He pleaded guilty to three counts of criminal solicitation of a minor on Monday. The remaining 32 charges were dismissed as part of a plea deal, according to a spokesperson for the Attorney General’s Office.
Criminal solicitation of a minor carries a maximum sentence of up to 10 years in prison for each count. First-degree attempted sexual exploitation of a minor carries a maximum sentence of up to 20 years in prison for each count.
South Carolina Circuit Court judges (along with many other kinds of judges) are elected by the General Assembly (state legislature), not directly by the voters of the state. Some judges are appointed by various commissions and councils. None are directly voted on by the citizens.
I mean I think the intention was the votes go to people who will put competent judges in place rather than for hire judges not so much actually vote for the judges themselves.
Also 14th and 19th, plus the Civil Rights Act. A non-corrupt SCOTUS would toss the Florida law immediately, but absent a couple minutes under Warren we have never had one of those.
It’s literally freedom from persecution from the government which is exactly what happened here. Stop parroting shit you’ve heard without understanding what it means
I see you made a new account just to be a bigot. Pretty pathetic, really. Enjoy your imminent ban
Technically he is brown, I really don’t know where the line is anymore for who’s a terrorist and who’s not according to the Peter Griffin skin shade scale, but it’s seemed to devolve into “if he’s a far right person then he must not be a terrorist” because you can’t say it’s conservatives because Jihadists are conservatives, then you have Hindu nationalists, the line really only seems to be “Donald Trump fan” not a terrorist, all others, terrorist.
Also, disgusting how the right keeps talking about what an inspiring and great guy he was. Known for racist tweets towards Obama. Shoots wife several times in the back, in a parking lot. Oh but…
“The tragedy surrounding Steve’s suicide has shocked everyone, and as details come out, people will probably be judgmental,” far-right activist Laura Loomer wrote in a post. “I just know that Steve was a kind man who had personal struggles like everyone else.”
It was an attempted murder in a fucking parking lot. Potentially in front of kids. Potentially a bystander gets hit.
The biggest concentration of folks with the surname Alembik are in Israel, where the brown people aren’t just Muslim but also Jewish, Jews are already usually not treated as white in general, although there are those of us like myself who are pale, blond, and blue eyed, but my Jewish ancestry is Russian in origin, really makes it easier to not be hassled for my mother and grandmother’s religion, although it would be much nicer if Nazis and others didn’t just blindly hate an ethnic/religious group.
Anyways, I’ve seen pics of this guy looking on the brown side and pics of this guy where he looks white, either way, doesn’t matter because he’s all dickhead and the world is a better place without him.
I don’t know. I think shooting your wife and then offing yourself where children might witness it is more of an asshole move than a dickhead move.
Anyway, he’s white enough that the press wouldn’t call him a terrorist, hoodlum, etc. I think that was the parent comment’s point and I was half expecting a black dude or mixed anyway when I went to find a photo.
But yeah, not every Jewish person can pass as white I know. And I agree the world is better off without his energy in it.
Because everyone is afraid of what the lunatic fringe will do is already doing. Nobody wants to appear responsible for escalating the violence.
This demands repeating:
Politicians, media, prosecutors, judges -- There is already violence. There will be more violence. Not if, when. The sooner you stop thinking we can go back the way we came, the quicker we'll be done with all this. The only way out is through.
He also would have been described as a “responsible gun owner” 24 hours ago since the gun was likely legally purchased and he hadn’t lost control of his emotions and killed anyone with it yet.
And then magically, they don’t count, despite buying the same guns, from the same stores, with the same checks then carrying it around under the same laws and storing it with the same optional safety.
It’s a perfect setup. Responsible gun owners can never commit crimes. Maybe it’s time we all started calling the murderers committing crimes with legal guns “former responsible gun owner so and so”.
Principal Lance Murphy is literally just going to die on this hill apparently. Between the massive cost the school district took because of the 2020 court loss over this exact same thing, and this giant L the school district is about to take for not only being now in Violation of Federal Law but also Texas literally passed a law, because of this asshat and the 2020 loss, indicating that he's not legally allowed to do exactly what he's doing.
The school district also filed a lawsuit in state district court asking a judge to clarify whether its dress code restrictions limiting student hair length for boys violates the CROWN Act
Which if you are unsure if your policy is violating a law or not, you should likely not have the policy until the court gives you more clarity. Because if the Courts do indeed indicate that the school is in violation of Texas' CROWN Act, they've just handed this kid millions of dollars in restitution, which I guess they can just pile on top of the millions this school district has blown so far on litigation.
You would think that at some point taxpayers would be up in arms, but nope it's Texas, blowing billions on stupid lawsuits is their thing.
How does a previous case not automatically make the current situation unacceptable? Do they have to retry the exact same situation over and over again?
Because principal is a bully and willing to use his powers to destroy lives. The methods to protect people are very slow and so he gets away with it for years until the district loses a major lawsuit. Then he quietly gets reassigned or retires and we pretend the entire thing never happened.
A previous case is certainly a good argument in court, however the opposition may be able to argue material differentiating circumstances that may not be immediately obvious (in general, not in this case). That is why it isn't considered an automatic win.
To be fair being racist has long been a winning strategy in Texas so you can imagine that their bag of tricks isn’t particularly deep in matters like this
I’m not a kid, but looking back on this type of situation as an adult, I’d settle for half of whatever they offer as long as the administrator(s) driving this were also banned from all public education jobs in the state, permanently. Fines to the district aren’t a deterrent to bad administration on their, but fear of job security absolutely is.
Fuck it makes me so mad when schools make boys cut their hair. My little brother had to cut his hair that he had been growing since he was in his single digits. It was devastating. This was back in the early '00s
Nah, they’re not asking. This is a setup for a challenge of the CROWN Act and a possible reversal. Just watch, they’ll appeal it all the way up to Texas Supreme Court if they need to.
I think the key here is the fact there were 2 people who approached Colie. That substantially shifts the power balance. Its one thing when its 1 on 1 alone and the other person isn’t directly harming you yet, but acting threatening.
When you add a second person who is also engaging in your personal space though, the balance shifts and I think thats what completely justifies a preventative self defence, because when it comes to 2 on 1 you’re margin of safety thins dramatically.
To be specific:
If a single person is threatening you, then abruptly shifts to try and attack you, you have a fairly decent window of safety. You can turn and flee, you can push them away, etc etc. You’re ability to defend yourself after attacked is still quite reasonable.
If two people are threatening though, those options shrink down a lot. The second person can block off your escape, they can both grab you, etc. Once any of that happens you’re ability to defend yourself after attacked is very very unlikely.
So when its 2 on 1, you are a lot more justified to just shoot the person before they actually attack you, because you likely won’t get the chance to shoot them anyways after they attack.
In other words, if Cook hadn’t brought a friend along I think the outcome would have been very very different.
Which radically shifted the balance in his favor when in court. Virginia is a "duty to retreat" state and having the other guy behind him meant he was surrounded.
You’re both wrong about how the duties arise and come up in court as elements of the charge.
The duty on someone privileged to self defend is to use reasonable force, no more than is warranted by the seriousness of the threat and its imminence. Unless the state has a stand your ground statute, evidence showing the defendant could have backed away or otherwise retreated gets admitted and the jury gets instructed that a threat is not considered imminent the facts prove the defendant could have retreated. It’s an implied duty.
In this case, the threat was obviously imminent. The question is whether it was sufficient to justify self defense by lethal force. I think not.
A risk of mere bodily harm is insufficient to warrant countervailing deadly force. There are no facts the defendant can point to, in my opinion, to show his life was in danger.
He testifies that he subjectively felt his life was in danger. I don’t think it was objectively reasonable. I think the facts give rise only to an inference that he was in for a beating.
I think also a big part of why Colie was found not-guilty is that he disengaged, said 3 times “stop” including attempting to swipe away Cook, and only then did he take violent action to end the perceived threat. He fired a single round low into Cook, and then immediately retreated from the scene.
The argument at hand isn’t whether or not he was acting in self defence, but whether he used proportional force to justify it as such, and the jury found that it was proportional, likely due to the factors you described.
I think you are more on the clinical bullshit side.
First of all murder requires intend, planning, using the victims helplessness or particular cruelity.
Second of all, if the guy actually wanted to kill the other one, he wouldn’t have given off a single shot. He would have continued shooting.
Now whether it was appropriate as self defense, or whether people should be rolling around with guns in public in general can be up for debate. But clearly getting robbed and murdered is much more common in the US than in most developed countries, so the driver had more reason to fear for his life if two dudes just jump him. If he had probable reason to fear for his life then using the firearm seems to be an appropriate tool of self defense. And i say that as someone who is against people just casually running around with guns like it is normal in many US states.
Second of all, if the guy actually wanted to kill the other one, he wouldn’t have given off a single shot. He would have continued shooting.
If he didn’t want to kill him, he wouldn’t have pulled out a gun and fucking shot him.
It is impossible to live life without feeling fear, if you carry a gun, you have a responsibility to not immediately react to any pecieved fear by whipping it out and firing it off like a fucking nutjob.
Again you claim that he wanted to kill him, when his actions proved otherwise. That he accepted the death of the guy as a possibility of his actions is not the same as directly wanting to kill him. But thena gain he made it reasonably believable that he feard for his life in that moment, so calculating every possible outcome was not on his brains agenda.
Do you think that such legal prose runs through the minds of people in the heat of the moment? You really expect people to look at things in such a clinical manner when they’re under immediate perceived threat? You think too much of humans and too little of people.
Whether you disagree or not is irrelevant. The fact that the victim was assaulted is all that matters, as it legally justifies the self-defense. Whether you like it or not has nothing to do with it.
You don’t even understand what’s being discussed. If that’s not a problem for you that’s fine but it’s a problem for everyone else when you waste their time with irrelevant points.
On a post about a man defending himself with legally justified force, I’m pretty sure that I’m not the one with a problem for pointing that out. And I know that it’s not my problem that you don’t like that fact.
At least I know better than to speak for everyone else.
So how should he have responded to 2 dudes shoving a phone in his face and harassing him repeatedly even after backing away from them and being told to stop several times ?
Have you ever been assaulted by someone? It doesn’t take any time at all for the situation to go from what they were doing to violence. At which point he would have been screwed. He gave them ample opportunity to fuck off. 20 seconds of someone getting in your face and being aggressive feels a hell of a lot longer than 20 seconds sitting on your ass arguing with people on the internet.
Yes, yes it can. In this situation, we have one normal guy just trying to live his life in peace. We have one nutjob harassing him for the lulz and giggles from like minded nutjobs. Finally, there’s a second nutjob defending his behavior right here on this very forum.
You’re being disingenuous. It’s not a normal situation, therefore there is no normal response.
The question you ought to be asking is what makes it normal to be approached from behind by two large men and repeatedly accosted by them shoving a loud phone in your ear?
to be approached from behind by two large men and repeatedly accosted by them shoving a loud phone in your ear?
They asked you a very clear question, what about this makes it normal or ok to shoot someone?
Being confused and paranoid is not justifiable reason to shoot someone.
Honestly, you guys are acting like a fucking old person with a gun is allowed to shoot every trans person they see because it’s confusing and scary and they’re not sure how to respond.
There you go again, building straw men. There’s a significant difference between being assaulted by two large men versus having a boy standing behind a door on a porch.
If you can’t see that, you need professional help. If you’re trying to troll, you’re doing a shitty job of it.
The victim clearly communicated his desire for the interaction to end. Several times.
The victim attempted to flee the situation. Several times.
The victim attempted physical resistance.
After all this, he still had two physically imposing people forcing confrontation on him. He clearly did not just the bare minimum but in fact pretty much did everything that anyone ever asks a self-defense shooting defender to do before resorting to a gun.
Even in this thread, all these people who can’t stand the thought of this poor guy being not guilty can’t really come up with any further reasonable thing they’d have expected this guy to do. He was out of options to peacefully end the situation.
The other big thing that so many armchair quarterbacks here don’t seem to account for is just how fast and how unpredictable dangerous encounters happen. The fact that there were two attackers, and that they were both bigger than the victim and both within 10 feet of him meant that if they decided at any moment to escalate their assault to violence, by the time the victim realized that’s what was about to happen (if he even did realize it before it began) it was already too late. They’d be able to close the distance and physically restrain him before he’d have time to draw, aim, and fire.
Sure, we all know now that this idiot was just an idiot and not a violent threat, but the victim didn’t have that benefit of hindsight, and in the situation, he knew he was being targeted and that if he waited for violence to happen to him, it’d be too late. Too many here want to pick it all apart and think it over for a few hours, then say what the victim should have done with his mere seconds to figure it out.
If anything, he showed incredible restraint. He repeatedly attempted to deescalate, to no avail, and even when making the decision to use his gun in self defense, he immediately stopped once the immediate threat was addressed, and then shifted back to a less lethal form of deescalation: retreat.
Being realistic, if the moron attacker is already well enough to attend the trial, that’s even pretty low damage. He’s lucky for that shot placement (intentional or not).
Imagine the comments here if, instead of being a gun carrier, the guy was some kind of martial arts dude and instead of shooting him, he punched him in the face or something and when he went down, he hit his head and died. Nobody would be demonizing the guy then, even though he fucking killed a guy. That people are doing it now shows that they’re just so anti-gun that details and logic don’t matter.
Imagine the comments here if, instead of being a gun carrier, the guy was some kind of martial arts dude and instead of shooting him, he punched him in the face or something and when he went down, he hit his head and died. Nobody would be demonizing the guy then, even though he fucking killed a guy. That people are doing it now shows that they’re just so anti-gun that details and logic don’t matter.
Because 9/10 times you punch a guy they don’t die, 9/10 times you shoot a guy in the chest they do.
Jesus christ, try thinking with your brain before you unload a wall of bullshit defending dumb as fuck gun culture. The entire rest of the world lives their lives without being strapped all day and immediately resorting to deadly force like paranoid wack jobs.
It is not normal to behave aggressively towards someone, get within range to hit them, and then repeatedly close in when the other person tries to backs away. It is not normal for cis people and it is not normal for trans people.
When someone does those things, it generally signals they intend to start a fight.
I’m curious to know if more people agree with your view that shooting someone doesn’t seem like a proportional response based on what we know, ot if the YouTubers deserves it.
Emotional it’s a totally proportional response according to what the pranksters did to him. Humiliating people can easily provoke them to act aggressively. Especially people of low status who can’t afford a lawsuit. Every police officer knows that.
But of course a human society should have laws to prevent its members from this kind of situations.
It should be illegal to provoke, assault, harass, disrespect , threaten, or humiliate anybody in the way those pranksters did.
And it should be illegal for any random guy to carry a loaded and unlocked gun around in his pocket.
But because neither is illegal in the United States, the number of gun victims there is more similar to that in war zones.
And obviously none of the Americans in this thread give a shit about the social problematics of the case and rather fight irreconcilably over defending or blaming the shooter.
This is definitionally an ad hominem argument; i.e. you’re attacking people in place of actually attacking the argument.
But to refute your attacks on people’s character, I’m just going to say, you’re from lemmy.ca, so I imagine you’re Canadian. sndmn is also lemmy.ca, so I imagine they’re a Canadian. If you check @ram, the account I’ve been using until I signed up to my current instance, as well as the content I interact with, you’ll see that I’m a Canadian.
As for the idea that maybe I’m some pro-gun PoS, I’m radically anti-gun. I think our gun laws in Canada are much too lax. The fact that pigs walk around with guns means that criminals are more likely to carry guns as well.
Not if I’m to emapthise with the person in the video, instead of making emotional judgements reliant solely on reading articles and a 3rd person video perspective, I can try to understand that people living in the US are painfully aware that those around them are constantly surrounded by guns. I can also try and understand that if you have an easy “fuck off” button that carries big consequences with it, you’ll be quicker to jump to it the moment things get dicey.
I do think he was too quick to pull out the gun, but seeing as he’s a human, I also understand people make hasty decisions that are suboptimal. So if I look at things outside a clinical perspective and consider how I’d react in such a situation, with at least two much larger men playing something weird in my ear, chasing me, and continuing to play it as I try to disengage - them refusing to allow me to disengage, I can very well see why someone who would go for the big fuck-off button.
Maybe I describe it in a clinical way - that’s just what it’s like to be neurodivergent for some people. But the reality is that my perspective is defined by my empathy for the person, despite not being someone who’s had to suffer living in a gun-happy country, and despite being someone who, based on life experience, would likely die before pulling that big fuck off button on someone.
Try empathising with someone for a bit instead of jumping to “guns are the problem.” The only problem with guns is that they were involved at all. Any situation with a gun is more deadly than without, but the reality of the dystopia that is the USA is that situations have guns.
Dude they will never get it because they do not equate these actions with fear and cowardice. They see the man with the gun as the tough guy, not the paranoid weirdo that he is.
Even the sane Americans that back gun control, etc. share this bias. They have grown up round this shit, it’s ingrained.
For context, I’m a liberal gun owner who doesn’t carry all the time.
At first, I felt the shooter was on very thin ice. Your comment completely shifted my view on the situation. I might well have taken the shot myself, given the 2 on 1, and one coming from behind.
And remember kids! This is why we wait for a court of law to bring out the evidence before forming a solid opinion!
Thanks you so much for changing my mind, and doing so in a sane and logical manner.
Follow up question about power difference. What if the defender is say really small or weak. Say a 5 foot 60 year old woman and 1 6canf half feet tall young man. Would she have a fastee right to self defense?
Again with the motherfucking passive voice! Yet again, car violence gets minimized by the piece of shit headline writers.
No, strikers were not “hit by vehicle,” you sniveling sorry excuse for a “journalist!” A driver propelled his two-ton piece of heavy machinery into them. Quit minimizing the perpetrator’s agency just because he used a car as his attempted-murder weapon!
I am sick and tired of this car-supremacist propaganda.
🤷sure? Don’t think anyone here disagrees with that statement. Also, that’s not what’s happening here in this thread. This isn’t a headline in Conservative. It’s a hyperbolic comment rebuttal to hyperbolic sensationalism, meant to drive the point home. I think this is satire?
Yes. No. It was an example not meant to be taken seriously. So as satire, it needn’t be called out bc those in the know, should know. And since you seem to agree with the sentiment, you’re in the in group, and we are all confused why as a peer with shared values to whatever extent, you’re taking this comment somewhere so far removed.
Might I ask what you do for a living in earnest? I’m paid to communicate which I’m not always great at. But it always makes me wonder how people use that skill at their trade.
I’m asking bc… do you never share an example for arguments sake not meant to be taken literally? With people with whom you’re neither related nor friends? It’s kind of a part of society.
Like at work I might finish a thought with “and then some call to action about buy my shit or something” but my colleagues neither question my recognition of the value of our product nor my regard for our prospective customers. They know it’s a placeholder bc the context of the conversation.
I mean, if you need clarification on what a professional article should look like, then you can find guides on the internet or take a class in school.
I’m not here to explain things to you. I predict you’re the kind of person who, after I give an explanation, will just keep asking questions and scrutinizing it because you don’t like what’s being said.
I don’t hold you above this behavior, which is why I’m not playing your little game.
I’m sure you can find out this information on your own if you really wanted to, but you don’t.
I may sound cynical, but protecting jobs is hardly ever a good argument for blocking new technology in my opinion. You’re at best delaying the inevitable. Society is more likely better off learning early how to use the workforce for new and better tasks. Of course, this needs a healthy and working society, so I of course understand the individual concerns.
Safety on the other hand is a very valid reason to hold back new technology.
Definitely agree with that, but the tech is definitely not there to handle all situations, and as long as that’s the case, a human should be there. He should’ve signed the law, and if self driving actually becomes viable enough they could repeal it then
I may have misunderstood, but afaik it’s still not generally allowed to use self driving trucks - each case / technology will need permission. Those are the once that should be withdrawn when necessary due to safety concerns, instead of giving a blanket ban on the technology for workforce protection reasons.
Thing is, the folks that are pushing these technologies don’t give rip about safety OR jobs, just profits. The government should be considering all these things, they mostly are concerned about getting re-elected and scoring culture war partisan points. Tech doesn’t work in a vacuum. It is naive and dangerous to think is neutral.
Definitely agree with that, but the tech is definitely not there to handle all situations, and as long as that’s the case, a human should be there.
I disagree. I think the bar should be "safer than a human." If our bar were "perfect," self driving would never be permitted without a human at the wheel.
I’m not really talking about avoiding accidents, I’m talking about what happens after something goes wrong (accident, flat tyre, load gets loose, whatever). Who’s going to deal with that? Does the company need to send someone to unblock traffic? What’s the SLA on that? What if the unblocking guy is stuck in traffic?
We’re talking about big rigs here, there’s already rarely anything a driver can do to “deal with” something like a load coming loose or a flat tire anyways. All you can really do is hope you’ve noticed the problem soon enough to get off the highway, which is obviously something that an AI would be better at with its many sensors and lack of distractability.
Even in situations where the truck ends up stuck in the middle lane of a big freeway, it’s not like the driver can just get out and push it off to the side of the road. Except for a few pretty rare cases, all the driver does is set up some pylons and then sit in the sleeper and wait for the heavy duty tow truck to show up.
As long as it doesn’t become another externality that places the expenses on the government/taxpayer, I’m okay with it. Someone in this thread mentioned there are teams to handle situations like that, and they sounds like enough for me.
I disagree that having a human there would actually help resolve any safety issues. Either the tech is ready or it’s not. Putting a human in the impossible position of needing to suddenly override the machine after hours of nothing happening is not the solve.
FYI insanity plea is arguably the worse sentence if successful because you’re sent to a secure medical facility and can be held indefinitely until they decide you are “better”
Conservatism is a plague of violence, oppression and death. It always has been.
History has shown that conservatism cannot be defeated by pacifism. Conservatives see pacifism as an invitation to attack. Always be prepared to respond to a conservative assault.
Teach your children why we don’t do business with or keep relationships with conservatives. Together we can marginalize hate by marginalizing haters.
The members of those same labor unions will “reward” Biden by voting for Trump. The number of workers in the trades who are blind MAGAts is astonishing.
This move will not change that.
And it doesn’t help that Democrats will do nothing to sell this news to these people either. As always Democrats act like their accomplishments are like the 7 herbs and spices in the KFC recipe or the special formula for Coke… well hidden so no one finds out about it.
Yes, but ADVERTISE it. Sell your accomplishments because lord knows, no one else will. The news media has been actively attacking stuff that Biden has done while giving Trump one free-pass after another. The news media is not on our side. So if they won’t celebrate Democratic wins, Democrats need to, and turn it into a big deal.
IBEW Local 26 member here. Journeyman Electrical Foreman.
Most states with strong union participation are blue states. Many red states are against unions.
I get where you are coming from, but especially considering construction workers are 3% of the workforce in America, one can’t expect my idiot coworkers to have much of an impact.
Also, Biden or Trump, I don’t care. I don’t trust any of these rich people in politics. They are all crooks, IMHO.
Don’t discount yourself or your coworkers - shifting the votes of 3% of Americans could have changed the election results of almost every presidential election since 1992 if they went from the winning candidate to the losing candidate.
The top dogs being crooks sucks, but shouldn’t mean that the only acceptable response is political apathy - not doing anything is functionally equivalent to acceptance of the status quo.
So in practice you are handing your vote to the GOP and Trump. Congratulations on having been convinced by the “apathetic” narrative into handing power over to the GOP.
The other thinks it’s important to get along with the book burners. They think the book burners are decent people who are just misguided on a few issues. They act like civil debate will solve all problems.
Big difference with Trump is that a win in 2024 will be the end of democracy in USA.
I’m not being dramatic: He’ll pardon himself for everything (as already established) and then use stacked supreme court / police / military / mob rule to prevent himself being removed again.
The Left loves to pretend that they are so media savvy. That they know all the trends and how to navigate the social media wilderness and what is happening out there. Clearly they don’t or else they should leverage that supposed knowledge to market their ideas to the entire nation.
In short, what should Democrats be doing? The exact OPPOSITE of what they are doing now.
Actually celebrate their wins. I know part of why they don’t is pure cluelessness - they legitimately think that average Joes will find out about these programs on their own. They don’t. Average voters have no idea of what happens in Washington.
Part of it is because Democrats are meek. God forbid they ever go on the offensive and get the media’s attention on topics.
Lastly, part of it is typical “liberal guilt”. The incredibly annoying attitude that some have that god forbid we celebrate anything good, because there might be some one else who isn’t doing so well. It brings down everyone’s mood and makes it so that Democrats are always looking to the bad side of even positive news. Biden tomorrow could announce that nuclear fussion is viable and the country will have free energy, and there will be some on the Left who will complain that fission might negatively impact the northern tree bullfrog or some other meaningless bullshit like that.
It wasn’t Republicans that sent most of the union manufacturing jobs overseas.
They can’t sell it because voters are smarter than this, ‘most pro union President ever’ busting up union strikes doesn’t pull a strong vote of confidence
This link says that 70% of CEOs are Republican and CEOs have direct control over a company’s labor force. Maximizing profits for shareholder profit is what CEOs do, and shipping jobs overseas is the easiest, and laziest, ways of doing that.
‘The impetus for a North American free trade zone began with U.S. president Ronald Reagan, who made the idea part of his 1980 presidential campaign. After the signing of the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement in 1988, the administrations of U.S. president George H. W. Bush, Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari, and Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney agreed to negotiate what became NAFTA’
The Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement superseded by NAFTA.
You are simply saying the same thing over and over again and you're still wrong. Arguing semantics is silly at best.
The first trade agreement was signed by Reagan and Mulroney. I remember the negotiations happening and was disgusted by how Mulroney simply caved to what Reagan wanted (as many other Canadians were at the time).
The agreement never helped Canada at all. It was only good for the US exports. It didn't lower costs to us or help Canada.
I agree but don’t blame dems that they can’t penetrate the propaganda networks and social media spaces owned and dominated by right wingers–they are effectively closed loops at this point.
It really sucks that Democratic policies tend to have a massive impact but take a long time to produce, while conservative policies have an equally huge impact but take no time to destroy everything.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.