US Senate Overrides Obama’s Veto – Chaos Imminent

“The Senate on Tuesday unanimously passed a bill that would allow families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia for its alleged connection to the attacks, pushing the kingdom one step closer to having to follow through on its pledge to sell hundreds of billions of dollars of United States assets that could be frozen by the courts. Carrying out that divestment pledge will be a long, difficult, complicated and likely costly process.”
 
See After 9/11 Bill, Could Saudi Arabia Really Sell All Its U.S. Assets?
Today, the US Senate overrode Obama’s veto, 97:1. That suggests the House will be more bold in doing the same. Then chaos will result. The Saudis have promised to pull their assets out of USA, hundreds of $billions in treasury bills and many other investments. 2016 could undo the tidy recovery USA has made in Obama’s term. Even a gradual withdrawal could lower the value of the dollar, raise interest rates, ding the stock-market, possibly trigger a nuclear arms race in the region and raise the price of gold.

Thanks, Trump, and others, for reckless endangerment of the world’s financial system. While you follow each other into a black hole the world is growing dark.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in politics and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to US Senate Overrides Obama’s Veto – Chaos Imminent

  1. ram says:

    It doesn’t matter what Saudi Arabia says they are going to do. The facts on the ground are they are occupied by US troops.

  2. oiaohm says:

    DrLoser except you have also made a major mistake.
    I explicitly left Sharia Law out of the equation. I explicitly pointed out that those who choose to determine Religious Law (Canon or Sharia) are hugely unlikely to consult Wikipedia first.
    Technically if you want correct Sharia law is not a Religious Law system. It is mistakenly called a Religious Law system due to a massive miss translation problem.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_law
    Islamic law (قانون إسلامي qānūn ʾIslāmī)
    Note the qanum bit it mentioned on the Canon law page as the Arabic for Canon. So there is a Canon Islamic law that you will notice on the Religious law page of the wikipedia and it does appear in Arabic text as Canon Islamic Law as true Arabic words. Please remember Quran is make from some of the same books as the Christian bible so the both in fact have identical law classifications. So Islamic and Christian overlap at this point.

    Sharia (shari’a) in Arabic is شريعة See big problem yet this is 100 percent not the Arabic spelling of Canon. Sharia is system of implementation of law. Number 2 in Arabic Sharia and Islamic law are two different things you might say. Other than the fact you see in Arabic texts being translated to english شريعة إسلامي What is Islamic Sharia being also translated to english as Islamic law{highly suspect translation} or Islamic (Sharia) Law{what is closer to correct}.

    So this leaves as in a completely horible location. Lot of the english documents talking about Sharia law are using miss translated documents.
    .
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_Islamic_law_by_country
    Now if you look at application Sharia can and has been implemented without Canon Islamic law (qānūn ʾIslāmī).

    Normans implemented Sharia law without the Canon Islamic law(qānūn ʾIslāmī) bit. Then the Normans brought that to England then that spread globally. Islamic Sharia does not have to implement Canon Islamic law(qānūn ʾIslāmī) either as Islamic countries with legal system based on Islamic Sharia may or may not enforce Canon Islamic law by legal system.

    Basically we have a mother of a mess of translation here. Islamic law(qānÅ«n ʾIslāmÄ«) this should be translated into english as Canon Islamic Law not as Islamic law. Sharia should be either Sharia law or Islamic (Sharia) law with or without Canon Islamic Law. Yes Sharia law with Canon is written in translating the words to english “Canon Islamic (Sharia) Law” that is 1 to 1 word swap so the source Arabic documents stating it have 4 Arabic words and english has 4 words. Dougman issue was Canon was strictly on the wrong place and was ignoring that Canon and Sharia in Arabic are in fact two things. So the it does not matter if you are Christian or Islamic the problem causing law is a form of Canon Law and the Canon Law in Islamic or Christian is the Religions Law.

    Canon Islamic law can be implemented with or without Sharia Law. Sharia law can be implemented with or without Canon Islamic Law.

    We really don’t want Canon Islamic Law and we don’t want Christian Canon law put before the rule of law either.

    Make Religious Law a lot simpler when you understand that both Islamic and Christian both have Canon Law and that is at times a mega big problem. Yes Religious Law as the same words in Arabic and English for Islamic and Christian being Canon/Qanun. Same word with same meaning just written differently.

    DrLoser the wikipedia is not a 100 percent source of facts when you are seeing a miss match in places it really does pay to dig deeper. Yes the Religious Law page in the wikipedia has a miss match people ignore.

    By the way the word Law in Arabic is القانونin now you see a big problem yes you will find “Sharia Law” and “Islamic Sharia Law” and “Islamic (Sharia) Law” using real Arabic words in Arabic documents in countries that don’t implement Canon Islamic Law in legal system.

    Basically DrLoser calling Sharia law a Religious Law is a mother of a translation stuff up. You are not on your own screwing this one up.

    Having debates over Islamic law systems it would be good if people did bother to spend the time to in fact get the wording right then we might be able to have a debate over the topic that makes sense. This is why the anti Sharia Law groups are so wrong. They need to be Anti Canon Islamic Law.

    I call it a good slide of hand by those wanting Canon Islamic Law. Having people vote against Sharia law allows them to strip away the right to trial and jury of peers and so on and end up being left with pure Canon Islamic Law. Sharia law without Canon Islamic law is not too bad.

    So we go attack a country that is under Sharia law so letting the real evil ones wanting Canon Islamic law act without requiring to give people proper trials because we were there to destroy Sharia law right so now they don’t have to obey what Sharia law mandates.

    Remember Sharia law is what gives Islamic world right to trial before a judge and jury. Canon Islamic law contains lots of the things we don’t want.

    DrLoser you are so far out of your depth here is not funny.

    Sorry you had not technical knowledge you this field and you decided to stick you head into the topic DrLoser and be absolutely wrong. Its not the first time you have been absolutely wrong when you have attacked me either.

  3. DrLoser says:

    I have to say, Fifi, that it is somehow very comforting to come back after the Summer break, only to discover that you still cannot manage a simple a-href when you drop a turd-bomb internet link.
    You can blame every other atrocious blemish inherent in your walls o’gibberish on dyslexia, glue ear, or whatever. But you really have no excuse for this, if you persist in claiming any sort of technical ability whatsoever.
    Baby steps, princess, baby steps. Just try an a-href every now and again. The world will thank you.
    Not as much as they would thank you for shutting up entirely, but hey, the world is apparently very tolerant of feebs.

  4. DrLoser says:

    That is strictly not Sharia law.

    I explicitly left Sharia Law out of the equation. I explicitly pointed out that those who choose to determine Religious Law (Canon or Sharia) are hugely unlikely to consult Wikipedia first. So what do you come back with, Fifi? A link to Wikipedia.
    You’re such a feeb!
    Might as well quote Wikipedia back at you in terms of Canon Law. Read the first thirteen words. I know your tiny little brain starts to ache beyond the first paragraph or so.
    Oh, and before you triumphantly shout “Hey, it says Christian here!” I will gently point out that
    a) You have not mentioned the Christian distinction here. Quite the reverse, in fact.
    b) Terms such as “Canon Law” can easily be expanded into equivalent domains.
    Jane, you ignorant slut!

  5. Wizard Emeritus says:

    “Does saying my name give you an erection? Once is enough!”

    Why do you ask, Dougie?

  6. oiaohm says:

    Canon law is whatever the politico-religious organisation in charge of meting out legal judgements says it is, Fifi.
    That is strictly not Sharia law. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_law
    Note section 4) qiyās or legal reasoning

    Sharia law mandates a trial and rights of appeal before persecution also includes rights to jury trial. So is Sharia not a Canon law where a politico-religious organisation has final say. Sharia law is way more embedded than we like to admit.
    http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com.au/2008/06/is-sharia-basis-for-english-common-law.html
    The idea of trial by jury that the USA, Canada, and Australia uses has its roots in Sharia law define of legal reasoning.

    So the reality is Canada, USA, Australia, UK and many other places already has non-islamic Sharia law. Yes the first two parts of Islamic Sharia law removed but the 3 and 4 parts of Sharia Law is used in country who system is based of the UK courts daily.

    Really this simplifies the debate over Sharia Law a lot. Should the courts recognise what is written the the Quran and Sunnah yes or no as that is the difference really.

    This is why is so bad when people start arguing against Sharia Law incorrectly. Reality if you say we don’t want any Sharia law at all should we strip you of the trial by jury that Sharia law is the source of dougman.

    Hand on bible and vow before giving testimony that started in the UK system was a direct replacement for the Quran in a Sharia court and the wording vow uses is almost identical after translation for the vow. This kinda tells close we are to Sharia law already.

    This is why I have a problem with those demanding Sharia Law its not like we don’t already have large percentage of Sharia Law already in usage.

    Here is something fun Quran and sunnah don’t have to be applied to non Muslims under Sharia law this is why in many countries under Sharia Law non Muslims are allowed to drink alcohol and other things that is a forbid by the Quran. In fact Sharia law can decide to ignore using the Quran and sunnah on a Muslim using mercy clause.

    So the existing legal system in UK, USA, Canada and Australia is already Sharia law for non Muslims and with the mercy clause over Quran and Sunnah usage automatically applied to all Muslims instead of being a judge/jury choice so judge and jury have no reason to read the text. Yes Sharia Law directly admits people are allowed different religion believes and should not be punished for it as long as it does not interfere with the peace.

    There is a reason why you see it written as Islamic(Sharia) not just Sharia law. Because Sharia Law Quran and sunnah usage is optional. The 3 and 4 parts of Sharia law are not optional and no way do we want to lose those from our systems.

    Kinda important to understand what you are fighting over. It is a serous question when someone say they want Sharia law is why when we already have Sharia law for non Muslims in our system legal systems applied to everyone.

    Canon law systems are really nightmares. There are still many areas where Canon law is used. The nightmare of Canon Law systems is no requirement to keep records of criminal actions so repeat offenders get off over and over again and has no proper requirement for a judge and jury system.

    Cultural issues is not legal system design.
    http://askanthony.weebly.com/australian-witchcraft-laws.html
    Look up witchcraft in USA courts as well dougman. Learn something even your legal system has allowed things to be crimes that are wrong and things that should be crimes be legal. Cultural issues create stuffed up laws for a legal system to enforce. Shiria law like it or not is a well designed legal system. Now the laws different Shiria law systems around the world enforce are different levels of questionable due to Cultural interference with written laws.

    Problem here is you look at court systems based off UK laws you also find Cultural interference to allow things like slavery and punishment of witches and so on. So all legal systems suffer from same issues with culture stuffing them up. So perfectly good legal system can be stuffed up in implementation.

  7. dougman says:

    Pogson quotes the CIA World Factbook, inside it states:

    Legal system:
    Islamic (sharia) legal system with some elements of Egyptian, French, and customary law; note – several secular codes have been introduced; commercial disputes handled by special committees.

    Crap indeed! Thank you for confirming what I stated previously.

  8. dougman wrote, “The constitutions of the UAE, the State of Qatar, the Kingdom of Bahrain and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as well as in many other Muslim countries declare that Islamic canon (sharia) is the basis of all legislation and law.”

    More crap. In Saudi Arabia, If the king wants someone dead, it happens. There is no basis for that in any law. Troops, police, or black operators just appear on cue and things happen. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sa.html

  9. DrLoser says:

    Sharia is not Islamic Canon putting (Sharia) after Islamic Canon is incorrectly representing.

    Canon law is whatever the politico-religious organisation in charge of meting out legal judgements says it is, Fifi.
    The judgements of ISIS, to take an example, are Canon Law. However repulsive they may be.
    Somehow I doubt that those parts of the Islamic world that implement their version of Canon Law take the trouble to consult Wikipedia first. Perhaps you might try enlightening them with the relevant link?
    Better still, try arguing your point, in person, in front of one of their courts.

  10. dougman says:

    “Dougie, dougie, dougie…”

    Does saying my name give you an erection? Once is enough!

    “One can only wonder why you spend so much time on this blog if you find si so objectionable.”

    What makes you think that I find what is stated objectionable? I just read drivel from Ham-Dong and some of the stories flaunted by Pog, and cannot help but laugh. I suppose you can say, it would be analogous to asking why sometimes keeps returning to http://failblog.cheezburger.com/….I did it for the LULs.

    “Then again being a fisherman you no doubt find the catch actually to your liking.”

    True. Its one thing to pass your time away “fishing”, but entirely another thing all together “fishing” off-shore, where the quality of the “catch” is for more salivating.

  11. Wizard Emeritus says:

    Dougie, dougie, dougie…

    One can only wonder why you spend so much time on this blog if you find si so objectionable.

    Then again being a fisherman you no doubt find the catch actually to your liking.

    “The list of dougman is further offensive crap. I would delete it except that it shows dougman’s moral bankruptcy.”

    Robert Pogson:

    There are lots of Dougies on the internet who will no doubt applaud his posts here. By not doing anything about them, you are in effect, agreeing to them.

    My comment to you is that if you find what Dougie posts outside the bounds of what you consider decency, that you act accordingly. this is after all, your site.

  12. oiaohm says:

    dougman is the “Islamic canon” used in all those countries you listed identical. The answer is no they are not this is why the punishments and what is allowed differers quite a bit between all those countries. Sharia is not Islamic Canon putting (Sharia) after Islamic Canon is incorrectly representing.

    The fact there is not one thing that you can directly call Islamic Canon means its just like referring Sharia law same problem with variation with Muslim group involved.

    https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_law
    Islamic Canon is only part of it note section 3 and 4
    3) Consensus from the community by achieving recurrence
    4) qiyās or legal reasoning

    Islamic Canon chosen only effects 1 and 2 of Sharia Law at best depending on the group Islamic Canon may only be section 1 of Sharia Law.

    Sorry Sharia law is not a match to Christian Canon Law. Islamic Canon law has another name its Islamic Qanun Law. Islamic Qanun Law only the Quran and sunnah. Yes Islamic Qanum Law forget idea of having a trial with mitigation.

    ISIS implements Islamic Qanum Law with a very nasty form of the Islamic core texts. Key thing here ISIS skips over the trial process and goes straight to execution or equal.

    Please be warned Christian Canon Law does not ensure due process either and is used by some extremist Christian groups to do equally nasty things. There are also jewish groups using their Canon equal to-do the same thing. Any group using a pure form of Canon law need to be looked at very closely and most likely need to be banned from entering any civilised country. Catholic Church paedophile problem traced to a pure Canon law system without due process and proper investigation as part of it operational laws. So yes some Christian groups have been let into places with law construction problems.

    Consensus of the community is how come under Sharia law that cases can go before a non Sharia law court to be resolved because that is the consensus of the community. Sharia Law has quite a bit of flexibility.

  13. dougman says:

    “Crap! Many muslim countries don’t institute sharia. Why? Because it’s not law in the usual sense of a written system of law.”

    Yes, CRAP! indeed…

    Not law, in the usual sense of a written law!? Hahahaha..Hohohoho…Santa Claus has come early! Well, lets see, you were the one that brought up Saudi Arabia and to expand further. The constitutions of the UAE, the State of Qatar, the Kingdom of Bahrain and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as well as in many other Muslim countries declare that Islamic canon (sharia) is the basis of all legislation and law.

    “The list of dougman is further offensive crap. I would delete it except that it shows dougman’s moral bankruptcy.”

    I presented irrefutable evidence, and you still deny and call it crap. LOL…I entirely agree on the crap part, as it is obvious that sharia law is deeply misogynous and sexist, but you defend them to the nth degree!

    Soon coming to a neighborhood near you!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e43MSvIxb6k

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-publishes-penal-code-listing-amputation-crucifixion-and-stoning-as-punishments-and-vows-to-9994878.html

  14. In particular, women were allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf Ware when many men enlisted. In 2013, women driving was discussed openly:
    See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/09/saudi-arabia-driving-ban-women_n_4069745.html

    “Religious leaders no longer argue, as some have in the past, that women are not allowed to drive under Islamic Sharia law. Opponents of change instead cite fears about public morality.”

  15. oiaohm says:

    Girls’ clitoris should be cut (Muhammad’s words, Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
    This is a interesting one and badly wrong most of the time.
    http://www.answering-christianity.com/karim/women_rights_for_sex.htm
    Cutting the clitoris hood is fine cutting the clitoris itself by quran in fact breaches many sections that are not be breached in the quran due to the fact it taking away female sexual pleasure. Bazr covers both the clitoris hood and clitoris. Yes the translations to english saying only the clitoris hood are saying what is allowed when you take everything into context.
    Please remember Hadith direct translates to habits meaning not law. What is written in the Quran technically has to be taken before in Hadith. Hadith is technically not part of the Quran. Its like a person saying the following the bible when they are following a written story not 100 percent linked to bible.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khitan_%28circumcision%29
    Even male circumcision is not part of core Quran so is technically optional. There are 114 Suras in Quran and Hadith is not part of it. So if you find a limitation in the Suras that limitation has to be obeyed or they are not proper Muslims.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith
    Now this is where thing get nasty. Depending on the branch of Islam alters what book of Hadith they follow. Also every Hadith are based on word of mouth written down long after the facts so have to be taken with a super big grain of salt.

    Yes this is where it gets interesting. All those points that people claim are from Sharia law may not apply at all. It all depends on the group of Muslims implementing Sharia Law. Every one of those points come from the Sunnah is what they come from and that is the Hadith that is in fact up for debate what it does or does not contain and is in fact different Muslim group to Muslim group. Yes the fact that different Muslim groups have different Hadith resulting in different Sunnah so regulating the Hadith would be a good thing.

    You would call the Hadith variations like the variation in Christian bibles. This is why I am not anti all Muslim. Yes some Muslims due to the Hadith they follow civilised countries do not want. All Muslims are meant to follow the Quran. Sharia Law is a stack of different things due to Sunnah being variable. So when a group wants Sharia Law the most important question is with what Sunnah and what will be reference for prior cases for consensus.

    Most of the talk about Sharia law is based on the idea that it is only one thing that is totally incorrect. Sharia Law goes from being as acceptable as the laws we have to being totally wrong all depending on the group implementing it. Sharia law core most defines how the system works not all the important implementation details like what Sunnah and Population Consensus are acceptable. Like current laws non Islamic laws could be plugged straight into Sharia Law as section 3 Population Consensus.

    Its not like it impossible to implement the legal system we have in a completely incorrect and bias ways.

  16. dougman wrote, “even moderate Muslims want to institute Sharia law around the globe”

    Crap! Many muslim countries don’t institute sharia. Why? Because it’s not law in the usual sense of a written system of law.

    The list of dougman is further offensive crap. I would delete it except that it shows dougman’s moral bankruptcy.

  17. dougman says:

    “That’s been public knowledge for ages. It has nothing to do with terrorism except that terrorists exploit youth in schools, prisons, and social sites everywhere. What are you going to do, shut down all schools and go back to the Dark Ages where ignorance was supreme? Silly.”

    Silly, is ignoring a threat, till said threat walks up, and smacks you across the face. It is commonly known, that even moderate Muslims want to institute Sharia law around the globe. They have it set in their minds, that in doing so, the world will be a better place to live in. The problem is that one can never legislate morality, you can criminalize it but people will always commit acts of violence. Even the religion of peace, allows for acts of violence, talk about a bunch of hypocrites.

    Here are some of the things Pogson wants to institute under Sharia law in Canada.

    • Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
    • Criticizing Muhammad or denying that he is a prophet is punishable by death.
    • Criticizing or denying Allah, the god of Islam is punishable by death.
    • A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.
    • A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
    • A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
    • A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
    • Girls’ clitoris should be cut (Muhammad’s words, Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
    • A woman can have 1 husband, who can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
    • A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
    • A man can unilaterally divorce his wife; a woman needs her husband’s consent to divorce.
    • A divorced wife loses custody of all children over 6 years of age or when they exceed it.
    • Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
    • A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
    • A woman’s testimony in court, allowed in property cases, carries ½ the weight of a man’s.
    • A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
    • A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
    • A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
    • Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.

    Such a “rich” culture, eh!

  18. dougman linked to this: “Saudi Arabia was funding Muslim radicalism in mosques and charities at the time the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers were gathering in the United States and making contacts with Saudi nationals, according to a declassified intelligence document.
     
    To jihad watchers, the paper confirms their charges that the Saudi government and its wealthy citizens fund extremist teachings in America. To this day, the kingdom is pressing its harsh Wahhabi Sunni Islam on American Muslims as it seeks to spread Islam around the world, they say.”

    You need to use the FBI to find that Saudi Arabia, home of Mecca, the target of millions of muslims annually for pilgrimage, supports Islamic infrastructure around the world? Silly. That’s been public knowledge for ages. It has nothing to do with terrorism except that terrorists exploit youth in schools, prisons, and social sites everywhere. What are you going to do, shut down all schools and go back to the Dark Ages where ignorance was supreme? Silly.

  19. dougman says:

    Obviously, Pogson doesn’t understand the big picture, or is seriously lacking information.

    Have you ever read the 9/11 commission report Robert? I have, and apparently you have not, otherwise you would not have written this blog entry under such audacious and nefarious undertones.

    https://9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

    Perhaps the lawsuit is to reconcile the fact, that Saudi Arabia was imminently culpable to jihadist activity in the US? I mean, the FBI believes it to be so. Are you smarter then the FBI? Doubtful..

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/19/911-report-details-saudi-arabia-funding-of-muslim-/

  20. DrLoser wrote, “you are against the idea of those bereaved on 9/11 suing the various Saudis who funded Al Qaeda, then, Robert?”

    This is not about suing Saudi individuals but suing the Saudi government. It makes as much sense as suing USA government when some USAian tourist commits a crime in India. The Saudi government had less to do with 9/11 than USA. USA had them on radar and did nothing. USA allowed box-cutters on planes. Why don’t those folks sue USA?

    OTOH if a million USAians sue the Saudi government what do you think will happen? Justice? Nope. Settlement? Nope. Just bad things will happen like tanking the stock-market or devaluing the currency or shutting down a bunch of jobs. Even if Saudis did nothing but shut down sales of oil to USA, the disruption would be immense. USA is nearly self-sufficient in oil but that’s not true in every state. There would be regional shortages which would be very disruptive. Many USAians commute. What would happen to USA if a sufficient fraction of USAians could not commute? This stupid legislation is Pandora’s Box.

  21. DrLoser says:

    I take it that you are against the idea of those bereaved on 9/11 suing the various Saudis who funded Al Qaeda, then, Robert?
    Two abstentions, one vote pro Quisling, and 97 votes of all political persuasions would tend to persuade me that you are nothing better than an apologist for the Saudi regime, all the fatuous princelings that cling to the coat-tails of said regime, and the various nasty little “”religious” (read tribal and particularist) violent bigots that cling to the coat-tails of the princelings.
    I’d like to say that I expect better of you.
    But, like Douglas — I don’t.

  22. dougman says:

    “The Saudis have promised to pull their assets out of USA”

    I for one, will be glad to see the Muslims go.

    “raise interest rates”

    LOL, obviously you have no clue. The FED will never allow this to happen.

    “ding the stock-market”

    Conversely, such a response would trickle-down to your meager accounts. Better quit blowing money on junk.

    “Thanks, Trump, and others, for reckless endangerment of the world’s financial system. ”

    What does Donald have to do with it? The entire world financial system is one large bubble, built upon fraud and lies. Apparently, you’re just learning this?

Leave a Reply