$10M reward for video leading to trump’s removal from office

Post Reply New Topic

https://globalnews.ca/news/3804054/larr ... peachment/

What a petulant, materialistic s**tshow.

I'm getting my passport for work but that's not my real reason.

Might be in BC for work soon looking for Goldfish to smuggle me into the country.

Last edited by cberg on 31 Jan 2020, 9:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

“up to $10 million”. Almost got me again Uncle Larry.

Where in BC?

Smuggling Americans. This is why Canada needs a wall.

A $10 million dollar reward? That seems very low. I would think those with near unlimited means could pool their money together and make it a real reward. $100 million, $500 million or even $1 billion. $10 million to people with near unlimited means is nothing. It's like the average person saying: "I'll give ya $20 bucks if you have video of Trump that would result in his removal from office." When you look at it from that perspective, it's almost an insult.

$10,000,000 is 1% of a billion dollars. I would guess there are a lot of anti-Trump billionaires. Al Gore would certainly be one.

1% of $30,000 is $300; an annual income that many people working full time in the U.S. make. Point being, make it interesting. Make it worth someone's while. Give like you mean it. Pool the money. Cough it up.

Democrats are accepting of "the smut King".

Republicans (religious) have targeted him in the past.

So, he appears to attack Republicans every election.

Blergh, sorry about typos. I have no idea, only know that I should get my passport in case I'm picked to set up a conference thing there.

I don't anticipate becoming cool enough to qualify all of a sudden but I'll let you know.

That is actually harrassment against an individual due to a personal grudge. Here in the UK we call it bullying. Police can be dissmissed from their jobs if they target an idividual based on a personal grudge. Employees of companies can also be dismissed here in the UK if they use similar tactics. It seems the USA must be different?
I do believe this attempt needs taking to court in your country. If the same tactic was used against a UK prime minister to give a financial reward to remove the prime minister from his or her position, it is actually an act of treason as the UK primeminister is there on behalf of our queen to govern the country. It is one of the reasons why any political party who goes against a democratic vote has to do so very carefully and by the proper eans as technically they can still be hung, as to overthrow the democratic vote is undermining the athority given by the queen to govern the country. Treason in the UK is the only offence that legally carried a death penalty. Our queen has actually been very patient and accomodating in recent years as technically, if she wanted to certain politicians and news presenters could have been hung for their comments and their actions. (For example, Brexit was voted for by the majority of the British people. To try to block Brexit from happening was a treasonable act as the vote had been cast. The correct way for anyone who was not happy with the vote would be to start an anti Brexit party and start gaining support, and get into power in parliament, and then start a new vote amongst the people to see if they accept a reversal of Brexit. This method is the proper way to do it. Actually Tony Blair went against the British public as he surrendered the country into EU hands without the permission of the British people because we never were given the right to vote for being full EU members in the first place. Because it was done by the back door, Brexit was an attempt to put things right as they assumed that Britain would have voted against Brexit and it all backfired, which is why the British TV news channels were soo anti Brexit that they could not have done more to put the EU in a positive light).
Technically the UK is actually not allowed to be ruled from outside of these shores under the rules of the Magna Carter, but they were able to bypass this by voting each new EU law via parliament within the British shores. The Magna Carter set out this principle because prior to this, the UK people had been subject to unfair laws made from rulers who ruled from outside the British shores where the rules may have made perfect sense to other countries, but they failed to aknowledge the uniqueness or different circumstances of the then people who lived within these shores. It was why every year in secondary school under the old O level system, the Magna Carter was studied in History lessons, and pupils were taught the reasons why it came into being and how the laws set out then still are in effect today.