In the US.
come fucking on!?
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. | ||
Artisreal
Germany9234 Posts
April 09 2017 21:52 GMT
#146181
In the US. come fucking on!? | ||
Sermokala
United States13754 Posts
April 09 2017 22:33 GMT
#146182
On April 10 2017 06:17 zlefin wrote: I sometimes wonder if we should lower the level of security given to presidents. How often does congress/others review the overall security level to decide if it's too high/low/about right? You think congress should be able to lower the level of security given to people because of what they think or feel about their level of security? Surely you can't have actually thought that sentence out. | ||
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
April 09 2017 22:34 GMT
#146183
On April 10 2017 06:52 Artisreal wrote: How can a rich white man attract more hate than a well educated, sympathetic black man? In the US. come fucking on!? Turns out the majority of people aren't racist. | ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
April 09 2017 22:43 GMT
#146184
On April 10 2017 07:33 Sermokala wrote: Show nested quote + On April 10 2017 06:17 zlefin wrote: I sometimes wonder if we should lower the level of security given to presidents. How often does congress/others review the overall security level to decide if it's too high/low/about right? You think congress should be able to lower the level of security given to people because of what they think or feel about their level of security? Surely you can't have actually thought that sentence out. you're being needlessly rude, and a total jerk with no justification, so I won't dignify that with any other response than you should be less rude. | ||
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43820 Posts
April 10 2017 00:16 GMT
#146185
On April 10 2017 04:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Show nested quote + US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has said he had "no conversation" about Mexico paying for Donald Trump's border wall when he met the country's top diplomat. In an interview with NBC News, Mr Tillerson was asked whether he made it clear the US expects Mexico to pay for the wall during his meeting with Mexico's Foreign Secretary Luis Videgaray. "We had no conversation about that issue," the Secretary of State said. "We have had very productive talks around actions that can be taken to slow and stem and discourage transmigration of people coming from central America through Mexico and entering the United States. "And in fact, the level of immigration, illegal crossings from Mexico... has dropped dramatically. "So I think Mexico is quite pleased and we've had a number of discussions with them on now we'll work together to make further progress." During the US presidential election, Mr Trump promised Mexico would pay for his "big, beautiful wall." When asked further about whether it was US policy to make Mexico pay for the wall, Mr Tillerson said: "It's just not part of our discussions between the foreign minister and myself. "We were also talking to organise an even greater effort around transnational crime and counter-narcotics to stem the flow of narcotics that flow into the United States and the flow of weapons from the United States into Mexico that supports the cartels. "So we're really focused on working at very high levels to address some of these problems and challenges that are really in the interest of both of our countries to make progress on." There has been a huge drop in the number of people arrested crossing the Mexico border into the US since Mr Trump took office. The Trump administration has sought to take credit for the decline, with the White House issuing a statement to say Mr Trump's "commitment to securing our border and supporting law enforcement is already showing results." However, those working in shelters and experts on migration said it will take several more months to judge whether any drop-off is long lasting, and others think the real "Trump effect" was pushing fearful people to move up their journeys and get to the US before he took office. Source "And in fact, the level of immigration, illegal crossings from Mexico... has dropped dramatically." Oh good, it looks like Trump's invisible border wall is making America great again. Surely everyone's heard that this wall was already built and paid by Mexicans, at Trump's request? He should just announce that the wall has been built and Mexico paid for it. The Trump supporters will believe him anyway, and it's not like they'll be convinced by fact-checking. I'm actually not sure why Trump hasn't lied about its construction yet. Hell, he can drop the issue from further conversation, and the American taxpayers will save billions of dollars. Sounds win-win to me. | ||
BlueBird.
United States3889 Posts
April 10 2017 00:22 GMT
#146186
| ||
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
April 10 2017 00:47 GMT
#146187
now: "we don't really know what the hell this orange dude is gonna do, he seems kinda reckless and it might actually be a risk" | ||
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
April 10 2017 00:54 GMT
#146188
That's a big reason so much of the substantive policy discussion about it has focused less on "how to stop it" and more "what to do about existing individuals/people overstaying visas or using other methods." | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42014 Posts
April 10 2017 01:02 GMT
#146189
On April 10 2017 07:34 a_flayer wrote: Show nested quote + On April 10 2017 06:52 Artisreal wrote: How can a rich white man attract more hate than a well educated, sympathetic black man? In the US. come fucking on!? Turns out the majority of people aren't racist. Ah yes, because it's binary. People either want to kill all niggers or they're completely not racist. That's how it works. This has been your race relations update courtesy of a_flayer. A terrible white man can still be less popular than a fantastic black man in a racist country if he's terrible enough. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42014 Posts
April 10 2017 01:03 GMT
#146190
On April 10 2017 09:47 biology]major wrote: Illegal immigration before : "lol usa doesn't do shit, I know lots of people who did it and are now able to live there" now: "we don't really know what the hell this orange dude is gonna do, he seems kinda reckless and it might actually be a risk" Really? What exactly has changed materially? These aren't people carefully weighing the pros and cons each day. These are people risking their lives already. You think the average illegal immigrant is carefully monitoring the political situation and judging what to do based upon the odds of various policies being passed? | ||
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
April 10 2017 01:17 GMT
#146191
On April 10 2017 10:03 KwarK wrote: Show nested quote + On April 10 2017 09:47 biology]major wrote: Illegal immigration before : "lol usa doesn't do shit, I know lots of people who did it and are now able to live there" now: "we don't really know what the hell this orange dude is gonna do, he seems kinda reckless and it might actually be a risk" Really? What exactly has changed materially? These aren't people carefully weighing the pros and cons each day. These are people risking their lives already. You think the average illegal immigrant is carefully monitoring the political situation and judging what to do based upon the odds of various policies being passed? Yes, the fear caused by donald trump's rhetoric alone, and his brashness in trying to push for controversial policies like the muslim ban, and possibly, maybe one day, who knows when, or if, deporting families of illegal immigrants is a powerful deterrent. Even the most uneducated illegal immigrant coming from mexico knows what trump is about (maybe they think he's crazy, brash, or an orange maniac), even if they don't know that ICE is getting a funding boost, or that mexico is going to pay for the wall (lol). The rhetoric alone, has caused the stock markets to rise and deterred illegals. Ofcourse if he doesn't deliver, rhetoric won't be enough, and things will reverse back to pre-trump. | ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
April 10 2017 01:23 GMT
#146192
at laest on the numbers that ACTUALLY matter, unlike the normal trite bs politicians talk about that has no real validity. | ||
Sermokala
United States13754 Posts
April 10 2017 01:33 GMT
#146193
On April 10 2017 07:43 zlefin wrote: Show nested quote + On April 10 2017 07:33 Sermokala wrote: On April 10 2017 06:17 zlefin wrote: I sometimes wonder if we should lower the level of security given to presidents. How often does congress/others review the overall security level to decide if it's too high/low/about right? You think congress should be able to lower the level of security given to people because of what they think or feel about their level of security? Surely you can't have actually thought that sentence out. you're being needlessly rude, and a total jerk with no justification, so I won't dignify that with any other response than you should be less rude. Bro you wondered if it would be good if congress was in control over the protection of the president. Its the dumbest thing said in this thread in a while and should be responded to with a slap to the head. Its not needlessly rude and with your record thats a pretty lame reason to end the conversation. | ||
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4315 Posts
April 10 2017 01:35 GMT
#146194
https://mobile.twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/851069274001158144 Video embedded in tweet, see link. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
April 10 2017 01:49 GMT
#146195
Discussion on the legality of the strike based on US and UN rules: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/us/politics/military-force-presidential-power.html (tl;dr version: dubious legality but no one gives a fuck). | ||
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
April 10 2017 02:46 GMT
#146196
On April 10 2017 10:33 Sermokala wrote: Show nested quote + On April 10 2017 07:43 zlefin wrote: On April 10 2017 07:33 Sermokala wrote: On April 10 2017 06:17 zlefin wrote: I sometimes wonder if we should lower the level of security given to presidents. How often does congress/others review the overall security level to decide if it's too high/low/about right? You think congress should be able to lower the level of security given to people because of what they think or feel about their level of security? Surely you can't have actually thought that sentence out. you're being needlessly rude, and a total jerk with no justification, so I won't dignify that with any other response than you should be less rude. Bro you wondered if it would be good if congress was in control over the protection of the president. Its the dumbest thing said in this thread in a while and should be responded to with a slap to the head. Its not needlessly rude and with your record thats a pretty lame reason to end the conversation. So who should be in charge of budgeting the security bill then? Because right now it seems like it's a giant blank check. | ||
Sermokala
United States13754 Posts
April 10 2017 02:52 GMT
#146197
On April 10 2017 11:46 WolfintheSheep wrote: Show nested quote + On April 10 2017 10:33 Sermokala wrote: On April 10 2017 07:43 zlefin wrote: On April 10 2017 07:33 Sermokala wrote: On April 10 2017 06:17 zlefin wrote: I sometimes wonder if we should lower the level of security given to presidents. How often does congress/others review the overall security level to decide if it's too high/low/about right? You think congress should be able to lower the level of security given to people because of what they think or feel about their level of security? Surely you can't have actually thought that sentence out. you're being needlessly rude, and a total jerk with no justification, so I won't dignify that with any other response than you should be less rude. Bro you wondered if it would be good if congress was in control over the protection of the president. Its the dumbest thing said in this thread in a while and should be responded to with a slap to the head. Its not needlessly rude and with your record thats a pretty lame reason to end the conversation. So who should be in charge of budgeting the security bill then? Because right now it seems like it's a giant blank check. It is a blank check and any requests for more funding will go through or there would be heaps of obvious trouble. It's a legitimate political football but let's not get ahead of ourselves and take nonstarters like limiting or lowering security for heads of state seriously. | ||
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
April 10 2017 03:11 GMT
#146198
On April 10 2017 11:52 Sermokala wrote: Show nested quote + On April 10 2017 11:46 WolfintheSheep wrote: On April 10 2017 10:33 Sermokala wrote: On April 10 2017 07:43 zlefin wrote: On April 10 2017 07:33 Sermokala wrote: On April 10 2017 06:17 zlefin wrote: I sometimes wonder if we should lower the level of security given to presidents. How often does congress/others review the overall security level to decide if it's too high/low/about right? You think congress should be able to lower the level of security given to people because of what they think or feel about their level of security? Surely you can't have actually thought that sentence out. you're being needlessly rude, and a total jerk with no justification, so I won't dignify that with any other response than you should be less rude. Bro you wondered if it would be good if congress was in control over the protection of the president. Its the dumbest thing said in this thread in a while and should be responded to with a slap to the head. Its not needlessly rude and with your record thats a pretty lame reason to end the conversation. So who should be in charge of budgeting the security bill then? Because right now it seems like it's a giant blank check. It is a blank check and any requests for more funding will go through or there would be heaps of obvious trouble. It's a legitimate political football but let's not get ahead of ourselves and take nonstarters like limiting or lowering security for heads of state seriously. So you don't think any governing body should be able to say "no more weekly Resort vacations that are costing millions of dollars"? | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
April 10 2017 03:14 GMT
#146199
Taser International, the company that manufactures stun guns and body cameras, announced this week that it was launching a program to provide free body cameras to “every police officer in America.” The company, now called Axon, said it will also provide supporting hardware, software, data storage, training, and support to police departments free of cost for one year. It’s unclear how the offer will affect the Baltimore City and Baltimore County police departments, which have already signed multimillion-dollar contracts with the company to equip their officers with body cameras. “We are continuing to explore those options with Axon,” said Baltimore Police spokesman Detective Jeremy Silbert. An Axon spokesman said the deal is available to all departments, including those with existing contracts with competitors and current Axon customers that might want to upgrade to newer cameras. “This will apply to any and all agencies that want to test and evaluate,” spokesman Steve Tuttle wrote in an email. For existing customers, such as Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Tuttle wrote, “we are also offering current customers to get sufficient discounts that are the equivalent or better to get a free year of Evidence.com [digital evidence management solution]. We knew this offer was coming and we made appropriate accommodations.” Baltimore signed an $11.6 million contract with Taser to equip 2,500 officers with body cameras by January 2018. The city chose Taser after a pilot program in which the city tested body cameras on 150 officers from Taser, Atlantic Tactical Inc. and Brekford Corp. Nine others companies submitted proposals. Source | ||
Gahlo
United States35095 Posts
April 10 2017 03:23 GMT
#146200
On April 10 2017 12:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Show nested quote + Taser International, the company that manufactures stun guns and body cameras, announced this week that it was launching a program to provide free body cameras to “every police officer in America.” The company, now called Axon, said it will also provide supporting hardware, software, data storage, training, and support to police departments free of cost for one year. It’s unclear how the offer will affect the Baltimore City and Baltimore County police departments, which have already signed multimillion-dollar contracts with the company to equip their officers with body cameras. “We are continuing to explore those options with Axon,” said Baltimore Police spokesman Detective Jeremy Silbert. An Axon spokesman said the deal is available to all departments, including those with existing contracts with competitors and current Axon customers that might want to upgrade to newer cameras. “This will apply to any and all agencies that want to test and evaluate,” spokesman Steve Tuttle wrote in an email. For existing customers, such as Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Tuttle wrote, “we are also offering current customers to get sufficient discounts that are the equivalent or better to get a free year of Evidence.com [digital evidence management solution]. We knew this offer was coming and we made appropriate accommodations.” Baltimore signed an $11.6 million contract with Taser to equip 2,500 officers with body cameras by January 2018. The city chose Taser after a pilot program in which the city tested body cameras on 150 officers from Taser, Atlantic Tactical Inc. and Brekford Corp. Nine others companies submitted proposals. Source That would be pretty awesome. I don't know of any downside to cops having body cams. | ||
| ||
![]() StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Shuttle Stormgate![]() Jaedong ![]() Nal_rA ![]() sorry ![]() Snow ![]() Dewaltoss ![]() NotJumperer ![]() Hyun ![]() SilentControl ![]() soO ![]() Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games Beastyqt1118 hiko1045 ceh9628 XBOCT471 Skadoodle293 Lowko257 crisheroes227 elazer218 KnowMe135 Trikslyr72 Organizations
StarCraft 2 • -Miszu- StarCraft: Brood War![]() • Legendk ![]() ![]() • IndyKCrew ![]() • sooper7s • Migwel ![]() • AfreecaTV YouTube • LaughNgamezSOOP • intothetv ![]() • Kozan Dota 2 League of Legends |
Code For Giants Cup
Online Event
HupCup
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
SOOP
Dark vs MaxPax
PiG Sty Festival
Serral vs MaxPax
ByuN vs Clem
PiG Sty Festival
herO vs Zoun
Classic vs SHIN
[BSL 2025] Weekly
Online Event
[ Show More ] PiG Sty Festival
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Qualifier
|
|