Exactly.
Exactly.
Russia is the Canada of Asia.
I wouldn't worry.
It's an Opinion article, so what would you expect?
Honestly, seeing all of your evil women supporting Clancy, we should encourage pairings with the bear, by force if necessary.
It's not even an argument; it's a question.
You mean if the government banned youtube access to the president just because the president didn't like youtube?
Cause what you described has nothing to do with granting or denying the privilege of access.
Credentials for....access.....
So the answer is yes to my question.
So it's your position that denying access to the press is equivalent to quashing (or potentially quashing) the press?
I am asking for clarification. Do you want to be understood?
As I said in post 35:
A constitutional right to a speech venue. No matter where that venue is.
The Constitutional Right to a speech venue either exists or it does not.
Which is it?
Your position is that banning some, not all, media outlets access is constitutional?
It depends on whether access is a constitutional right.
In Canada, the PM controls all access to all his events, and even though the CBC is government-funded news, it still doesn't have blanket access.
What is "it" meant to be in that sentence? The Constitution?
post #35
Before you attempt to defend whatever it is you're arguing, let us keep in mind the media outlets in question now have their credentials (temporarily) restored with the judge noting the administration likely trampled due process.
As in Sherrill where there was a due process issue, yet no access was ultimately granted to Sherrill on any Constitutional ground. Has anything changed since that case?
Trump is the best thing that ever happened to China.
That would have been nice to hear from your press at the White House... if the opinion reporters were allowed to get near Xi.
There's no disingenuous way to frame an issue of a constitutional right to a speech venue.
No matter where that venue is.
Cutting off that last part might not be disingenuous... but it does leave out an important bit.
And it still is an either-or condition. Does it, or does it not exist?
There's no disingenuous way to frame an issue of a constitutional right to a speech venue. No matter where that venue is.
It either exists or it does not.
Your position is that banning some, not all, media outlets access is constitutional?
It depends on whether access is constitutional.
You never answered what the remedy is.
Do you deny Trump banned these media organizations because of stories they have published?
Of course he did, but it's constitutional. Just like in that case:
Sherrill v. Knight (D.C. Circuit, 1977)
The judge never ordered access, and Sherrill never got access after the case was won.
Do you think a judge can compel a US President and force him to share his personal space with all 340 million people? How would that be constitutional?
It's an honest question: if banning reporters from his home is unconstitutional, what is the remedy?
This is a red herring.
I agree that using "people's house" rhetoric doesn't grant constitutional access to the president's home.
I'm still waiting for you to tell me what does.
Think of this as a blessing. You can still tune in and hear your favorite personality talk about your president while also sparing you the misery of seeing his face up close.
I'm saying you correctly identified regulatory capture.
The question mark tells all.
You speak like you never heard the term "regulatory capture"
I'm not arguing semantics; I am arguing reality. “The people’s house” is ceremonial language, not a press-pass entitlement. Go tell your president "this is the people's home, not the president's home." Tell us how it goes.
1. Its the people house, not the president's.
If you really believe that, take a stroll inside and see how far you get. While you are at it, say you are a new resident. Cause it's the people's house and not the president's home. Tell us how it worked out.
Think of this as a blessing. You can still tune in and hear your favorite personality talk about your president while also sparing you the misery of seeing his face up close.
I doubt your legal system will be able to do anything for the same reason a Trump judge can't order CNN to air your president if they don't like what he says. A judge is very unlikely to say, “President, you must personally let this reporter into your event.” ...it's more likely, as in Sherrill, that rules will be rewritten, but the end result is that those outlets are never getting near your president again at his home.
What are you expecting a judge to rule? That every person in the country has access to your president's house at any time?
Sherrill v. Knight (D.C. Circuit, 1977) is the closest case I pulled up, the judge never ordered access, and Sherrill never got access after the case was won.
Right, Canada has no agency for 11 straight years of near-flat growth, so don't blame Canada. It's a vassal state de facto, according to this reasoning.
The Chinese AI argument above reduces Canada to a helpless bystander who had no policy choices for eleven years, on housing, energy, productivity, immigration levels, investment, regulation, or trade dependence.
“Trump made bad trade choices” and “Canada’s long stagnation is Trump's fault” are wildly different claims.
My position =/= the political power positions. Most people actually don't align along incentives if they take a moment to think about it. I'm saying: they should negotiate, but their stagnant economy means any deal that doesn’t visibly and vastly improve things is politically toxic, so they’re incentivized to reject deals with the upside of redirected public unrest. No contradiction. Under the most favorable deals in the past, Canada still lagged. It's nearly impossible to get an even better one under any US president, certainly not to the degree that would have any noticeable effect.
Politically, it's suicide for Canada to negotiate. Getting a good trade deal isn't going to fix our economy at this point, as it's been pretty stagnant for 11 years, good deals or none. And getting any deal where the economy flatlines is political suicide, so it's in Canada's political interest to torpedo every deal.
Like I said, that's why you negotiate instead of making idle threats.
Specifically, Ford threatened to shut off electricity exports to New York, Michigan, and Minnesota entirely; he imposed a temporary surcharge but never carried out the cutoff. Federally, Canada also threatened a further C$125B in tariffs beyond the initial measures, and that tranche was never imposed. Those are the uncarried threats I meant.