OT Corrupt BBC at it again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ragingpup]

Overall rating China.
HIGHLY INSUFFICIENT
Policies and action
against fair share
INSUFFICIENT
< 3?C WORLD
NDC target
against modelled domestic pathways
HIGHLY INSUFFICIENT
< 4?C WORLD
NDC target
against fair share
INSUFFICIENT
< 3?C WORLD
Climate finance
NOT ASSESSED
Net zero target
year
2060
comprehensiveness rated as
POOR
Land use & forestry
NOT ASSESSED
Country summary

I think that's fair to highlight they are significantly behind Lol, but the point is that they are significantly and tangibly improving and clearly legislating towards a more environmentally friendly working process.

[mygiddypant]

ChatGPT said:No, Donald Trump could not have unilaterally ordered the National Guard to protect the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. While the president has the authority to call in the National Guard, there are certain legal and procedural checks involved in that process. Here's a breakdown of how it works:

Good try Froggy, but wrong question.

Q: Could Donald trump have ordered the national guard to protect the capitol on j6?

Chat. GPT -

This is a really good ? and nuanced ? constitutional and statutory question. Let?s break it down clearly.
1. Who controls the D.C. National Guard?
Unlike National Guard units in the 50 states, the D.C. National Guard is under federal control ? not the D.C. mayor or a governor.
The President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief of the D.C. National Guard.
By delegation (through Department of Defense directives), the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army exercise that authority on the President?s behalf for day-to-day matters.
So yes ? Donald Trump, as President on January 6, 2021, had the ultimate authority to order the D.C. National Guard to deploy.
2. Could he have unilaterally ordered them to the Capitol?
Legally, yes.
There was no legal barrier preventing him from issuing an order to deploy the Guard to protect the Capitol or any federal property.
The President could have done so directly, or
Through the Secretary of Defense (then Chris Miller) or Secretary of the Army (then Ryan McCarthy).
However, in practice, deployment requires coordination ? especially when it involves the U.S. Capitol, which is under the jurisdiction of the Capitol Police Board (a body including the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms and the Architect of the Capitol).
3. What actually happened on January 6
In the days before Jan. 6, D.C. officials requested limited National Guard support for traffic and logistics ? not security at the Capitol itself.
The Pentagon approved a small contingent under strict restrictions (e.g., no firearms, no riot gear).
When the riot began, Capitol Police and D.C. officials requested help, but approval for deployment was delayed due to confusion, risk assessments, and bureaucratic processes at the Pentagon.
Trump did not issue a direct order for deployment at any point during the attack.
The Guard was finally deployed after Vice President Pence, congressional leaders, and DOD officials pushed for action.
4. Bottom line
✅ Yes, Trump had the authority to order the D.C. National Guard to defend the Capitol.
❌ No, he did not exercise that authority on January 6.
Instead, deployment decisions were made lower in the chain ? slowly and cautiously ? under existing DOD guidance.
Would you like me to outline exactly what legal authorities (e.g., statutes and executive orders) govern presidential use of the D.C. National Guard? That would show precisely what powers he had.

[MillerBill]

If any of us were criminally misrepresented by a fake "statement" from a National broadcaster, we would take them to the cleaners.Any payment that must be made for this crime targetted at the President, should be paid by these fat cats at the warped BBC, not by us the taxpayers.This National Broadcaster has brought global shame on this country.The trouble is that this bias and corruption has been going on for decades at the BBC and they've been getting away with it and we have to suffer but this time slandering Donald Trump, they have picked on somebody who will not tollerate this falsifying.

[animallittle3]

I had to double take and re read that animal. "mainly due to Green legislation pushed by the Green party's of Europe" At the last count, there is not one Green Party in governence in the whole of Europe, and they only form small but significant minorities in 4 EU countries, all of whom they are working with majority centre left/right parties so making much compromise.

The EU have of course been pushing envoronmental policies in a bid to keep a world going for our Grandchildren (another big difference between me and reform, I tend to side with proven science but that's a different debate) and that has had some impact on pushing chemical industries to Chine but to say that is the sole issues, and to not point to the bigger driver of energy prices spiking in Europe since the war in Ukraine just smells of Reform regurg. It doesn't say anything also of China's advantage (competitively, not for the poor workers) in terms of cheaper labour, it doesn't say anything about how the EU have amended their stance on this with their "Plan for stronger EU chemical industry," which includes a simplification package for key EU chemicals legislation to enhance the sector's competitiveness and reduce administrative load on member countries.

And in China, far from being "free from environmental legislation", not a lot of research actually tells us that the Chinese leaders are pushing through a large range of climate legislation (Environmental and Ecological Protection Code I think it's called) and contrary to popular unchallenged belief, have actually worked to reduce their immissions, which they have done in some cities and target more to come. This would seem to indicate that in terms of legislation only, there is a more even playing field to come, that the EU are right to persist with amendments and play the long game - and this is without even going into the business and economic benefits of green energy.

You're right in that you don't need to go to University or read the Guardian to read through a lot of **** in the world. But even some basic internet research from 2 or 3 relatively reliable sources would lead you to challenge your conclusions here.

Raging , come on your better than this .

You don't have to be in power to drive various agendas , Reform aren't in government in the UK but they are squeezing Labour's testicles good and proper on a number of things and Labour are having to respond .

I'm pretty sure you are aware of the influence of lobbyists too , Brussels is full of them and they get results .

Do you actually believe the Chinese are suddenly going all Green and environmental ? , the Chinese aren't really answerable to anyone and given we are fast reaching the stage where they are the only place we can source our products from i pretty much doubt they are likely to incur extra costs and put Europe back in the game .

I work in the chemical sector raging , we are having to source more and more of our chemicals from China as the European manufacturing market disintegrates , it's unlikely there will be anyone left manufacturing chemicals in Europe in 5 years time .

You might not like this Raging but the right arent entirely wrong on all this Green business and it's going to lead to huge job loses whilst the Chinese clean up , no pun intended .

[mygiddypant]

If any of us were criminally misrepresented by a fake "statement" from a National broadcaster, we would take them to the cleaners.Any payment that must be made for this crime targetted at the President, should be paid by these fat cats at the warped BBC, not by us the taxpayers.This National Broadcaster has brought global shame on this country.The trouble is that this bias and corruption has been going on for decades at the BBC and they've been getting away with it and we have to suffer but this time slandering Donald Trump, they have picked on somebody who will not tollerate this falsifying.

You're talking about the King of Falsifying.

[MillerBill]

The present party in power holds that title and we've got another three and half years of it.

[mygiddypant]

You see what we have here is a complete generation thats gone through school and university and been indoctrinated in left wing thoughts and doctrine. In turn they get jobs of influence and employ like minded people. These people in turn employ more left wing individuals.

That’s why you get a “balanced” output as programs like Question Time, Have I Got News Got you and The Graham Norton Show are commissioned to push the left wing and woke agenda.

It’s sackings at middle management that’s needed

In recent weeks the following Reform politicians/supporters have appeared on QT - Richard Tice, Zia Yusuf, Nadine Dorries, Matt Goodwin.

Since 2010 Nigel Farage has made more appearances on QT than any other politician.

Tice and Yusuf have appeared on Kuennsberg recently.

Given that Reform have 5 MPs they have been massively over-represented on BBC tv this year.

Good luck with finding far-right comics to do the equivalent of HIGNFY.

Isn't Norton a presenter of a show for celebs? Are you saying there aren't any celebs to represent Reform?

[mygiddypant]

Let's talk about Reform -

https://x.com/BotFinderUK/status/1987881598050566394


https://x.com/donmcgowan/status/1987613437959045253

[mygiddypant]

The present party in power holds that title and we've got another three and half years of it.

This is becoming tiresome Bill.

Face the facts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6fWCkwbZcc

[MillerBill]

Desperate hard,far left geriatrics,who could well be employed at the BBC.It's sad.