|
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. |
On January 11 2017 02:33 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2017 02:27 zlefin wrote:On January 11 2017 02:08 Mohdoo wrote:On January 11 2017 01:58 zlefin wrote:On January 11 2017 01:57 Mohdoo wrote:On January 11 2017 01:56 LegalLord wrote:On January 11 2017 01:51 Mohdoo wrote:On January 11 2017 01:48 LegalLord wrote:
Why is anyone inclined to care about some Twitter spat from 3 years ago? Are you saying you think Trump is a different person today than he was 3 years ago? No, I'm saying it doesn't matter at all and we should focus on other things. The person Trump is doesn't matter? chill mohdoo. stop strawmanning legal's position. you're making it harder to call him out on the times when he's saying something wrong when you call him out incorrectly like this. this tweet adds nothing we didn't already know about trump, and has nothing ot do with policy. there's plenty of recent stupid tweets by trump, so this old one is irrelevant. I'm not saying it is a topic worthy of in depth discussion. I am saying that it is stupid to let ourselves just accept this kind of blatant idiocy. It matters, but it isn't necessarily worth discussing. I think LegalLord and I are saying different things. I don't remember anyone talking about "accepting" it. we don't have to "accept" it, but there's not a whole lot we can do about it. and it doesn't really matter; it's a 3 year old tweet, which has nothing insightful to say, and adds nothing ot our understanding of trump. My point is that the age of the tweet is irrelevant because it is still composed by the same person. We can absolutely make judgments about the person Trump is by his decision to compose that tweet. Trump is 70. His tweets as a 67 year old dude probably reflect who he is today.
Okay, but did you learn something new about Trump from this tweet? Did it open your eyes in some way that his hundreds of other tweets didn't do? Or is it just yet another tweet that you're using to beat the dead horse of "haha, Trump is a fucking idiot"?
On a slightly related topic, I really like this column by Piers Morgan. In the Daily Mail of all places.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4102026/PIERS-MORGAN-Sorry-Meryl-hypocritical-anti-Trump-rant-easily-worst-performance-career-apart-time-gave-child-rapist-standing-ovation.html
Meryl Streep made a complete fool of herself, and that column does an excellent job of dissecting exactly why.
|
On January 11 2017 02:33 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2017 02:27 zlefin wrote:On January 11 2017 02:08 Mohdoo wrote:On January 11 2017 01:58 zlefin wrote:On January 11 2017 01:57 Mohdoo wrote:On January 11 2017 01:56 LegalLord wrote:On January 11 2017 01:51 Mohdoo wrote:On January 11 2017 01:48 LegalLord wrote:
Why is anyone inclined to care about some Twitter spat from 3 years ago? Are you saying you think Trump is a different person today than he was 3 years ago? No, I'm saying it doesn't matter at all and we should focus on other things. The person Trump is doesn't matter? chill mohdoo. stop strawmanning legal's position. you're making it harder to call him out on the times when he's saying something wrong when you call him out incorrectly like this. this tweet adds nothing we didn't already know about trump, and has nothing ot do with policy. there's plenty of recent stupid tweets by trump, so this old one is irrelevant. I'm not saying it is a topic worthy of in depth discussion. I am saying that it is stupid to let ourselves just accept this kind of blatant idiocy. It matters, but it isn't necessarily worth discussing. I think LegalLord and I are saying different things. I don't remember anyone talking about "accepting" it. we don't have to "accept" it, but there's not a whole lot we can do about it. and it doesn't really matter; it's a 3 year old tweet, which has nothing insightful to say, and adds nothing ot our understanding of trump. My point is that the age of the tweet is irrelevant because it is still composed by the same person. We can absolutely make judgments about the person Trump is by his decision to compose that tweet. Trump is 70. His tweets as a 67 year old dude probably reflect who he is today.
yes, it's the same person.
the question is: does it provide any NEW information about him. or is simpyl the same ol' stuff trump's been doing all along.
we've already seen trump say and tweet a lot of stupid things.
this tweet does not add any new information. it doesn't change our assessment of who trump is, at all.
it's redundant.
at least that's how it looks to me.
tell me, did you learn anything NEW about trump from this information?
or was it just more of the same, that you already knew and had seen plenty of times before?
edit: pesky ninjas.
|
On January 11 2017 02:38 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2017 02:33 Mohdoo wrote:On January 11 2017 02:27 zlefin wrote:On January 11 2017 02:08 Mohdoo wrote:On January 11 2017 01:58 zlefin wrote:On January 11 2017 01:57 Mohdoo wrote:On January 11 2017 01:56 LegalLord wrote:On January 11 2017 01:51 Mohdoo wrote:On January 11 2017 01:48 LegalLord wrote:
Why is anyone inclined to care about some Twitter spat from 3 years ago? Are you saying you think Trump is a different person today than he was 3 years ago? No, I'm saying it doesn't matter at all and we should focus on other things. The person Trump is doesn't matter? chill mohdoo. stop strawmanning legal's position. you're making it harder to call him out on the times when he's saying something wrong when you call him out incorrectly like this. this tweet adds nothing we didn't already know about trump, and has nothing ot do with policy. there's plenty of recent stupid tweets by trump, so this old one is irrelevant. I'm not saying it is a topic worthy of in depth discussion. I am saying that it is stupid to let ourselves just accept this kind of blatant idiocy. It matters, but it isn't necessarily worth discussing. I think LegalLord and I are saying different things. I don't remember anyone talking about "accepting" it. we don't have to "accept" it, but there's not a whole lot we can do about it. and it doesn't really matter; it's a 3 year old tweet, which has nothing insightful to say, and adds nothing ot our understanding of trump. My point is that the age of the tweet is irrelevant because it is still composed by the same person. We can absolutely make judgments about the person Trump is by his decision to compose that tweet. Trump is 70. His tweets as a 67 year old dude probably reflect who he is today. Okay, but did you learn something new about Trump from this tweet? Did it open your eyes in some way that his hundreds of other tweets didn't do? Or is it just yet another tweet that you're using to beat the dead horse of "haha, Trump is a fucking idiot"?
I didn't even post the tweet ~_~ I was just pointing out that it is silly to say it "doesn't matter", broadly speaking, because it does highlight the person he is, and the person he is matters. I wouldn't even say it deserves to be posted in this thread. I was simply pointing out that I think it "matters".
|
On January 11 2017 02:41 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2017 02:38 Acrofales wrote:On January 11 2017 02:33 Mohdoo wrote:On January 11 2017 02:27 zlefin wrote:On January 11 2017 02:08 Mohdoo wrote:On January 11 2017 01:58 zlefin wrote:On January 11 2017 01:57 Mohdoo wrote:On January 11 2017 01:56 LegalLord wrote:On January 11 2017 01:51 Mohdoo wrote:On January 11 2017 01:48 LegalLord wrote:
Why is anyone inclined to care about some Twitter spat from 3 years ago? Are you saying you think Trump is a different person today than he was 3 years ago? No, I'm saying it doesn't matter at all and we should focus on other things. The person Trump is doesn't matter? chill mohdoo. stop strawmanning legal's position. you're making it harder to call him out on the times when he's saying something wrong when you call him out incorrectly like this. this tweet adds nothing we didn't already know about trump, and has nothing ot do with policy. there's plenty of recent stupid tweets by trump, so this old one is irrelevant. I'm not saying it is a topic worthy of in depth discussion. I am saying that it is stupid to let ourselves just accept this kind of blatant idiocy. It matters, but it isn't necessarily worth discussing. I think LegalLord and I are saying different things. I don't remember anyone talking about "accepting" it. we don't have to "accept" it, but there's not a whole lot we can do about it. and it doesn't really matter; it's a 3 year old tweet, which has nothing insightful to say, and adds nothing ot our understanding of trump. My point is that the age of the tweet is irrelevant because it is still composed by the same person. We can absolutely make judgments about the person Trump is by his decision to compose that tweet. Trump is 70. His tweets as a 67 year old dude probably reflect who he is today. Okay, but did you learn something new about Trump from this tweet? Did it open your eyes in some way that his hundreds of other tweets didn't do? Or is it just yet another tweet that you're using to beat the dead horse of "haha, Trump is a fucking idiot"? I didn't even post the tweet ~_~ I was just pointing out that it is silly to say it "doesn't matter", broadly speaking, because it does highlight the person he is and the person he is, and the person he is matters. I wouldn't even say it deserves to be posted in this thread. I was simply pointing out that I think it "matters".
if it's sufficiently redundant, then it doesn't matter. so I'd disagree with you there.
it adds nothing to the thread, or to anyone's understanding. if we ignored it entirely we'd be no worse, and probably better off for not having done this tangent. it adds nothing to our understanding of who he is, we already know.
that particular tweet simply doesn't matter.
|
This all goes back to the issue of messaging. By going off on every single trivial thing, you start to lose sight of what is actually "so bad" about Trump. It gets drowned out in the noise of pointless twits.
|
Judging by the proceedings of the Sessions hearings I think he's saying what he needs to say (I'm not an extremist, I will support the law even if I disagree, I will not simply rubber stamp the president, I will recuse myself from the Clinton matter) and I don't foresee any real challenge to his nomination.
The most interesting thing he seems to have said is that, in response to being asked about the Russia hack, he simply said "I haven't done my research about it, I only heard what the media said."
|
I watched a bit of the Sessions hearings, and I got the same sense of it.
an interesting day for cspan, many good things to watch.
|
Washington (CNN)The incoming Trump administration has told allies it is moving ahead with plans to relocate the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem -- even as those countries issue stark warnings of the potential impact and the Palestinians and Arab nations are escalating calls not to do it.
In Israel, where officials have lobbied countries for years to move their diplomatic missions to Jerusalem, which Israel claims as its capital, there is speculation a US announcement could be made as early as May 24 -- "Jerusalem Day" in Israel, a celebratory national holiday. That date comes just days before a waiver signed by President Barack Obama blocking the move expires.
While some diplomats said there are signs President-elect Donald Trump may pull back from his campaign pledge, Arab and European allies have warned the incoming administration that the move could unleash further violence, undermine the peace process, damage US standing in the Middle East, and endanger American personnel.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/trump-israel-embassy/
Another story:
Two relatives of former U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon have been indicted on U.S. charges that they engaged in a scheme to bribe a Middle Eastern official in connection with an attempted $800 million sale of a building complex in Vietnam.
Joo Hyun "Dennis" Bahn, a New York real estate broker who is Ban's nephew, and Ban Ki Sang, Bahn's father and a senior adviser to South Korean construction firm Keangnam Enterprises, were charged in an indictment unsealed on Tuesday in Manhattan federal court.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/10/us-charges-former-un-chief-bans-relatives-in-bribery-case.html
|
|
|
Don't think anyone defends Pussygate. It's one of the few things this election that we could probably unanimously agree is really bad and indefensible.
|
On January 11 2017 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
Don't think anyone defends Pussygate. It's one of the few things this election that we could probably unanimously agree is really bad and indefensible.
This and the whole mocking a disabled person thing. He'll never get away from those things.
|
On January 11 2017 05:41 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2017 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
Don't think anyone defends Pussygate. It's one of the few things this election that we could probably unanimously agree is really bad and indefensible. This and the whole mocking a disabled person thing. He'll never get away from those things.
Why not? He already did on November 8, 2016. People can bring that stuff up all they want, but it's all moot at this point.
|
On January 11 2017 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
Don't think anyone defends Pussygate. It's one of the few things this election that we could probably unanimously agree is really bad and indefensible.
The people going "just locker room talk" sure were defending it.
I think we have had one in this thread.
|
On January 11 2017 05:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2017 05:41 On_Slaught wrote:On January 11 2017 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
Don't think anyone defends Pussygate. It's one of the few things this election that we could probably unanimously agree is really bad and indefensible. This and the whole mocking a disabled person thing. He'll never get away from those things. Why not? He already did on November 8, 2016. People can bring that stuff up all they want, but it's all moot at this point.
It tarnishes his name, his reputation, and any respectable legacy he tries to create.
What's the first thing that comes to your mind when you think of Bill Clinton? Probably the sex scandals. It'll be the same for Trump. Hardly matters what he does at this point, he'll always be Donald "pussy grabber" Trump.
|
I always found it a little peculiar that Trump's laundry list of "make U.S. allies pay us to be their ally" always left Israel off the list, since of all the countries we support we get the worst deal from their in the grand scheme of things, but I suppose it isn't terribly surprising given Bibi's attitudes.
I'm not even sure if they contributed to the Afghanistan occupation while NATO did; a quick google makes it seem like they didn't but I'm unsure.
|
Israel is different in that no one could say that Israel isn't doing its own fair share in protecting itself. Meanwhile you could definitely make the case for, say, Japan being reliant on American military support while slacking on its own defense costs.
|
On January 11 2017 06:33 LegalLord wrote:
Israel is different in that no one could say that Israel isn't doing its own fair share in protecting itself. Meanwhile you could definitely make the case for, say, Japan being reliant on American military support while slacking on its own defense costs.
In fairness, Japan was kind of promised US protection so long as they don't build up their military--ever.
|
On January 11 2017 06:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2017 06:33 LegalLord wrote:
Israel is different in that no one could say that Israel isn't doing its own fair share in protecting itself. Meanwhile you could definitely make the case for, say, Japan being reliant on American military support while slacking on its own defense costs. In fairness, Japan was kind of promised US protection so long as they don't build up their military--ever.
I'm not exactly endorsing his policy - just explaining the rationale that would be behind it.
|
Zurich15361 Posts
Reg Isreal in Afghanistan: They didn't.
Just for comparison, the US gives Isreal close to 4bn per year in military aid, and contributes 0.7bn to the NATO budget.
|
On January 11 2017 06:38 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2017 06:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 11 2017 06:33 LegalLord wrote:
Israel is different in that no one could say that Israel isn't doing its own fair share in protecting itself. Meanwhile you could definitely make the case for, say, Japan being reliant on American military support while slacking on its own defense costs. In fairness, Japan was kind of promised US protection so long as they don't build up their military--ever. I'm not exactly endorsing his policy - just explaining the rationale that would be behind it.
I actually agree 100% with your rational. Its just that one weird corner case with post-world war Japan. Not sure if its still "enforced" or not, but I'm assuming that after 10-15 years of being told America will protect them, they kind of just said "fuck it."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
