Since Trump is supporting his immunity and supporting that he testify, it will definitely be interesting to see how it shakes out. The fact that Trump either doesn't care about his own image to the media or is so dismissive of any attacks, continues to be amazing in this "image is everything" age for politicians.
Senate Intelligence Committee rejected his request, which would seem to imply they either don't need him, or he isn't offering much. I lean toward the latter, I think this was a gambit to get himself free immunity, similar to how Oliver North played it back during Iran Contra.
Which makes sense, considering after a lot of bellyaching on his part, Trump's ultimate response was "Sure go for it." The immunity would also likely halt the press of digging into Flynn's affairs further, including anything unrelated to the investigation.
The problem isn't that the Democrats are yelling fire when there's no fire, it's that any time they yell fire, the Republicans respond with "let it burn." People are getting (perhaps overly) eager on the Russia thing because they believe that literal treason is something even the Republicans couldn't ignore. Although I suppose we'll see on that one; I've got no faith left at this point.
Well hooray for you. ( I mean that in a totally non-sarcastic way; I wish we had something like that here.) Funny that you ask that, Nett, because politics is a BIG thing in my area, and all of it is as crooked as a dog's hind leg. Seriously, it's a fucking joke around here. I have tried to help people who genuinely wanted to change things, but the crooked and/or more popular candidates would win. I have tried to talk to my former congressman a few years back, but he was never "available," and his toadies gave me the run-around. Did I mention that the area that I live in is gerrymandered to shit? The voters don't decide things like that.
Interesting little tidbit about Canada and the net: We do a lot of business with Canadian companies....but we can't just send them an e-mail...We need to ask them to verify they'd like an e-mail from our company and then pretty much sign a form saying "Yes, they said it was OK to send them an e-mail." We're fucked if we don't dot all the i's and cross all the t's. I can understand the theory behind it, but when you do a lot of business with Canada, it's a major pain in the ass. My way around it is just not dealing with Canadian companies at all.
That seems like a bit of a misunderstanding of the law. Basically, you can't cold-call/cold-email anyone with a business opportunity. If there's already an established line of communication, then you're able to email no problems. If you're a company and want to email market to customers or email them with things that aren't directly and specifically related to an existing service you're providing them, then the "customer" has to opt into and agree to the communication or it's $500 per email. It can be a bit confusing (and we had to deal with it a lot at my last job), and because of the harsh and swift punishment, most companies dumb it down to cover their asses.
That's pretty much what my company has done. Why open yourself up for a fine? We're not cold calling/sending blind e-mails, but the way the law is written we're required to cover the company's ass and it's such a pain in the ass that I just say "Fuck it" and not deal with Canadian companies at all.
I would be too. But it does make doing legitimate business such a pain in the ass that some people just say "Fuck Canada, it's not worth it."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...824bbb5d748_story.html?utm_term=.93207dc837e5 I really do enjoy this and not for the reasons people might expect. Even though the usual Trump non-conspiracy impeachment trumpeters seem to be suddenly silent, what I really enjoy is the fact that something like this allows everyone to not talk about the debt ceiling and looming Government shutdown to occur in less than a month. The budget deficit is so insignificant that this political theater overshadows that estimated $350B budget shortfall for FY18, which as history is proven is always understated. Nobody seems the least bit concerned with what will be triaged away to get the operating expenses under control and keep the figurative lights on. The only concern is that the security apparatus was used to spy on politicians. Funny thing is, nobody seemed to care when THEIR constitutional rights to privacy were stripped away, it only matters now because a bunch of people that govern them have been inconvenienced.
The problem with the debt ceiling is it's ass backwards. It's like telling yourself "if I charge more than $X on my credit card this month, I won't pay the bill." Not anything that would stop you from charging it in the first place, just that if you exceed some amount, you won't authorize payment. Then the payment comes due, you realize that not paying your bill would be a terrible idea and trash your credit for no good reason whatsoever, so you pay it, and then repeat the cycle again the next month.
Any kind of military event like people are envisioning would happen is preceded by a large build-up of manpower and materiel. Consequently, if the Norks were planning something their military readiness posture would change. Taking those two facts in to consideration in today's age of the internet and satellite coverage, everyone would know we were going to go to war before it happened. Since none of that is occurring, this is just a distraction.
The problem I was trying to get at is that you've already signed the purchase order for the shiny new bauble, and the choice is either to raise your credit limit so you can borrow enough to pay for it, or renege on your obligations. There's a reason that not raising the debt limit (or even threatening to) leads to a downgrade in the US's credit rating, because doing so would undermine the US's ability to pay already incurred debts.
It means Trump is meeting with the Chinese President this week and the administration is doing some posturing to try and get China to deal with them.