US & NA Politics Thread

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Asherian Command**

Peregrine wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:
Publishing of Top Secret Information
Working with Foreign Power In Conspiracy against the United States. (Made these up who knows at this point)

They can nail him on something knowing the US

Where does the US have jurisdiction, given that Assange is not a US citizen nor was he present in the US for any of those actions?

:shrug:

See here is the thing, the US has done lots of things and they can easily get him on the rape charge and extradite him to the state where he violated that.

**Peregrine**

Asherian Command wrote:
See here is the thing, the US has done lots of things and they can easily get him on the rape charge and extradite him to the state where he violated that.

The alleged rape did not happen in the US. That's why it was Sweden trying to extradite him for it, not the US.

**Asherian Command**

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8xbk5p/sinclairs-bid-to-monopolize-local-tv-news-is-officially-dead?utm_source=reddit.com

Tribune Media has scrapped the company’s $3.9 billion merger with Sinclair Broadcast Group, putting an abrupt end to Sinclair’s controversial bid to dominate local broadcasting.

In a statement, Tribune said it was not only terminating the merger, but would be suing Sinclair for breach of contract. Tribune states it’s seeking compensation for all losses incurred as a result of Sinclair’s “unnecessarily aggressive” behavior during merger approval negotiations with the FCC and DOJ.

Said behavior included what critics say were “sham” divestment deals, where Sinclair attempted to offload some stations to companies it still controlled in a bid to pretend the deal would fall within media ownership limits. Currently, the law states no one broadcaster can reach more than 38% of households (Sinclair would have reached 72% had the deal been approved).

Sinclair’s efforts were so brazen, they forced even the historically mega-industry-friendly FCC chief Ajit Pai to shovel the deal off to an administrative law judge, a move traditionally seen as a death knell for such megadeals.

“In light of the FCC’s unanimous decision, referring the issue of Sinclair’s conduct for a hearing before an administrative law judge, our merger cannot be completed within an acceptable timeframe, if ever,” said Peter Kern, Tribune Media’s Chief Executive Officer. “This uncertainty and delay would be detrimental to our company and our shareholders. Accordingly, we have exercised our right to terminate the Merger Agreement, and, by way of our lawsuit, intend to hold Sinclair accountable.”

Sinclair has only itself to blame.

Sinclair quickly became the stuff of legend after a viral Deadspin video and John Oliver segment highlighted how the company’s programming teeters closer to disinformation than news.

Local Sinclair broadcast stations are routinely mandated to air downright painful “must run” segments. Some of these segments cheered on the government’s decision to lock immigrant children in cages. Others parroted the Trump administration’s relentless attacks on the news media in creepy, seemingly-lobotomized unison.

Sinclair spent much of the last year successfully-convincing the FCC to slowly-but-surely dismantle decades-old media consolidation rules. That involved everything from killing rules requiring broadcasters maintain local offices, to restoring older, unnecessary FCC regulations simply to help Sinclair pretend the merger would fall under the ownership cap.

Unfortunately the effort was so blatant, it culminated in an ongoing FCC corruption investigation into whether agency head Ajit Pai had illegally coordinated the efforts with Sinclair, one of the likely motivators for Pai’s sudden about face last month.

The deal had a wide array of bipartisan critics, from consumer advocates to competitors like NewsMax, who collectively and repeatedly argued the deal would have been terrible for local broadcast competition and the quality of local reporting.

“Today is a good day for every American who believes that diversity of voices in the media is better for our democracy,” said former FCC advisor Gigi Sohn.

“This transaction had but two supporters—Sinclair and Tribune,” Sohn said. “It was opposed by large and small cable companies, rural broadband providers, conservative cable channels and the public interest community. Chairman Pai and his colleagues did right by the American people and the entire broadcast industry by putting the brakes on this merger.”

Granted the immense dysfunction that paved the way for the deal remains intact. And while Sinclair didn’t get to take advantage of Pai’s efforts to severely weaken numerous media consolidation rules, the next terrible media monopoly most certainly will.

Yesssss

Good. Sinclair didn't need to own that much of the news media.

**Ouze**

Kilkrazy wrote:
"Bring back jobs" is a slogan, not a policy.
"Build a wall" is a slogan, not a policy.
"Cut taxes" is a slogan, not a policy.
"Ban muslims" is a slogan, not a policy.

Trump doesn't do policies.

I have to respectfully partially disagree. 2 of those are obviously vague enough to be meaningless but "build a wall" and "cut taxes",are, I think, definitely policies and he expanded on these ideas during the campaign.

These ideas might be stupid, useless, and hateful, but you knew what it is he intends to do and more or less how he intends to do it.

HRC had better policy positions but she certainly didn't sell them very well. I think we need to be honest that part of being a successful politician is selling your platform, and while screaming "make america great" might be meaningless, it jives better with the average American attention span and capacity for retaining knowledge than "go check out my website, I have white papers everywhere".

There were many factors to Trump's success but we must be honest in admitting that Hillary Clinton was a highly competent and qualified politician and a poor campaigner who did not present her ideas well and made strategic campaigning decisions that cost her the election, just as she campaigned poorly against Barack Obama, a relative unknown, previously.

**Kilkrazy**

What's clever about "Make America Great Again" is that it implies something about America has become "Ungreat" and allows the reader to inject their own ideas of Greatness into the nebulous concept.

Peregrine wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:
See here is the thing, the US has done lots of things and they can easily get him on the rape charge and extradite him to the state where he violated that.

The alleged rape did not happen in the US. That's why it was Sweden trying to extradite him for it, not the US.

Sweden has dropped the rape charges. Assange is currently sheltering from the British police, who want to arrest him for jumping bail.

IDK how the Ecuadorians would get him from their London embassy to the USA. Label him as a diplomatic package, maybe?

Assange could give evidence by video link from within the Embassy.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Asherian Command wrote:

Yesssss

Good. Sinclair didn't need to own that much of the news media.

Yesssss indeed. . . I had lost sight of this deal's on-goings and am very thankful you brought it back up, and this is indeed good news. . . .even if not for entirely the "right" reasons (I mean, the conjecture on Ajit doing an "about face" over allegations that he's corrupt and aiding a potential monopoly. . . instead of doing the right thing in stopping a monopoly because monopoly bad)

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
What's clever about "Make America Great Again" is that it implies something about America has become "Ungreat" and allows the reader to inject their own ideas of Greatness into the nebulous concept.

At the same time, it really digs into the heart of American Conservatism. . . We all know that there's some mythological point in the past in which the US was once "great" but no longer is. I mean, there are elements of our past that even as progressive as I am, wish we would adopt again (ie, corporate tax structures from the 50s that strongly incentivized reinvestment in the company, rather than avoidance and maximizing profit for the CEO) but in my personal (anecdotal evidence) experience with conservatives, there is an even greater level of rose colored glasses that goes on to the levels of delusion.

**A Town Called Malus**

EDIT: on reading back couldn't seem to find the comment I was responding to and so thought it might have been deleted.

Good news about Sinclair. That company already has way too much power and uses that power very insidiously.

**jouso**

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
ChargerIIC wrote:
That's not counting the number of pizza places out here which require a little bilingual knowledge for food ordering.

Haha! My favorite Japanese spot's entire back area was almost entirely Spanish speaking. I'd always chuckle when passing the kitchen on the way to the restrooms. The place employed Asian staff for the front of the house but that kitchen was all East LA.

Still, I have lived in SoCal my entire life and don't speak enough Spanish to order anything other than curse words and I haven't starved yet.

Many years ago when I was living in the LA area I hosted my boss from the head office in Spain for a whole week.

He took it as a challenge not to speak a single word of English during his stay, and he got as far as Thursday.

Later on that year we repeated the game in Miami and it worked.

**reds8n**

.. how does it go again :

Discretion is the better part of valor.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article216397410.html

“It has come to my attention that your office is giving advice to county election officials — as recently as a conference call yesterday — and you are making public statements on national television which are inconsistent with Kansas law and may serve to suppress the vote in the ongoing primary election process,” Colyer said in a letter.

Marr explained in a phone call that the campaign has heard that Kobach’s office told county clerks to disregard ballots with a smudged postmark. Marr said that ballots received before a Friday deadline need to be counted.

.... seems there might be some issues with voter suppression after all .

on a lighter note :

http://americanmoon.org/trump/

American Moon - Trump
Thanks to you who signed our Petition to President Trump Mission Accomplished!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fuer5ws6ZY#t=29m31s
Open letter to President Donald Trump
Make American First on the Moon again!
Develop real estate we pioneered, and make it the 51st state
as collateral, and sell land to pay off $17 trillion of our national debt.
Space race not Arms race. Warp drive not war drive.
Whoever develops the Moon, owns it, and is the Land Lord
There is Money in the Moon.
Thousands of High Tech Jobs for American Engineers and Construction Workers
China, Russia, tourists and tenants will pay for it.

I didn't think it was even possible to make websites like this anymore -- I see the 90s revival is about to start then ?

**Frazzled**

Asherian Command wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:
Publishing of Top Secret Information
Working with Foreign Power In Conspiracy against the United States. (Made these up who knows at this point)

They can nail him on something knowing the US

Where does the US have jurisdiction, given that Assange is not a US citizen nor was he present in the US for any of those actions?

:shrug:

See here is the thing, the US has done lots of things and they can easily get him on the rape charge and extradite him to the state where he violated that.

If he touches US soil, or finds himself in the brig of a US carrier.

**Prestor Jon**

Peregrine wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:
Publishing of Top Secret Information
Working with Foreign Power In Conspiracy against the United States. (Made these up who knows at this point)

They can nail him on something knowing the US

Where does the US have jurisdiction, given that Assange is not a US citizen nor was he present in the US for any of those actions? His concern was never any legitimate criminal charges, it was the possibility that the US would declare him an unlawful enemy combatant or whatever and make him disappear without a trial.

Seems to me that since the FBI had no trouble indicting all the Russian hackers that sent the information to WikiLeaks that the DoJ would be able to charge Assange in a similar manner since he knowingly aided and abetted the Russians and publicized illegally obtained information.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/20/politics/julian-assange-wikileaks-us-charges/index.html

The US view of WikiLeaks and Assange began to change after investigators found what they believe was proof that WikiLeaks played an active role in helping Edward Snowden, a former NSA analyst, disclose a massive cache of classified documents.

Last week in a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, CIA Director Mike Pompeo went further than any US government official in describing a role by WikiLeaks that went beyond First Amendment activity.
He said WikiLeaks "directed Chelsea Manning to intercept specific secret information, and it overwhelmingly focuses on the United States."

"It's time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is: A non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia," Pompeo said.

US intelligence agencies have also determined that Russian intelligence used WikiLeaks to publish emails aimed at undermining the campaign of Hillary Clinton, as part of a broader operation to meddle in the US 2016 presidential election. Hackers working for Russian intelligence agencies stole thousands of emails from the Democratic National Committee and officials in the Clinton campaign and used intermediaries to pass along the documents to WikiLeaks, according to a public assessment by US intelligence agencies.
Still, the move could be viewed as political, since Assange is untouchable as long as he remains in the Ecuadorian embassy, and Ecuador has not changed its stance on Assange's extradition.

**Kilkrazy**

My understanding of the law is that while US officials and servicemen have a duty of confidentiality when handling secret documents, this does not apply to ordinary people, particularly if they are not US citizens, who might find them in the back of a taxi, or be given them by an anonymuos source.

In other words, if someone steals a load of emails and gives them to the London Times, the Time can decide to publish them and there's no legal recourse.

I am saying this because I believe the rule of law is important, even if it helps a gak like Assange.

I mean, this characterisation of Wikileaks as a non-state hostile intelligence service could be levelled at the Washington Post for having exposed Nixon's Watergate secrets. Does that sound correct and just and lawful?

**Prestor Jon**

Kilkrazy wrote:
My understanding of the law is that while US officials and servicemen have a duty of confidentiality when handling secret documents, this does not apply to ordinary people, particularly if they are not US citizens, who might find them in the back of a taxi, or be given them by an anonymuos source.

In other words, if someone steals a load of emails and gives them to the London Times, the Time can decide to publish them and there's no legal recourse.

I am saying this because I believe the rule of law is important, even if it helps a gak like Assange.

I mean, this characterisation of Wikileaks as a non-state hostile intelligence service could be levelled at the Washington Post for having exposed Nixon's Watergate secrets. Does that sound correct and just and lawful?

Is WikiLeaks a member of the media the same way that the Washington Post is a media institution? What's the difference between a website and a news organization? Is Alex Jones' website InfoWars entitled to the same treatment and legal protections as CNN.com?

We also need to know more about the relationship between Assange/WikiLeaks and the Russian hackers. Did the Russians act on their own and then reach out to WikiLeaks offering to send them the emails or did WikiLeaks conspire with Russia to provide them with the platform for the hacked emails that would enable the Russians to accomplish their goal of impacting and interfering with the US Presidential election by being their accomplice? We know that once they had the information WikiLeaks deliberately took actions to hype the fact that they had it and plan out what days and times they'd release information to maximize it's impact. We indicted the Russians so I think if there was evidence that Assange was involved with the Russians prior to the hackers giving the information to WikiLeaks that we could indict Assange too without negatively impacting freedom of the press.

**whembly**

Asherian Command wrote:
"Making the US look bad." Punishable by infinity years in a secret CIA prison.

Publishing of Top Secret Information
Working with Foreign Power In Conspiracy against the United States. (Made these up who knows at this point)

They can nail him on something knowing the US

Publishing... no.

Conspiring with bad actors (ie, paying for) to hack information for them... maybe. Still a high burden to prove.

**Kilkrazy**

It doesn't matter. A journalist is an individual exercising his right of freedom of expression and being paid for it. So is a private person who sets up a website of his own.

Yes, Infowars is entitled to the same protection as CNN. The fact that Infowars has allegedly violated the law (harassment, libel, etc) means they can be sued under due process of law for those offences. CNN could be too, if they behaved like that.

It's pretty obvious that the Russians pinched the emails and gave them to Assange. The Russians have been indicted for illegal computer intrusion.

Assange can't be indicted for that because he didn't do it. And he can't be indicted for revealing the secrets because once in his hands, they were no longer secrets, because they had been revealed outside the "magic circle" of people who were legally obliged not to reveal them.

**whembly**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
My understanding of the law is that while US officials and servicemen have a duty of confidentiality when handling secret documents, this does not apply to ordinary people, particularly if they are not US citizens, who might find them in the back of a taxi, or be given them by an anonymuos source.

In other words, if someone steals a load of emails and gives them to the London Times, the Time can decide to publish them and there's no legal recourse.

I am saying this because I believe the rule of law is important, even if it helps a gak like Assange.

I mean, this characterisation of Wikileaks as a non-state hostile intelligence service could be levelled at the Washington Post for having exposed Nixon's Watergate secrets. Does that sound correct and just and lawful?

Is WikiLeaks a member of the media the same way that the Washington Post is a media institution?

Yes. I mean... think about the question prestor... should the government be in the business of determining who/what is the "press"?

What's the difference between a website and a news organization?

With respect to Government's ability to restrict speech? Nothing.

Is Alex Jones' website InfoWars entitled to the same treatment and legal protections as CNN.com?

Yes. Absolutely.

We also need to know more about the relationship between Assange/WikiLeaks and the Russian hackers. Did the Russians act on their own and then reach out to WikiLeaks offering to send them the emails or did WikiLeaks conspire with Russia to provide them with the platform for the hacked emails that would enable the Russians to accomplish their goal of impacting and interfering with the US Presidential election by being their accomplice? We know that once they had the information WikiLeaks deliberately took actions to hype the fact that they had it and plan out what days and times they'd release information to maximize it's impact. We indicted the Russians so I think if there was evidence that Assange was involved with the Russians prior to the hackers giving the information to WikiLeaks that we could indict Assange too without negatively impacting freedom of the press.

Very true. If Wikileak was simply the publisher of said classified information... then, the government has no case. However, if it can be proven that Assange/Wiki conspired with 'x' actors with respect to *how* the classified information was acquired, they may have a case.

EDIT: dammmit... ninja'ed by kk!

**Bran Dawri**

Yes. Agree with Whembly here. As detestable as Infowars and mr Jones are, they should have the same protection from government interference with regards to free speech as CNN (Facebook is not the government and can boot either one if it so desires). And so should Wikileaks and Assange. Of course, if they break other laws, they should be liable for those.

**Iron_Captain**

In my opinion there is no real difference between CNN and Infowars in that regard. Both are owned and operated by private citizens, and all citizens of a country should enjoy the right of free speech and protection from censorship, regardless of whether they are a member of a large private news organisation or just an individual posting stuff on the web. That also applies to Assange publishing those documents. Hacking a computer to obtain those documents might be illegal, but publishing them certainly should not be.

**skyth**

Kilkrazy wrote:
It doesn't matter. A journalist is an individual exercising his right of freedom of expression and being paid for it. So is a private person who sets up a website .

Courts have unfortunately ruled otherwise. They said since a blogger wasn't part of a journalist institution that they don't have freedom of the press and were not a journalist.

**Formosa**

So it seems that Canada and Saudi Arabia are continuing to have issues.

**whembly**

skyth wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
It doesn't matter. A journalist is an individual exercising his right of freedom of expression and being paid for it. So is a private person who sets up a website .

Courts have unfortunately ruled otherwise. They said since a blogger wasn't part of a journalist institution that they don't have freedom of the press and were not a journalist.

Do you have citation for that?

**reds8n**

https://twitter.com/jjmacnab/status/1027783814045560832

The So Cal Holy Fire is burning out of control in Orange County. 10,000+ acres have burned, and it's only 5% contained. The sheriff has arrested Forrest Clark, 51, on suspicion of arson. He threatened to burn everything down in a message to the sheriff a week earlier.

read the thread/his history.

**BobtheInquisitor**

Is there a summary somewhere that won't cause my iPad to crash?

Here in OC, the whole sky is orange, and all the light that comes through is dim and orange. It's surreal.

**Vaktathi**

Report: 50 Dem House candidates oppose Pelosi for speaker

So, that's an interesting number, but with no clear alternative and Pelosi's powerful position, experience, and fundraising capabilities, it seems like mostly election hot air from the fringes, most of which are not already in office. Not sure if it's indicative of a greater shift or not, but it's interesting nonetheless to see such reports. I'm not a huge fan of Pelosi, but I don't see any challenger.

**DarkTraveler777**

reds8n wrote:
https://twitter.com/jjmacnab/status/1027783814045560832

The So Cal Holy Fire is burning out of control in Orange County. 10,000+ acres have burned, and it's only 5% contained. The sheriff has arrested Forrest Clark, 51, on suspicion of arson. He threatened to burn everything down in a message to the sheriff a week earlier.

read the thread/his history.

That guy is such a piece of gak.

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Here in OC, the whole sky is orange, and all the light that comes through is dim and orange. It's surreal.

LA County too. My car has been covered in ash every morning this week, and by about 3 o'clock in the afternoon there is, like you say, a surreal orange haze out. Has a very apocalyptic vibe to it.

**Prestor Jon**

skyth wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
It doesn't matter. A journalist is an individual exercising his right of freedom of expression and being paid for it. So is a private person who sets up a website .

Courts have unfortunately ruled otherwise. They said since a blogger wasn't part of a journalist institution that they don't have freedom of the press and were not a journalist.

This is the issue I was thinking of when I asked those questions before. What's the difference between somebody with a blog or website and the NYT or CNN? I'm personally ok with giving everybody with a media presence the same free press protections but I don't know if there's actual legal precedence for that. Some of my friends were (are?) all into conspiracy theories and sites like InfoWars and ZeroHedge but I haven't been to those sites in years. I used to just find Alex Jones amusing with his chemtrails and interdimensional psychic vampire conspiracies but he got way too crazy with 9/11 and Sandy Hook. Is InfoWars actually a news site or is it just Jones ranting? I don't see any real difference between blogger enthusiasts covering current events or sports teams or govt institutions and free lance journalists and journalists employed by media corporations but if a website is just personal rants/opinions and blatant self promotion for financial gain I have difficulty equating that with journalism.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vaktathi wrote:
Report: 50 Dem House candidates oppose Pelosi for speaker

So, that's an interesting number, but with no clear alternative and Pelosi's powerful position, experience, and fundraising capabilities, it seems like mostly election hot air from the fringes, most of which are not already in office. Not sure if it's indicative of a greater shift or not, but it's interesting nonetheless to see such reports. I'm not a huge fan of Pelosi, but I don't see any challenger.

Mid term elections which means the only voters you can count on are Party base voters or single issue myrmidons or movement activists. Every Democratic candidate is equally not a Republican so they have to find ways differentiate themselves from other Democrat candidates so you get the infighting about who's the furthest left or the purest. Republicans do it too, nobody can ever be conservative enough because there will always be somebody wanting to challenge from a further right position. Post primaries a lot of candidates try to walk back to a more moderate position, especially in presidential election years but mid terms just don't draw a lot of voters so there's a stronger need to appeal to the rabid base.

**Frazzled**

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
reds8n wrote:
https://twitter.com/jjmacnab/status/1027783814045560832

The So Cal Holy Fire is burning out of control in Orange County. 10,000+ acres have burned, and it's only 5% contained. The sheriff has arrested Forrest Clark, 51, on suspicion of arson. He threatened to burn everything down in a message to the sheriff a week earlier.

read the thread/his history.

That guy is such a piece of gak.

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Here in OC, the whole sky is orange, and all the light that comes through is dim and orange. It's surreal.

LA County too. My car has been covered in ash every morning this week, and by about 3 o'clock in the afternoon there is, like you say, a surreal orange haze out. Has a very apocalyptic vibe to it.

Been there with a wildfire that burned for weeks behind our house. Be safe. Was checking out for old people especially right now

**Asherian Command**

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-threatens-to-suspend-protesting-nfl-players-without-pay

Add to the list of illegal acts!

The NFL players are at it again – taking a knee when they should be standing proudly for the National Anthem. Numerous players, from different teams, wanted to show their “outrage” at something that most of them are unable to define. They make a fortune doing what they love……

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 10, 2018

…..Be happy, be cool! A football game, that fans are paying soooo much money to watch and enjoy, is no place to protest. Most of that money goes to the players anyway. Find another way to protest. Stand proudly for your National Anthem or be Suspended Without Pay!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 10, 2018

Ugh so anyway....

So essentially his tweets violate this:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/227

(a) Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity—
(1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or
(2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

(b) In this section, the term “covered government person” means—
(1) a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress;
(2) an employee of either House of Congress; or
(3) the President, Vice President, an employee of the United StatesPostal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, or any other executive branch employee (as such term is defined under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code).
(Added Pub. L. 110–81, title I, § 102(a), Sept. 14, 2007, 121 Stat. 739; amended Pub. L. 112–105, § 18(a), Apr. 4, 2012, 126 Stat. 304.)

As this is a partisan issue and he is threatening players it violates this law potentially at least... Which will not be enacted upon by a Republican held congress...

Who knows at this point trump has violated so many ethical laws that I am surprised he hasn't be suspended from twitter.

**ScarletRose**

I actually had to click on that because my first reaction was how can he suspend anyone from anything? He's not a team owner, he can't tell other people how to run things.

Then I thought about and it does perfectly fit the wanna-be strong man persona he's been trying to cultivate - no one can have money unless Great Leader approves of them. Same with that spat with Jeff Bezos that had been going on.

**Asherian Command**

ScarletRose wrote:
I actually had to click on that because my first reaction was how can he suspend anyone from anything? He's not a team owner, he can't tell other people how to run things.

Then I thought about and it does perfectly fit the wanna-be strong man persona he's been trying to cultivate - no one can have money unless Great Leader approves of them. Same with that spat with Jeff Bezos that had been going on.

Our dear leader has no idea that he isn't a dictator.

He envies dictators...

Like how....