US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7615

On May 24 2017 00:32 bardtown wrote:

What silly false equivalence. Whenever we talk about Nazis we talk about their ideology, just like we do with Islamists.

On May 23 2017 23:21 Wulfey_LA wrote:


I am sure Trump will say some "Islam/PoliticalCorrectness is the problem" stuff once he gets back to the States. I doubt he will even remember his trip beyond "it was wonderful, great really".

On May 24 2017 00:49 Mohdoo wrote:
What's with Gowdy's questions about unmasking on his last day? Seemed weirdly specific.

On May 24 2017 00:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:
This is why I would never want to testify in front of Congress. It's literally nothing but people trying to get you to say things you aren't supposed to (or can't legal) say for their own benefit. Everyone pouring their words in your mouth and you often can't contradict.



Probably trying to push more of the evil sinister Yates doing evil unmasking things conspiracy since there's no fresh fuel (and it was revealed last week's fresh fuel was planted by Fox) for the Seth Rice stuff.

On May 24 2017 00:32 bardtown wrote:

What silly false equivalence. Whenever we talk about Nazis we talk about their ideology, just like we do with Islamists.

On May 24 2017 00:04 Mohdoo wrote:


I mean, sure, but that's clearly not what I was referring to. I am saying it blows my mind that people see a difference between it going in a male or a female. The fact that people could believe "yeah, I can understand why god would want to prevent that" makes me lol

On May 24 2017 01:38 Danglars wrote:

The problem lies instead with what the state calls marriage and who defines the fact.

But it was interesting to hear you presume no ethical concerns are raised with where a penis goes, then immediately remember you actually have a lot of ethical concerns about where a penis goes.

The Trump administration may finally be nearing a decision on whether to stay in the Paris Climate Agreement.

Now we know that visionary businessman Elon Musk, who founded SpaceX, Tesla, and a new, mysterious tunnel-building firm called the Boring Company, is talking to President Donald Trump about what to do regarding this agreement.

Given his role in alternative energy, it's no surprise that Musk is in favor of the 2016 treaty.

The Paris agreement was negotiated under former president Barack Obama. And for the first time in decades of climate diplomacy, all nations agreed to take steps to cut emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases based on their own timetables.

If the U.S. were to withdraw from the treaty, it's likely to have global repercussions, potentially encouraging other nations to relax their emissions reduction commitments or leave the pact entirely.

In a tweet on Monday night, Musk said he has spoken with Trump and is urging him to stay in the agreement.

Musk is part of Trump's business advisory council, for which he has received considerable criticism. He says he is remaining on it as a way to ensure that a diversity of views on particular matters, including climate change, make it to Trump's desk.

Various advisors have been vying for the president's ear on this landmark climate deal, from the secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, to chief strategist Steve Bannon.

Some observers think the president will announce his decision about the Paris agreement later this week at the Group of 7 major industrialized nations' summit in Sicily. While there, the U.S. will come under pressure from world leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel and new French President Emmanuel Macron to act on global warming, as it is a clear priority for other major industrialized nations.

Trump, for his part, has called climate change a hoax, vowed during the campaign to "cancel" the Paris agreement, and on Tuesday proposed a federal budget that zeroes out funding for international climate change assistance programs. The budget also slashes spending for U.S. climate research at the Environmental Protection Agency, Energy Department, and other agencies.

On May 24 2017 01:41 Mohdoo wrote:


Are you actually pretending I was being that vague? Or are you just being your typical quippy self? You really think I see no limitations about how people touch each other? You're only hurting yourself with silly nonsense like this. I get it, you thought you could make a point. But no.

On May 24 2017 01:02 Plansix wrote:

The public sessions are for us, the public. The questions that are asked are often political, but in this matter is also made clear the nature of the investigation and how the case was referred to the FBI. When it comes to the CIA and FBI, I would prefer they face harsh questions that even the Senators know they can’t answer and explain why they can’t answer them. It is better to be public about these things.

On May 24 2017 00:32 bardtown wrote:

What silly false equivalence. Whenever we talk about Nazis we talk about their ideology, just like we do with Islamists.

On May 24 2017 01:49 Gorsameth wrote:

? How is the public served by having someone repeatedly say "I cant answer that, its classified"?

Hearings should be about getting information and those asking the questions should know what can and cannot be discussed in public. It shouldn't be the political 'gotcha' game it is, all it does is make those being heard overly cautious to not do something illegal and limiting the actual information that can be gained.

On May 24 2017 01:41 Mohdoo wrote:


Are you actually pretending I was being that vague? Or are you just being your typical quippy self? You really think I see no limitations about how people touch each other? You're only hurting yourself with silly nonsense like this. I get it, you thought you could make a point. But no.

Sometimes its funny to stop for a moment and realize: There are people who see ethical concerns regarding where a penis goes. Its such a ridiculous concept that sometimes I just have to take a moment and think "man, how fucking retarded"

On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:


I get that you enjoy broad generalizations then retreating to a very narrow point. I don't see anything ridiculous at all. If we assume for a moment that a good chunk of humanity believes that they themselves do not hold sole responsibility for morals and ethics, it follows that a whole host of actions and interactions could be morally wrong as determined by a supernatural entity. Is it equally silly that some religions have diet restrictions? Or number and species involved in a sexual relationship?

I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion.

On May 24 2017 02:11 Plansix wrote:

Except Mohdoo was talking about people that concern themselves where other people's penis go. To the point there they try to pass laws allowing them to deny those people services or discriminate against them. Or attempt to gain exceptions from their public responsibilities as judges or civil servants. Those people want a goverment just small enough to fit in our bedrooms and doctors offices.