US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5230
Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On September 28 2016 05:34 ticklishmusic wrote: It's interesting to consider if Obama could have managed to peel off a couple Republicans for the ACA if he'd been willing to sit down face to face with people and do some old-fashioned glad handing (which by all accounts he hates doing, and his inability to do so was one of his biggest weaknesses). However, given McConnell's declaration to make Obama a one term president, I doubt it. It probably would have helped in the house, however. | ||
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
On September 28 2016 05:07 ticklishmusic wrote: under the first amendment i reserve the right to use whatever playground insult i want on you. i'm fine with a rich person following the law and paying as little tax as possible. no one is obligated to pay more than whatever is calculated on the IRS forms. besides, ill bet trump has never done his own taxes in his life (he's got "the best" people) on it. what im not okay is a guy who used a fake charity to commit tax fraud and as a personal piggy bank. That's a fair argument, the charity stuff would be pretty bad. I just think the exact net worth of Trump, and how much taxes he pays are not very important things imo... But it's what most people are harping on. The charity stuff is a fair argument though, though I was told that it's not what the IRS looks at when they are auditing him, so I'm not sure how it'd be represented in his tax returns either. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 28 2016 05:36 Nevuk wrote: It probably would have helped in the house, however. After the 2010 midterm, I doubt that would have done anything. The ACA barely got through both houses when the Democrats had a super majority. After that, the tea party ruled the house and the “Do nothing” master plan was in place. One of the major problems with passing ACA did not come from the GOP, but from Obama’s own party who wanted to push it farther. History proved that would have been a very bad plan, but the far left still liked complain about the ACA not going far enough. | ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On September 28 2016 05:36 FiWiFaKi wrote: That's a fair argument, the charity stuff would be pretty bad. I just think the exact net worth of Trump, and how much taxes he pays are not very important things imo... But it's what most people are harping on. The charity stuff is a fair argument though, though I was told that it's not what the IRS looks at when they are auditing him, so I'm not sure how it'd be represented in his tax returns either. i think there are three arguments for releasing his returns: 1. precedent. 2. he is a businessman with well-documented international ventures, and i think it's important for him to disclose them to show any potential conflict of interests. actually let's be real: there are going to be tons of conflicts of interests there. the clintons have announced that they will pretty much shut down the clinton foundation as it is today because of potential issues, and it's a fucking charity with top ratings. 3. how much did he make? what kind of taxes is he paying? for a person who's entire persona is built on being a successful businessman, he should put up or shut up. | ||
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On September 28 2016 04:59 KwarK wrote: In the 3 minutes before the candidates even came onto the stage there was too much information available to make the bet fair. The odds were shifted by those empty podiums and you couldn't be expected to stick to the agreed terms. That's why you had to withdraw from the bet. It's just a coincidence that you withdrew after the debate was complete and your horse lost. But nobody could think there was anything wrong with withdrawing from it after you already had information that impacted it like watching the whole debate, after all, the other guy only agreed to it after getting information from those empty podiums so who is the real bad guy here. Yo slow down Charlotte police, wrong suspect. Now that the identity issue is resolved, please view the post through the lens that is sarcasm.. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States22734 Posts
| ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On September 28 2016 05:45 GreenHorizons wrote: Is there any reason cops who are raising their hoods to block dash cams shouldn't be arrested on sight? nothing other than that it is politically infeasible to do so. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States22734 Posts
On September 28 2016 05:50 zlefin wrote: nothing other than that it is politically infeasible to do so. We all recognize how pathetic and disgusting that is right? | ||
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
| ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42004 Posts
On September 28 2016 05:43 Rebs wrote: Yo slow down Charlotte police, wrong suspect. Now that the identity issue is resolved, please view the post through the lens that is sarcasm.. I understood your post. Wasn't disagreeing with you. | ||
Mohdoo
United States15401 Posts
On September 28 2016 05:45 GreenHorizons wrote: Is there any reason cops who are raising their hoods to block dash cams shouldn't be arrested on sight? I would be absolutely terrified if I saw a cop raise his hood to block the dash cam. In fact, it may make me feel like my life was in danger and that I needed to do whatever it takes to get out alive. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 28 2016 06:00 Mohdoo wrote: I would be absolutely terrified if I saw a cop raise his hood to block the dash cam. In fact, it may make me feel like my life was in danger and that I needed to do whatever it takes to get out alive. There are a number pictures of cops cop with the hoods raised floating around the internet. They are without context or any further information, so I am waiting on more information. But police also drive real cars that break down and sometimes help people by providing jump to the battery. | ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On September 28 2016 06:00 KwarK wrote: I understood your post. Wasn't disagreeing with you. Oh... I figured since I was quoted, you were addressing me as the bet dodger. My bad. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States22734 Posts
On September 28 2016 06:05 Plansix wrote: There are a number pictures of cops cop with the hoods raised floating around the internet. They are without context or any further information, so I am waiting on more information. But police also drive real cars that break down and sometimes help people by providing jump to the battery. I've literally been refused several times for specifically that. Cop said they weren't allowed to. Wouldn't be even slightly surprised to find out they lied though. But we know criminal cops have been manipulating what the cameras see since they first started getting used. At this point though I don't know what could actually get people to give enough of a damn to actually do something about these criminals acting on behalf of the government. | ||
Logo
United States7542 Posts
It's absolutely infuriating that a bunch of people dog-piling unrestricted online polls can have an actual impact on the US presidential election because journalists treat them as meaningful and only bury small disclaimers deep into the article. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The U.S. government has agreed to pay a total of $492 million to 17 American Indian tribes for mismanaging natural resources and other tribal assets, according to an attorney who filed most of the suits. In a joint press release by the Departments of Interior and Justice, Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewel said, "Settling these long-standing disputes reflects the Obama Administration's continued commitment to reconciliation and empowerment for Indian Country." The settlements mark the end of a push by the Obama administration to resolve what the U.S. says is more than 100 lawsuits totaling more than $3.3 billion brought by American Indian individuals and tribal governments against the federal government. The policy of reaching settlements on the disputes, some of which date back more than a century, is part of a campaign promise the president made to American Indians before he took office. "Few have been ignored by Washington as long as Native Americans, the first Americans. Too often, Washington has paid lip-service to working with tribes," then-candidate Obama said in a speech at the Crow Nation Reservation in Montana in May 2008. "My Indian policy starts with honoring the unique government to government relationship, and ensuring treaty responsibilities are met." Those treaty responsibilities include agreements dating back to the 1800s that made the U.S. government the trustee for huge swaths of tribal land. The Department of the Interior says it manages almost 56 million acres of land on behalf of tribes, and handles at least 100,000 leases on that land for a wide variety of uses including housing, timber harvest, farming, livestock grazing, oil and gas extraction. More than 250 tribes have some assets held in trust by the federal government. Under those trust agreements, the U.S. government must make sure tribes receive "just compensation" for the use of their land or resources. "The government bought the land from Indians, but it didn't pay the Indians," says Melody McCoy, a staff attorney with the Native American Rights Fund who has spent 20 years handling lawsuits against the federal government over alleged trust mismanagement and underpayment. Source | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 28 2016 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote: I've literally been refused several times for specifically that. Cop said they weren't allowed to. Wouldn't be even slightly surprised to find out they lied though. But we know criminal cops have been manipulating what the cameras see since they first started getting used. At this point though I don't know what could actually get people to give enough of a damn to actually do something about these criminals acting on behalf of the government. I have had a local cop jump my car when the battery died during a winter storm, which is why I brought it up. Wo your mileage may very. The fact of the matter is that we don’t have enough information to make an informed decision. I agree with you that the cop do not deserve the benefit of the doubt and its weird. But I have also only seen a couple context free photos out there. There is nothing wrong with admitting we don’t have enough information at this time. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42004 Posts
| ||
| ||