Honourable Member 10 Nov 2019 9:53AM ……. being denied a voice on https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/09/jeremy-corbyns-reckless-12-trillion-spending-splurge-revealed/#comments which opens up yet another almighty line of virtually indefensible attack
Ok, spill the beans ….. what is a trillion?
One million million [1,000,000,000,000] or one million million million [1,000,000,000,000,000,000] ….. and where is it deposited for spenders to access? Is it ours to spend or does it belong to somebody/something else and only borrowed at an attractive rate of interest with the expectation of an unlikely repayment at a later date?
That would be fantastically fanciful, methinks.
[This comment has been removed by a moderator. Comments will generally be deleted if they are deemed to be off topic, abusive or fail to adhere to our commenting policy.]
🙂 The other more interesting and concerning part of this tale is that the comment never reached a moderator and appears to have not been presented at all on the thread by order of an algorithm patrolling commentators, rather than comment and that is …….. a slippery slope to organised chaos and conflict, madness and mayhem against foe with friends you may not even be able to imagine?
amanfromMars 1 Sun 10 Nov 14:14  ….. ponders on https://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2019/11/08/bt_converged_5g_product/
Re: I’ll believe it when I see it ….. Almighty Powerful Levers for Cyber Rule and Reign
They also wanted rights over the distribution of a lot of online media (think Netflix before Netflix) and the discussions were related to that as a market distortion factor …..BebopWeBop
Which immediately led to fears and concerns about market leading factors. ….. which have still never been addressed.
And ’tis AI FrontLine Territory ……. with Surreal Spooky Actions for Progress Online into and onto Virtually Real Programs Protected by NEUKlearer HyperRadioProACTive IT Operands.
amanfromMars  …… just asking out loud on https://www.zerohedge.com/political/schiff-rejects-gop-whistleblower-testimony-demand-due-presidents-threats
Is Schiff’s stunningly hypocritical response to Nunes [and shared below] available as a accurate direct parallel defensive/offensive motion for mirror use by a Julian Assange to extraordinarily render their political extradition to an alien foreign land as a wilful unwarranted personal persecution and malicious unjust prosecution?
Dear Ranking Member Nunes:
The Committee is in receipt of your letter, dated today, proposing witnesses for the impeachment inquiry’s open hearings. The Committee is carefully evaluating the witness list you provided, along with the written justifications you included.
Consistent with H. Res. 660 and as noted in my November 6, 2019 letter, the Committee will give due consideration to witnesses within the scope of the impeachment inquiry.
In doing so, the Committee is mindful that this inquiry is a solemn undertaking, enshrined by the Founders in the Constitution, to determine whether the President of the United States warrants impeachment by the House of Representatives.
As we move to open hearings, it is important to underscore that the impeachment inquiry, and the Committee, will not serve as vehicles for any Member to carry out the same sham investigations into the Bidens or debunked conspiracies about 2016 U.S. election interference that President Trump pressed Ukraine to conduct for his personal political benefit.
The Committee also will not facilitate efforts by President Trump and his allies in Congress to threaten, intimidate, and retaliate against the whistleblower who courageously raised the initial alarm. It remains the duty of the Intelligence Committee to protect whistleblowers, and until recently, this was a bipartisan priority. The whistleblower has a right under laws championed by this Committee to remain anonymous and to be protected from harm.
The impeachment inquiry, moreover, has gathered an ever-growing body of evidence – from witnesses and documents, including the President’s own words in his July 25 call record – that not only confirms, but far exceeds, the initial information in the whistleblower’s complaint.
The whistleblower’s testimony is therefore redundant and unnecessary.
In light of the President’s threats, the individual’s appearance before us would only place their personal safety at grave risk.