dChan
Anonymous ID: e70607 Dec. 1, 2019, 10:32 a.m. No.7406298   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6307 >>6454

>>7405739 (PB)

This is a waste of time.

Let’s not waste time arguing over

  1. The other posts from this anons ID in that bread

  2. The fact that this picture came from a deleted tweet referring to it as a “door”

  3. It looks nothing like the desk in the Oval Office or Camp David

  4. It is not even the “Box” on the desk in the Oval Office or Camp David

Let’s just say, (for the sake of argument,) that it was Q, and it was posted to verify it was Q.

Why? — To re_verify Future trip(c)

Which would have to occurred in THAT BREAD. Which did not happen.

Even if it WAS Q, we missed the opportunity to confirm his trip code.

End of story, Dig something else.

Anonymous ID: e70607 Dec. 1, 2019, 12:05 p.m. No.7406726   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>7406711

This Made Notable Twice

This article is BS, Don’t Let it Scare You!!!

https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/north-america/item/33596-what-s-really-in-the-usmca

 

I wonder if Adam Shit wrote this article. It is very scary and cherry picks vague statement and then tells you false methodologies not included in the actual agreement. I will not go into every detail, but I will illustrate very clearly where this article lies with quotes from the article and excerpts from the actual USMCA.

 

The most concise example I can give is when the article talks about what’s in Chapter 24 of the USMC.

 

The article takes the scariest quote from chapter 24.2 the goes on to describe the implications it wants you to believe. The first paragraph is both in the article and the USMCA the second paragraph is utter nonsense. I’ll prove it after:

 

The objectives of this Chapter are to promote mutually supportive trade and environmental policies and practices; promote high levels of environmental protection and effective enforcement of environmental laws; and enhance the capacities of the Parties to address trade-related environmental issues, including through cooperation, in the furtherance of sustainable development.

True

 

So the USMCA is essentially calling for control over waters, lands, and organisms across the three countries. It would gain control over all three via layered levels of government, all of which would strip the United States of control in these areas and give control to regional governmental entities. With the U.S. EPA already attempting to control human behaviors — where Americans live, how they live, and what type of work can be done in a given region — with little to no oversight from American citizens, by making rules covering air, land, water, and organisms, imagine a regional entity with the same power and no real oversight whatsoever.

FALSE

 

Behold Chapter 24.3.1 of the actual USMCA

  1. The Parties recognize the sovereign right of each Party to establish its own levels of domestic environmental protection and its own environmental priorities, and to establish, adopt, or modify its environmental laws and policies accordingly.

 

Behold Chapter 24.4.4 of the actual USMCA

  1. Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to empower a Party’s authorities to undertake environmental law enforcement activities in the territory of another Party.

 

The article continues this pattern for each of its points. I’m surprised it even bothered to provide links to the document, I guess they though if they made the article long enough you wouldn’t want to weed through a legal document.

 

There is a section on dispute settlement (Chapter 31) which covers arbitration, mediation, 2 or 3 party involvement, but the end result/worst case scenario is the countries stop trading in the sector of related to said dispute.

 

See the USMCA Here:

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/united-states-mexico-canada-agreement/agreement-between