|
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 June 10 2017 08:56 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 08:44 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 10 2017 08:41 Nyxisto wrote:
No third party is viable in the US. Seriously Democrats need to wake up and understand how power works. In a parliamentary democracy you change things by getting elected and drafting law, not by voting for Jill Stein or kicking trash bins over on a campus. The people who voted for anyone not named Bernie Sanders have themselves to blame, but the Dems also screwed themselves by being staunch Clinton cronies. I didnt vote for Bernie because when it came to policy he was basically the lefts Trump. He had a bunch of plans that did not add up on the math but got by with personality and charm. Of the four finalists for president (Cruz Trump Sanders Clinton) Hilary was the only one who had plans which had math add up so in that regard she was the most honest of the bunch and that is a sad commentary of what the final 4 for a presidential primary turned into.
What you said is empirically verifiable and can be found across Wikipedia and every normal fact-responsible news source. But what you just said there is mind boggling controversial due to Bernout wankers and delusions Trumpkins. Every single political argument devolves into epistemological debates about what facts can be believed. The debate usually falls apart before you can bring enough facts to overcome Bernout and Trumpkin delusions.
|
On June 10 2017 10:16 Ernaine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 09:18 KwarK wrote:On June 10 2017 09:15 ChristianS wrote:
Hey, Trump committed to upholding article 5 under NATO. If I understand correctly, that means he's promising to defend our allies if they're attacked. Who talked a little sense into him? Theresa May. No one listens to her. Let alone Trump. We know you are a conservative and we know May needs all the positive talk she can get now. But all she is is someone who is in cahoots with Islamic terrorists after her own people were brutally attacked. She promises to give the terrorists exactly what they want. She is a despicable person.
... you're saying she is working with Islamic terrorists?
|
United States42628 Posts
On June 10 2017 10:16 Ernaine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 09:18 KwarK wrote:On June 10 2017 09:15 ChristianS wrote:
Hey, Trump committed to upholding article 5 under NATO. If I understand correctly, that means he's promising to defend our allies if they're attacked. Who talked a little sense into him? Theresa May. No one listens to her. Let alone Trump. We know you are a conservative and we know May needs all the positive talk she can get now. But all she is is someone who is in cahoots with Islamic terrorists after her own people were brutally attacked. She promises to give the terrorists exactly what they want. She is a despicable person.
What are you talking about? I absolutely despise May. But the two of them met back in January and had a joint press conference and Trump reaffirmed the American commitment then, the first time since his campaign rhetoric. Theresa May is the answer to the question of who convinced Trump to commit to NATO. You don't have to like her to say that, you just have to be aware that it is a thing that happened.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/jan/27/donald-trump-and-theresa-may-hold-joint-white-house-press-conference-politics-live
|
On June 10 2017 10:17 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 10:03 zlefin wrote:On June 10 2017 10:00 IgnE wrote:On June 10 2017 05:11 zlefin wrote:On June 10 2017 05:04 Danglars wrote:On June 10 2017 04:39 zlefin wrote:On June 10 2017 04:32 Danglars wrote:On June 10 2017 01:39 zlefin wrote:On June 10 2017 01:13 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2017 22:10 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
if you have little hope, wouldn't it be better to just invoke article 25 and remove him, so you can have Pence who can get in some actual progress for your goals? The 25th amendment (the relevant part of that amendment) should only serve for medical incapacitation e.g. stroke and not a political device. certainly it's best for a stroke; but there's ground enough to claim (mild) insanity here, shaky grounds of course, but enough to provide plausible cover. it's not purely a political device; there is grounds enough present to fit the wording of the amendment. especially by the standards trump would use  At any rate, it's far easier to do than an impeachment. main point is that your legislative goals would be far greater accomplished if you ditch trump and bring in pence. also, this is politics; should doesn't count for much. If should mattered, then Trump shouldn't have been president, period. yet here we are. Nah, it's more just people who see Trump behaving like Trump. I see a continuum of bad behavior and no suggestion of insanity. If Democrats take back the house under Republican scandal, I'm expecting impeachment proceedings. trump behaving like trump does not preclude insanity. Clinical narcissism is indicated of course; and there's numerous times where he asserts things that are blatantly false/directly contradicted by evidence. It's quite mild of course, but it's enough to argue an inability to see reality/mental illness. it doesn't remotely compare to the far more serious cases of mental illness; it's just enough to provide a (weak) cover story for an otherwise political action. it also depends whether "insanity" includes mild mental illness or not. I'm also against using these pop-psych medical assertions as cover for improper use of the 25th amendment. Pence nor Trump's cabinet is stupid enough to even consider it. But enough of this dreaming to be honest. It's about as distasteful as wishing Trump to suffer a stroke in office. it's not pop-psych, it's actual psych. not my fault if you don't care about actual medical science. calling it pop-psych is your own bias speaking; it's just a word you're using to dismiss a sound point. I know it's a less than proper use for the 25th amendment; I stated as much. It's also not completely out of line; just a major stretch (probably less stretched than the commerce clause is though). It's too bad there isn't a better system for simply removing a grossly unfit president. calling it as distasteful as wishing death on someone is ENTIRELY wrong adn unjustified; SHAME on you for making such an unfounded assertion and backhanded insult. It's hoping that someone unfit for office is removed from office so they stop harming the country more than they already have. Pence's cabinet will consider it; they'd likely only do it in VERY extreme circumstances though; they'd rather he be impeached than take the heat for removing him. i am fairly confident that you are mentally ill, slefin: flat affect, lack of empathy, cathexis on insignificant minutiae, pathological avoidance of capital letters, delusions of grandeur. it's all there. maybe you should have a warning label on all your posts i'm not sure what your point is here. it seems unsound, and dumb at any rate. also unhelpful and trollish. im glad you didnt dispute my diagnosis. admittedly it is only a mild mental illness
before you go throwing around diagnoses based on your medical expertise, look in the mirror
|
On June 10 2017 10:09 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 09:33 zlefin wrote:On June 10 2017 09:04 Buckyman wrote:
all it'd take to split is for one of their three vocal factions (Green, Social Justice, Public Employee Unions) to realize the other two are acting against their interests. your claim that the factions are acting against each others interests is unfounded, and basically false; those aren't issues with so high an intersection as to require opposition. Did I misinterpret Black Lives Matter? I thought what happened there was basically Social Justice (Black) vs. Public Union (Police) where the movement got nothing done because the party mostly sided with the public union.
the police unions, despite being public unions, tend to be more aligned with the Republicans than the Democrats.
It's the Teacher's unions that tend to be heavy Democrat.
black lives matter is because police have been abusing/violating the rights of /killing blacks for a very very long time. and periodically the blacks get extra annoyed and vocal about the ongoing abuse.
The reasons for the limited accomplishments of black lives matter lie elsewhere; would you like some elaboration?
|
On June 10 2017 10:18 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 10:16 Ernaine wrote:On June 10 2017 09:18 KwarK wrote:On June 10 2017 09:15 ChristianS wrote:
Hey, Trump committed to upholding article 5 under NATO. If I understand correctly, that means he's promising to defend our allies if they're attacked. Who talked a little sense into him? Theresa May. No one listens to her. Let alone Trump. We know you are a conservative and we know May needs all the positive talk she can get now. But all she is is someone who is in cahoots with Islamic terrorists after her own people were brutally attacked. She promises to give the terrorists exactly what they want. She is a despicable person. ... you're saying she is working with Islamic terrorists?
No. I am saying they have the same agenda. May and IS aren't like Trump and Putin. But they benefit from the same events and they play off each other to both try to get stronger. May needs the terrorists to crack down on human rights. The terrorists need May to make sure they aren't just causing deeply tragic suffering to ordinary people, but that they get a politician return on investment. If not for people like May, terrorists would have no way to succeed at their goal. They don't want a silent body count. They want terror so we sacrificing freedom for fake safety. And May is eager to give them what they want.
|
United States42628 Posts
On June 10 2017 10:24 Ernaine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 10:18 Mohdoo wrote:On June 10 2017 10:16 Ernaine wrote:On June 10 2017 09:18 KwarK wrote:On June 10 2017 09:15 ChristianS wrote:
Hey, Trump committed to upholding article 5 under NATO. If I understand correctly, that means he's promising to defend our allies if they're attacked. Who talked a little sense into him? Theresa May. No one listens to her. Let alone Trump. We know you are a conservative and we know May needs all the positive talk she can get now. But all she is is someone who is in cahoots with Islamic terrorists after her own people were brutally attacked. She promises to give the terrorists exactly what they want. She is a despicable person. ... you're saying she is working with Islamic terrorists? No. I am saying they have the same agenda. May and IS aren't like Trump and Putin. But they benefit from the same events and they play off each other to both try to get stronger. May needs the terrorists to crack down on human rights. The terrorists need May to make sure they aren't just causing deeply tragic suffering to ordinary people, but that they get a politician return on investment. If not for people like May, terrorists would have no way to succeed at their goal. They don't want a silent body count. They want terror so we sacrificing freedom for fake safety. And May is eager to give them what they want.
But May was the first NATO leader that Trump met with and he did come out of that meeting with a substantial change in his rhetoric regarding NATO compared to his campaign and he did give a 100% commitment to stand behind NATO.
So the answer to the question of who talked sense into Trump is Theresa May. Because it is. Whether you like her stance on terrorists or not.
|
Why? Maybe Trump called the guy from Montenegro. Trump apologized. Then they talked about NATO and suddenly Trump had an epiphany. "Who knew NATO was so complex!" and that eventually led to this press conference..
So what do you think is so bad about May that you have to defend her, but you don't dare to support her?
This whole thing about "May was the first to [blablabla]... so I know exactly what happened' is complete speculation. Trrump met months ago with May. Why would Trump change his mind now about something May said back then?
Either way, Trump may change his mind again tomorrow. His word has no value. The only people that have some reason to trust him is his direct family members. Everyone else, he will throw under the bus when he in his delusional mind things that will benefit him.
More likely, Trump has no idea what article 5 is, and today he felt like he should say something positive about it 'because it is Friday'.
|
United States42628 Posts
On June 10 2017 10:32 Ernaine wrote:
Why? Maybe Trump called the guy from Montenegro. Trump apologized. Then they talked about NATO and suddenly Trump had an epiphany. "Who knew NATO was so complex!" and that eventually led to this press conference.
What the hell are you talking about? The press conference with May was in January! That was before the whole Montenegro thing.
Fucking read the article man.
On June 10 2017 10:32 Ernaine wrote:
So what do you think is so bad about May that you have to defend her, but you don't dare to support her?
Jesus man. I am not defending May, I am just refusing to create a false timeline that better suits your dislike of May. The fact that I won't lie to you and tell you that May didn't meet with Trump in January and Trump didn't walk back his anti NATO rhetoric then does not mean I am a fan of May.
And for the record, her position on human rights, privacy and civil liberties. In addition to all the Brexit shit of course.
I loathe May but that doesn't mean that she didn't meet with Trump in January 2017 and it doesn't mean that Trump didn't commit to NATO during that meeting.
Since when did facts become a case of partisan purity? Can I now only recognize anti-May facts if I don't like her leadership?
|
Are you really confusing the month 'May' with 'Theresa May'? I doubt it. But that is the only way your post makes sense. But, even you aren't that stupid.
I read articles about the article 5 thing, and they don't mention Theresa May. You made that up. Fine. But I don't agree and I find it an assumption that you want to make. Not one made likely be the evidence/circumstances.
You go 'fucking' read some articles. Jeesh, what is with the language?
What the hell are you talking about? The press conference with May was in January! That was before the whole Montenegro thing.
So you admit that Trump pushing the PM of Montenegro is closer in time to Trump supporting article 5 than Trump meeting May, in January so not in May, and Trump today supporting article 5?
If so, why make the argument that things that happen further in the past are more relevant to what happened today?
|
United States42628 Posts
How are you not getting this? The question was who convinced Donald Trump to commit to NATO (specifically article 5). The context of the question being after all the shit he previously said about maybe he would commit, maybe he wouldn't.
The answer to that question is that Donald Trump publicly announced a 100% commitment to NATO in January in a press conference after meeting with British Prime Minister Theresa May.
That is a factually correct answer.
I answered the question and for whatever reason you flipped the fuck out, made up this entire story about how I'm lying because I love May and that May never actually had that conversation with Trump.
Trump has been committed to NATO since January. Since he met with Theresa May. In January.
On June 10 2017 10:32 Ernaine wrote:
Why? Maybe Trump called the guy from Montenegro. Trump apologized. Then they talked about NATO and suddenly Trump had an epiphany. "Who knew NATO was so complex!" and that eventually led to this press conference..
Trump calling the guy from Montenegro in the month of May 2017 did not trigger his meeting with Theresa May in January 2017. Discussions he had with the guy from Montenegro in the month of May 2017 did not influence the statements he made in the press conference in January 2017.
On June 10 2017 10:32 Ernaine wrote:
This whole thing about "May was the first to [blablabla]... so I know exactly what happened' is complete speculation. Trrump met months ago with May. Why would Trump change his mind now about something May said back then?
What he said now is consistent with what he said back then. In the campaign he said maybe he would defend a NATO nation if it were attacked and maybe he wouldn't. Then in January 2017 he met with Theresa May and committed to his NATO obligations 100%. Now in June 2017 he is still committed. So the answer to who convinced him and when has to be Theresa May in January, unless you have someone else he met with in December 2016.
|
Trump hasn't committed to article 5 since January. He even ridiculed it by not mentioning it, after questioning it many times during the campaign, at the NATO summit in late May (the month May, not Theresa May).
How am I not getting this? I guess I don't have your 'alternative facts'. That's how.
|
United States42628 Posts
On June 10 2017 10:48 Ernaine wrote:
Trump hasn't committed to article 5 since January.
Are you struggling with the concept of 100%? Because he said he was committing to it 100%. Trump has not said or implied he would not go to war if a NATO member was attacked since the campaign. At the NATO summit he said that other NATO members had to do more and alluded to the insane idea that Germany owed him money but he did not in any way repeat his campaign rhetoric. He hasn't since he met with Theresa May in January.
|
If you google 'Trump article 5' right now, all the major news sources pop up: 'Finally, Trump confirms article 5" 3 hours ago, "Trump just committed to NATO's Article 5." 4 hours ago. "After sowing doubts, Trump backs NATO" 18 minutes ago.
Oh I guess I am crazy...
Backing it 100%? What does that even mean? That when Russia invades Latvia, Trump tosses a coin to decide if article 5 applies or not?
You either support it 100%, or you don't support it at all. Tsss..
User was banned for being a PBU who really wanted to commit to getting himself noticed as one.
|
United States42628 Posts
On June 10 2017 10:51 Ernaine wrote:
Backing it 100%? What does that even mean? That when Russia invades Latvia, Trump tosses a coin to decide if article 5 applies or not?
?
You're asking what a 100% chance of something happening is and whether it means that it's a coinflip?
Fuck.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 10 2017 09:15 ChristianS wrote:
Hey, Trump committed to upholding article 5 under NATO. If I understand correctly, that means he's promising to defend our allies if they're attacked. Who talked a little sense into him?
The M&Ms of course (Mattis and McMaster).
Hopefully he adds the caveat that they have to pay their fair share or else they are excluded from A5. Ideally they will have to also pay back-percentages with interest for the years of free riding to compensate for our ridiculous expenses.
|
why I am watching less and less of CNN
|
On June 10 2017 11:17 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
why I am watching less and less of CNN
Explain? "Investigate the Clinton Foundation" seems like a reasonable suggestion..
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
CNN has unfortunately been shit tier as a news organization for a while now. Its reputation just hasn't yet fully caught up with the reality of how bad its coverage is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
