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 May 19 2017 08:55 Tachion wrote: This thread would be better if more people were able to parallel political happenings to Starcraft.
Uh... No hold on I can do this.
How's this? Liberals have been saying Trump's been hiding bases for months, and saying we should go scout the map for them. This week we spotted him transferring workers toward a hidden base, and now multiple scouts have been sent out to investigate. Now liberals are hoping Trump's about to get caught and punished, while Trump supporters are insisting there's plenty of good reasons to box a bunch of workers and mineral walk them across the map.
How's that? Somebody else can probably come up with a better analogy.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told lawmakers on Thursday that the Trump administration does not support separating investment and commercial banks.
The administration has previously expressed support for some return of the Glass-Steagall Act, which established a firewall between investment and commercial banking. But Mnuchin was explicit before the Senate Banking Committee that that vision did not include breaking up large banks that engage in both.
"We do not support a separation of banks from investment banks. We think that would be a very significant problem for financial markets and the economy," he said.
The administration's exact position on Glass-Steagall's potential return has been unclear. A call to reinstate the 1933 law was included as part of the official Republican Party platform during the 2016 presidential campaign. And the administration has repeatedly said it supports its return when asked since winning the White House.
Gary Cohn, the former Goldman Sachs executive who now leads President Donald Trump's National Economic Council, also expressed openness to the idea in a private April meeting with senators. And Mnuchin himself said he support a modernized version of that law during his confirmation hearing before senators in January.
But Mnuchin insisted Thursday that his call for a modernized version of that law does not include a strict firewall that would break up some of the biggest names on Wall Street.
"There are aspects of it that we think may make sense. We never said before we support a full separation of banks and investment banking," he said. "I've never said we're in favor of breaking up the banks.
Mnuchin did not detail exactly what portions of the law he thought should return, and the party's official platform simply called for a full reinstatement of the former law.
Wall Street banks do not seem overly concerned the Trump administration will force them to break up.
"I think they mean - what you hear is that - they have a differentiated set of rules and regulations for smaller, less complex institutions and bigger, more complex institutions. And we agree with that," Bank of America Corp (BAC.N) CEO Brian Moynihan told CNBC Thursday.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat who is a frequent big bank critic, expressed confusion and disbelief over Mnuchin's stance.
"There are aspects of Glass-Steagall you support, but not breaking up the banks," she said. "What do you think Glass-Steagall was, if that’s not right at the heart of it?"
On May 19 2017 07:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Calling it right now if Trump pulls the US out of the Agreement Europe, and Asia will slap tariffs on to certain US goods.
The Paris Agreement on global warming is “irreversible and non-negotiable”, the European Union has said in a blunt warning to climate science denier Donald Trump.
The EU and 79 developing countries in Africa, the Pacific and Caribbean issued a statement in which they reaffirmed their commitment to the landmark deal and called for others to do the same.
The Trump administration is currently considering whether to withdraw from the agreement, which committed the world to keeping global warming to as close to 1.5 degrees Celsius as possible.
The US President has laughably described climate change as a hoax perpetrated by China, a suggestion one of his advisers later described as an “exaggeration”.
Without specifically mentioning Mr Trump, Miguel Arias Cañete, the European Commissioner for climate action and energy, said: “Today more than ever, Europe stands by its long-term partners most vulnerable to climate change.
“We, developed and developing countries together, will defend the Paris Agreement.
“We are all in, and our joint commitment to this agreement today is as in Paris: irreversible and non-negotiable.”
And Patrick Gomes, Secretary-General of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP), said: “The longstanding, ongoing cooperation between the ACP group and the EU shows we are serious about addressing the impacts of climate change.
“Implementing the Paris Agreement is not only about ensuring the very survival of the 79 ACP countries, but also about building sustainable, resilient and prosperous economies and societies worldwide.”
They made the call at a United Nation’s climate change conference taking place in Bonn, Germany, ahead of forthcoming meetings of the G7 and G20 groups of world leaders.
The EU announced it would provide 800 million euros (about £680m) of support to ACP countries with about half to be used to address climate change.
The Paris Agreement contained pledges and aspirations but work is still being done to develop actual action that this achieve the goals.
The Trump administration is believed to be split over whether to withdraw the US as a signatory to the Paris Agreement.
Some, like Defence Secretary James Mattis are believed to recognise the dangers posed by climate change – something that has been taken seriously by the Pentagon for years, given the threats to global security.
Others are thought to be in favour of staying in so that the US simply has a “seat at the table” during future talks and to avoid paying a diplomatic cost of withdrawing from a major international agreement.
When the US and China jointly ratified the deal, Barack Obama suggested it could become regarded as the moment humanity finally decided to save itself.
All the players you cite are too interested in their own economic impact from customers to products to lift a finger. The worst he'll get is a few very strongly worded condemnations and some threats.
Isn't this perspective ignoring the fact that lots of countries have participated in sanctions against various countries, despite the economic impact of doing so? Its not like we only apply economic sanctions in cases where we don't care.
I have yet to see sanctions of any meaningful kind enacted on the basis of carbon output. Humanitarian abuses and as a tool in diplomacy short of going to war, for sure.
Other countries, who see global warming as an enormously bad, terrible thing, would be more likely to see carbon output as a bigger deal than you do, right? You gotta keep in mind that many governments are operating under the assumption that global warming will be very damaging if not reduced as much as possible.
But actually doing something about it and letting voters know they will have to suffer ... this has been hard enough globally to do with ones own citizens, let alone try to raise sanctions for others. When I heard StealthBlue mention Asia, I chuckled to think of India and China pressing the USA to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions. Physician, heal thyself.
China takes pollution and carbon dioxide emission very seriously.
India's CO2 emission is like 1/4 of the US with 5x the population.
Sorry, I hardly know if you speak in jest.
India's on a good uptick ... 2015's growth canceled out all China & USA's cuts according to EU sources.
On May 19 2017 08:55 Tachion wrote: This thread would be better if more people were able to parallel political happenings to Starcraft.
Uh... No hold on I can do this.
How's this? Liberals have been saying Trump's been hiding bases for months, and saying we should go scout the map for them. This week we spotted him transferring workers toward a hidden base, and now multiple scouts have been sent out to investigate. Now liberals are hoping Trump's about to get caught and punished, while Trump supporters are insisting there's plenty of good reasons to box a bunch of workers and mineral walk them across the map.
How's that? Somebody else can probably come up with a better analogy.
Unfortunately panda bear guy is the one doing the actual searching, but he's slow and silent (Special Counsel). The rest of the scouts follow erratic movements without much aim and lots of speculation about where/what/when/how the base came to be.
On May 19 2017 07:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Calling it right now if Trump pulls the US out of the Agreement Europe, and Asia will slap tariffs on to certain US goods.
The Paris Agreement on global warming is “irreversible and non-negotiable”, the European Union has said in a blunt warning to climate science denier Donald Trump.
The EU and 79 developing countries in Africa, the Pacific and Caribbean issued a statement in which they reaffirmed their commitment to the landmark deal and called for others to do the same.
The Trump administration is currently considering whether to withdraw from the agreement, which committed the world to keeping global warming to as close to 1.5 degrees Celsius as possible.
The US President has laughably described climate change as a hoax perpetrated by China, a suggestion one of his advisers later described as an “exaggeration”.
Without specifically mentioning Mr Trump, Miguel Arias Cañete, the European Commissioner for climate action and energy, said: “Today more than ever, Europe stands by its long-term partners most vulnerable to climate change.
“We, developed and developing countries together, will defend the Paris Agreement.
“We are all in, and our joint commitment to this agreement today is as in Paris: irreversible and non-negotiable.”
And Patrick Gomes, Secretary-General of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP), said: “The longstanding, ongoing cooperation between the ACP group and the EU shows we are serious about addressing the impacts of climate change.
“Implementing the Paris Agreement is not only about ensuring the very survival of the 79 ACP countries, but also about building sustainable, resilient and prosperous economies and societies worldwide.”
They made the call at a United Nation’s climate change conference taking place in Bonn, Germany, ahead of forthcoming meetings of the G7 and G20 groups of world leaders.
The EU announced it would provide 800 million euros (about £680m) of support to ACP countries with about half to be used to address climate change.
The Paris Agreement contained pledges and aspirations but work is still being done to develop actual action that this achieve the goals.
The Trump administration is believed to be split over whether to withdraw the US as a signatory to the Paris Agreement.
Some, like Defence Secretary James Mattis are believed to recognise the dangers posed by climate change – something that has been taken seriously by the Pentagon for years, given the threats to global security.
Others are thought to be in favour of staying in so that the US simply has a “seat at the table” during future talks and to avoid paying a diplomatic cost of withdrawing from a major international agreement.
When the US and China jointly ratified the deal, Barack Obama suggested it could become regarded as the moment humanity finally decided to save itself.
All the players you cite are too interested in their own economic impact from customers to products to lift a finger. The worst he'll get is a few very strongly worded condemnations and some threats.
Isn't this perspective ignoring the fact that lots of countries have participated in sanctions against various countries, despite the economic impact of doing so? Its not like we only apply economic sanctions in cases where we don't care.
I have yet to see sanctions of any meaningful kind enacted on the basis of carbon output. Humanitarian abuses and as a tool in diplomacy short of going to war, for sure.
Other countries, who see global warming as an enormously bad, terrible thing, would be more likely to see carbon output as a bigger deal than you do, right? You gotta keep in mind that many governments are operating under the assumption that global warming will be very damaging if not reduced as much as possible.
But actually doing something about it and letting voters know they will have to suffer ... this has been hard enough globally to do with ones own citizens, let alone try to raise sanctions for others. When I heard StealthBlue mention Asia, I chuckled to think of India and China pressing the USA to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions. Physician, heal thyself.
China takes pollution and carbon dioxide emission very seriously.
India's CO2 emission is like 1/4 of the US with 5x the population.
Sorry, I hardly know if you speak in jest.
India's on a good uptick ... 2015's growth canceled out all China & USA's cuts according to EU sources.
I don't know where you are getting your news, but I have been hearing about China's push to develop other energy sources for like 2 years. They are all about no buying and burning oil and coal.
On May 19 2017 07:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Calling it right now if Trump pulls the US out of the Agreement Europe, and Asia will slap tariffs on to certain US goods.
The Paris Agreement on global warming is “irreversible and non-negotiable”, the European Union has said in a blunt warning to climate science denier Donald Trump.
The EU and 79 developing countries in Africa, the Pacific and Caribbean issued a statement in which they reaffirmed their commitment to the landmark deal and called for others to do the same.
The Trump administration is currently considering whether to withdraw from the agreement, which committed the world to keeping global warming to as close to 1.5 degrees Celsius as possible.
The US President has laughably described climate change as a hoax perpetrated by China, a suggestion one of his advisers later described as an “exaggeration”.
Without specifically mentioning Mr Trump, Miguel Arias Cañete, the European Commissioner for climate action and energy, said: “Today more than ever, Europe stands by its long-term partners most vulnerable to climate change.
“We, developed and developing countries together, will defend the Paris Agreement.
“We are all in, and our joint commitment to this agreement today is as in Paris: irreversible and non-negotiable.”
And Patrick Gomes, Secretary-General of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP), said: “The longstanding, ongoing cooperation between the ACP group and the EU shows we are serious about addressing the impacts of climate change.
“Implementing the Paris Agreement is not only about ensuring the very survival of the 79 ACP countries, but also about building sustainable, resilient and prosperous economies and societies worldwide.”
They made the call at a United Nation’s climate change conference taking place in Bonn, Germany, ahead of forthcoming meetings of the G7 and G20 groups of world leaders.
The EU announced it would provide 800 million euros (about £680m) of support to ACP countries with about half to be used to address climate change.
The Paris Agreement contained pledges and aspirations but work is still being done to develop actual action that this achieve the goals.
The Trump administration is believed to be split over whether to withdraw the US as a signatory to the Paris Agreement.
Some, like Defence Secretary James Mattis are believed to recognise the dangers posed by climate change – something that has been taken seriously by the Pentagon for years, given the threats to global security.
Others are thought to be in favour of staying in so that the US simply has a “seat at the table” during future talks and to avoid paying a diplomatic cost of withdrawing from a major international agreement.
When the US and China jointly ratified the deal, Barack Obama suggested it could become regarded as the moment humanity finally decided to save itself.
All the players you cite are too interested in their own economic impact from customers to products to lift a finger. The worst he'll get is a few very strongly worded condemnations and some threats.
Isn't this perspective ignoring the fact that lots of countries have participated in sanctions against various countries, despite the economic impact of doing so? Its not like we only apply economic sanctions in cases where we don't care.
I have yet to see sanctions of any meaningful kind enacted on the basis of carbon output. Humanitarian abuses and as a tool in diplomacy short of going to war, for sure.
Other countries, who see global warming as an enormously bad, terrible thing, would be more likely to see carbon output as a bigger deal than you do, right? You gotta keep in mind that many governments are operating under the assumption that global warming will be very damaging if not reduced as much as possible.
But actually doing something about it and letting voters know they will have to suffer ... this has been hard enough globally to do with ones own citizens, let alone try to raise sanctions for others. When I heard StealthBlue mention Asia, I chuckled to think of India and China pressing the USA to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions. Physician, heal thyself.
China takes pollution and carbon dioxide emission very seriously.
India's CO2 emission is like 1/4 of the US with 5x the population.
Sorry, I hardly know if you speak in jest.
India's on a good uptick ... 2015's growth canceled out all China & USA's cuts according to EU sources.
I don't know where you are getting your news, but I have been hearing about China's push to develop other energy sources for like 2 years. They are all about no buying and burning oil and coal.
It gets more impressive if you look at emissions per capita, with the US leading over the entire EU, China and India together. That by itself should tell you that something, somewhere is considerably off.
On May 19 2017 09:27 LegalLord wrote: So which political affiliation is imba? We can start by assigning Terran to them and then we move on to anything else.
Are we going by real spec or how certain people perceive themselves?
The state department is totally on this folks. We had a foreign leader tell his people to assault protesters on US soil. And our president invited him.
Man, and people said we looked weak under Obama. You don't get weaker than this.
Zergs are a communist collective, can't be conservative, Protoss have zealots, so they're clearly the party of Ted Cruz, leaves Terrans for the Democrats I guess
On May 19 2017 09:27 LegalLord wrote: So which political affiliation is imba? We can start by assigning Terran to them and then we move on to anything else.
Are we going by real spec or how certain people perceive themselves?
I guess I don't like the idea of wapo trying to add to a dumpster fire rather than just giving us good shit. The comey memos were good shit. They didn't need to muddy their own water with stuff that people can argue is totally misleading. It gives Danglars full confidence to just plug his ears to the stuff that has been proved true. But because of this crap, people like Danglars don't even believe other stuff that has since been validated and totally true.
Paul Ryan's spokeperson's response:
when he first asked the offices of Ryan and McCarthy for comment, they denied that any such conversation had ever taken place. He then told them he had a transcript of the conversation, and they claimed it was fake. Only after they were told that Entous actually had a recording did they move to the position that it had all been a big joke.
Yeah, I definitely believe them 100% about their "big joke." I would love to hear the audio, though, as that's the one way to clear this up for certain.
So by denying the authenticity of the transcript, the WaPo was therefore justified in pretending it was anything other than a joke. This Russia stuff is just getting out of hand. Trump makes fool of himself, media asks America to hold their beers.
The transcript is of a recording the post has. They have Ryan and McCarthy on tape. The people involved denied it until the post dropped the bomb that they had the tape. Then they admitted it was true.
If it was all a joke, why not just admit it and provide context? Why deny it and then say the transcript is fake?
Why hear fake news and then accuse others of lying as if it excuses the fact that they misreported the story with the intent of deceiving the reader? I'm sorry but I can't take your argument seriously at all.
You keep saying fake news like that makes your argument.
The Post has a recording, which is confirmed to be accurate by someone in the room at the time.
They call Ryan and McCarthy, who both deny it until the Post informs them that they have a recording.
They write that exact story.
There is nothing fake about this. They are not misleading their readers. They have a tape of a discussion that in the current context is news worthy. The entire political team for NPR talked about the story on their podcast and agreed that in the current climate, the recording is bad optics for Ryan and GOP leadership. And that was news worthy because there could be more. If you don’t like it, that is your problem.
They made it out to be a serious accusation and serious hush-up. If you can't see the joke and the misreporting, I'm done here. I hope today to tell at least two jokes having to do with "X must be in league with the Russians" (and I expect none of them to go home to their wives and wonder why Dang made that accusations).
I'm sorry but most people don't see the joke. I don't either. A joke wouldn't involve making everyone swear to never talk about it, saying no leaks, and implying you are a family if no leaks one time. A joke wouldn't involve denying it ever happened up until presented with evidence that it did. A joke would actually be in some way funny.
Making a joke about "X must be in league with the russians" is not in any way the same as asserting someone with ties to russia is taking money from them, who the happens to be under investigation for exactly that. What you said there is just a bad strawman.
I'm more in the line where if people laugh, that means they understood it as a joke. Only conspiracy theorists would say if the chairman of the Bilderberg Group laughed at controlling the world, it was a tacit admission and not a joke. Go ask ten of your friends to read the transcript and see if "most people don't see the joke." I refuse to believe everybody's this humorless because Russia.
I agree it was a joke, or at least that it's highly plausible/probable that it was one. Still, if they first claimed there was no such conversation, then adjusted the story to 'that's not how it played out' when it's confirmed that there was such a conversation, and then when transcripts/tapes happen go 'it was a joke' then I also think the whole thing is just stupid on their behalf, and it makes what sounds like an innocent joke end up looking suspicious.
It's kinda like, 15 years ago, I caught testie maphacking, because he told his scv to mine minerals from a patch that he had no vision of. Posted replay on battlereports.com, flamed him hard, invested all my reputation into ruining his reputation. And then, some guy let me know about an actually plausible way for testie to have done this without a maphack. I was scared as hell that testie was gonna come say that this was how he did it. But instead Testie's defense was 'this replay is fake, not me playing', and then that just completely confirmed that he was a hacker because while I wasn't 100% certain it was hack, I was certainly 100% certain it was him playing. So I agree with you, but I also think Ryan et al's stupidity is what made it a story.
Ryan denies PR nightmare. I kind of expect that behavior from my politicians. And it's bad. But IgnE and Trainrunnef put a much finer point on it. I don't defend that behavior from Ryan, it's sleazy, but people do defend WaPo when they screw up bad. You might even get called a Trumpist for doing so in this very thread. So when I read media institutions publishing fake news like this, I'm reminded to wait for on-the-record sources, and the conclusion of investigations instead of rushing breathlessly from leak to leak. A couple lawmakers joking about Russian hysteria was breaking revelations and yet another part of this Trump conspiracy.
KIEV, Ukraine — A month before Donald Trump clinched the Republican nomination, one of his closest allies in Congress — House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy — made a politically explosive assertion in a private conversation on Capitol Hill with his fellow GOP leaders: that Trump could be the beneficiary of payments from Russian President Vladimir Putin.
... and journalists are still wondering if they were actually joking or telling the truth. Pathetic if you ask me.
The more apt comparison would be if testie said he slept with your mom, and then it was reported that blockbuster revelations just surfaced about sexual impropriety from Mrs Drone.
On May 19 2017 09:27 LegalLord wrote: So which political affiliation is imba? We can start by assigning Terran to them and then we move on to anything else.
Are we going by real spec or how certain people perceive themselves?
Well is terran self-perceived imba or real imba?
They self-perceive themselves as real imba, is my guess.
EPT
