Israel's enemy, directly, but Iran and Syria certainly are, and Russia enjoys friendly relations with both countries. Israel is mad as hell about this. In the future they will think twice about sharing information with Washington. Trump's most important job is the safety of American citizens. Trump made Americans less safe by blabbing Israeli secrets to the Russians. You Trump cheerleaders can try to spin that he didn't do anything that's technically illegal, or that this isn't that big a deal, or that he's the President and can do whatever he wanted, but the bottom line is that this was a massive blunder. This is a blunder that makes Americans less safe. This is a blunder that damages the trust between the United States and its most important Middle East ally. This is a blunder that demonstrates that the big orange clown is not fit to remain in office. You can deny it, but deep inside, you guys know it. The only guy who thinks this is a great development is the member who thinks that Trump is here to save the world from Da Jooooos. -k

Yes. Trump is a great salesman. Unfortunately it's becoming more obvious each day that he's a dismal president. -k

Oh good grief. The election was 6 months ago, and everybody knows that the next president is going to be Pence (or possibly Ryan, depending on how much Pence knew and when.) And it's becoming increasingly obvious that either Pence or Ryan would be a great improvement over letting this incompetent clown keep up this increasingly serious parade of blunders. -k

Are you sure? I seem to remember a lot of concern when Russia invaded Crimea and started lining up troops on the border with Ukraine. Given increasing Russian aggression towards eastern Europe and increasing Russian influence in the Middle East, I think it's clear that yeah, Romney *was* right. Given Russian actions of the past few years, what's the basis behind this new Republican notion that the Russians are actually fun and friendly? Aside from trying to justify Trump's bizarre appeasement of Putin, what is the motive behind this new effort among the "right" to reimagine the Russians as the good-guys? Russia had the right to take over Crimea? Aside from "might makes right", which right are you referencing? Stephen Harper certainly didn't think Russia was right to do so, and told Putin so in person. Snowden was such a "meh" that Trump himself was calling for Snowden's execution for giving "serious information" to the Russians. Obama's handling of Syria certainly bears criticism, but given the long-standing American tradition of picking sides in proxy-wars in key regions, I don't think he's much different from his predecessors. -k

During the 2012 election, when Mitt Romney said that Russia was the west's greatest geopolitical threat, many of us scoffed and said "come on... clearly it's Islamic terror." For 3 and a half years, Republican supporters took great delight in pointing out that Romney was right. Russia annexes Crimea? Romney was right! Russia takes in Edward Snowden? Romney was right! Russia massing troops on the border with Ukraine? Romney was right! Russia flexing its muscles in the Middle East? Romney was right! That narrative shifted last summer. Suddenly, around the time that people started talking about Trump's ties to Russia, Republican boosters stopped talking about how Romney was right and started talking about how Russians are great. Russians are fun and friendly! They want to fight terrorists too! Expanding into Eastern Europe? Well? What did Eastern Europe ever do for us? Wars are bad! Peace is good! Let's be friends with Russia! -k

Sometimes stuff that seems like a great idea actually has unintended consequences. As Dialamah posted, there seems to be a possibility that these changes could actually create a higher evidenciary burden and make it harder for the prosecutor to have bail denied. One might imagine that Liberals and defense attorneys are reprobates who love violent criminals and want them out on the street committing more mayhem. But even if that were true, the crown prosecutors aren't. They should be free to do their job as best fits the goal of protecting the public. I don't see anything prohibiting them from bringing up a criminal history if they feel it's important to do so. If the suspect has a history of violence, the prosecutor could certainly point that out as a means of explaining why the suspect shouldn't be back on the streets. Suppose you're a crown prosecutor and you're convinced that the guy you're going to be prosecuting is an unstable menace and bail should be denied. The facts of the case are pretty damning. Your aide comes in and hands you the suspect's criminal history and ... it's blank. Or it's non-violent. The suspect has no history of violence at all. So you have to go before the judge and instead of focusing on the mayhem the suspect is accused of, you have to talk about how he's never been accused of anything violent before. Does that help your case? -k