|
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 31 2018 09:31 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:
Sanctions and the oligarch list, Nunes memo, McCabe and in a few hours while I enter a deathlike sleep, State of the union. Ryan calling for a cleansing of the FBI.
Welp.
This week is going in the books.
McCabe was removed due to the IG report by Wray and Ryan's comments were, as is usual for Republicans, taken way out of context.
+ Show Spoiler +
and
+ Show Spoiler +House Speaker Paul Ryan called Tuesday to “cleanse” the FBI as he openly backed the release of a controversial memo that purportedly details alleged surveillance abuses by the U.S. government.
“Let it all out, get it all out there. Cleanse the organization,” Ryan, R-Wis., said.
He added: “I think we should disclose all this stuff. It’s the best disinfectant. Accountability, transparency — for the sake of the reputation of our institutions.” http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/30/paul-ryan-calls-to-cleanse-fbi-backs-surveillance-memo-release.html
|
That Paul Ryan quote is some fucking shit. House Republican are total sycophants. They are all about protecting Trump and being the rubber stamp for the Orange king.
|
On January 31 2018 09:46 Introvert wrote:
Who am I allowed to quote as saying that either Trump's plan or wanting to decrease legal immigration generally is racist? I mean we had Dick Durbin saying that the phrase "Chain migration" was offensive and Schumer saying that the Trump plan was "anti-immigrant" which is about as close to racist as you can get. We can find people in this thread saying something like wanting to reduce legal immigration is because you don't like brown people. The ACLU called Trump's plan white supremacist.
Also, the article doesn't mention places like the CoC because it's not about them. Hello? Basic reading skills.
But if not, I'm glad to hear that wanting reduced legal immigration is a legitimate, morally acceptable position and that's Trump's plan was incredible generous.
you posted a bad article and were called out on it, and now you seem angry cuz you were called out on it.
aside from that i'm not sure what your point is here.
that ryan quote is indeed laughable given how he obviously doesn't mean it in the slightest. just the standard lies of a politician.
|
On January 31 2018 09:46 Introvert wrote:
Who am I allowed to quote as saying that either Trump's plan or wanting to decrease legal immigration generally is racist? I mean we had Dick Durbin saying that the phrase "Chain migration" was offensive and Schumer saying that the Trump plan was "anti-immigrant" which is about as close to racist as you can get. We can find people in this thread saying something like wanting to reduce legal immigration is because you don't like brown people. The ACLU called Trump's plan white supremacist.
Also, the article doesn't mention places like the CoC because it's not about them. Hello? Basic reading skills.
But if not, I'm glad to hear that wanting reduced legal immigration is a legitimate, morally acceptable position and that's Trump's plan was incredible generous.
Trump railed against 5 black men being exonerated for murder charges through DNA evidence. The. Man. Is. A. Huge. Racist. His immigration policies will be viewed through the African countries being shit holes lens.
And post better articles. Make better arguments than liberals are mean. Don’t back racial charged immigration policies that are championed by people known for turning a blind eye to white nationalist.
|
On January 31 2018 10:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2018 09:46 Introvert wrote:
Who am I allowed to quote as saying that either Trump's plan or wanting to decrease legal immigration generally is racist? I mean we had Dick Durbin saying that the phrase "Chain migration" was offensive and Schumer saying that the Trump plan was "anti-immigrant" which is about as close to racist as you can get. We can find people in this thread saying something like wanting to reduce legal immigration is because you don't like brown people. The ACLU called Trump's plan white supremacist.
Also, the article doesn't mention places like the CoC because it's not about them. Hello? Basic reading skills.
But if not, I'm glad to hear that wanting reduced legal immigration is a legitimate, morally acceptable position and that's Trump's plan was incredible generous. Trump railed against 5 black men being exonerated for murder charges through DNA evidence. The. Man. Is. A. Huge. Racist. His immigration policies will be viewed through the African countries being shit holes lens. And post better articles. Make better arguments than liberals are mean.
So because Trump is a racist his offer is racist. Good work.
|
On January 31 2018 10:11 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2018 10:04 Plansix wrote:On January 31 2018 09:46 Introvert wrote:
Who am I allowed to quote as saying that either Trump's plan or wanting to decrease legal immigration generally is racist? I mean we had Dick Durbin saying that the phrase "Chain migration" was offensive and Schumer saying that the Trump plan was "anti-immigrant" which is about as close to racist as you can get. We can find people in this thread saying something like wanting to reduce legal immigration is because you don't like brown people. The ACLU called Trump's plan white supremacist.
Also, the article doesn't mention places like the CoC because it's not about them. Hello? Basic reading skills.
But if not, I'm glad to hear that wanting reduced legal immigration is a legitimate, morally acceptable position and that's Trump's plan was incredible generous. Trump railed against 5 black men being exonerated for murder charges through DNA evidence. The. Man. Is. A. Huge. Racist. His immigration policies will be viewed through the African countries being shit holes lens. And post better articles. Make better arguments than liberals are mean. So because Trump is a racist his offer is racist. Good work.
You don’t see democrats turning to Bill Clinton for sexual harassment policies? If you feel your ideas have merit, choose a better person to advocate for it. If you worry about it being called racist, don’t have it pushed by a known racist which decades of racist acts. It kinda fucks up your message.
|
On January 31 2018 04:00 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2018 03:27 Danglars wrote:On January 31 2018 03:19 m4ini wrote:I still haven't really seen any of the usual suspects like Danglars etc explain the non-sanctions away so far. Still thinking of a way to come up with a reason, or does that one look so bad that you simply prefer to not argue for it? Constitution, wasn't that a thing held in high regards, or is that only if it suits your argument? it's getting to the point where ever reporter is going to have to record every meeting so they can show tapes on what was said
Actually, that's what they do anyways. You can't write the article while interviewing. The question simply is, does the journalist still have them. I’m not paid to answer to ... suspicions and whispers directed at nobody and lacking concrete framing. Much like all the usual suspects that want our health insurance system to resemble enlightened Europe say little when our abortion regulations are brought closer to Europe’s. I wasn’t really expecting any, nor is it necessary to give your two cents on every subject. It does do a good job at hurting a lot of the "but hilary" arguments, though. A lot of the core thoughts behind people who voted for trump focused around "he can't fuck up things too badly, and I really dislike abortion". For the senate to vote 98-2 in favor of sanctions against our major military enemy, and then the Trump administration to ignore it, certainly says something about how Trump can only do so much damage. I'll phrase it this way: How important do you think those sanctions were? Why do you think it passed 98-2?
Not that important in the grand sceme of things.
The sanctions are just a token mostly,it is the option to go after almost everyone they want in rusia.
But they will never do that,money always comes first. Exxon will keep doing business with rusia and so will many other American companys. If everything rusia does is so horrible then why American companys keep doing business with rusia,could someone explain me this?
98-2 doesn't say anything about the importance of a subject by the way,it just shows that everyone did agree on a subject.
And how is rusia the major military enemy of the usa?
|
Except that the President defied the will of congress by not implementing the sanctions in the manner they requested. And since when do we give a shit about which billion dollar company is willing to do buisness with whom? That doesn't make any nation bad or good. This isn't even about bad or good, this is about Russia messing with our democratic process.
|
On January 31 2018 09:46 Introvert wrote:
Who am I allowed to quote as saying that either Trump's plan or wanting to decrease legal immigration generally is racist? I mean we had Dick Durbin saying that the phrase "Chain migration" was offensive and Schumer saying that the Trump plan was "anti-immigrant" which is about as close to racist as you can get. We can find people in this thread saying something like wanting to reduce legal immigration is because you don't like brown people. The ACLU called Trump's plan white supremacist.
Also, the article doesn't mention places like the CoC because it's not about them. Hello? Basic reading skills.
But if not, I'm glad to hear that wanting reduced legal immigration is a legitimate, morally acceptable position and that's Trump's plan was incredible generous.
For all that was written in that article, the only substance it actually offered for justifying cuts to present levels of legal immigration was this part.
because, apparently, morality requires that immigration levels remain frozen at their current levels, even if it means that the cultural, linguistic, ethnic, and racial character of the country changes significantly as a result.
Not sure how much numbers differ between sources, but the Migration Policy Institute found that the White House immigration plan for U.S. citizens to no longer be able to sponsor parents, adult children and siblings for green cards would reduce legal immigration by about 36%, or 288,000 per year.
Is a 36% reduction enough? Just a start? What do you feel justifies the U.S. reducing legal immigration to such a degree?
|
On January 31 2018 10:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2018 10:11 Introvert wrote:On January 31 2018 10:04 Plansix wrote:On January 31 2018 09:46 Introvert wrote:
Who am I allowed to quote as saying that either Trump's plan or wanting to decrease legal immigration generally is racist? I mean we had Dick Durbin saying that the phrase "Chain migration" was offensive and Schumer saying that the Trump plan was "anti-immigrant" which is about as close to racist as you can get. We can find people in this thread saying something like wanting to reduce legal immigration is because you don't like brown people. The ACLU called Trump's plan white supremacist.
Also, the article doesn't mention places like the CoC because it's not about them. Hello? Basic reading skills.
But if not, I'm glad to hear that wanting reduced legal immigration is a legitimate, morally acceptable position and that's Trump's plan was incredible generous. Trump railed against 5 black men being exonerated for murder charges through DNA evidence. The. Man. Is. A. Huge. Racist. His immigration policies will be viewed through the African countries being shit holes lens. And post better articles. Make better arguments than liberals are mean. So because Trump is a racist his offer is racist. Good work. You don’t see democrats turning to Bill Clinton for sexual harassment policies? If you feel your ideas have merit, choose a better person to advocate for it. If you worry about it being called racist, don’t have it pushed by a known racist which decades of racist acts. It kinda fucks up your message.
This is exactly right, you can’t vote for the guy who wants a Muslim database and then be surprised when every policy proposal that deals with classes of people is treated as highly suspect. His motive is clear.
|
And the article talks about how the racial make up of the country will change and implies that isn't a good thing. If it wants to avoid racially charged theme, why bring that point up?
|
On January 31 2018 10:23 Plansix wrote:
Except that the President defied the will of congress by not implementing the sanctions in the manner they requested. And since when do we give a shit about which billion dollar company is willing to do buisness with whom? That doesn't make any nation bad or good. This isn't even about bad or good, this is about Russia messing with our democratic process.
Well it is a bit hypocrit to impose sanctions on a few random individuals while at the same time let the billion dollar deals between companys go through. Like what exactly is the point of those sanctions?
They wont sanction people if it would threaten exxon,s business in rusia,or the business of other big companys. So in the end the sanctions are not that important. They make life of a few individuals a bit more difficult but they wont change anything about the big money flows. If 1 individual cant do business anymore,then someone else will take his place.
The whole position about caring for sanctions but not caring about American companys doing business with rusia (making money for both sides) comes across as inconsistent and opportunistic.
|
On January 31 2018 10:52 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2018 10:23 Plansix wrote:
Except that the President defied the will of congress by not implementing the sanctions in the manner they requested. And since when do we give a shit about which billion dollar company is willing to do buisness with whom? That doesn't make any nation bad or good. This isn't even about bad or good, this is about Russia messing with our democratic process. Well it is a bit hypocrit to impose sanctions on a few random individuals while at the same time let the billion dollar deals between companys go through. Like what exactly is the point of those sanctions? They wont sanction people if it would threaten exxon,s business in rusia,or the business of other big companys. So in the end the sanctions are not that important. They make life of a few individuals a bit more difficult but they wont change anything about the big money flows. If 1 individual cant do business anymore,then someone else will take his place. The whole position about caring for sanctions but not caring about American companys doing business with rusia (making money for both sides) comes across as inconsistent and opportunistic.
Russia is a oligarchy. It is ruled by a rich elite chosen to keep their wealth by Putin. The sanctions lock down their money, and by extension, their power. They do not exist in an open, capitalist market. No one will take their place.
|
On January 31 2018 11:08 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2018 10:52 pmh wrote:On January 31 2018 10:23 Plansix wrote:
Except that the President defied the will of congress by not implementing the sanctions in the manner they requested. And since when do we give a shit about which billion dollar company is willing to do buisness with whom? That doesn't make any nation bad or good. This isn't even about bad or good, this is about Russia messing with our democratic process. Well it is a bit hypocrit to impose sanctions on a few random individuals while at the same time let the billion dollar deals between companys go through. Like what exactly is the point of those sanctions? They wont sanction people if it would threaten exxon,s business in rusia,or the business of other big companys. So in the end the sanctions are not that important. They make life of a few individuals a bit more difficult but they wont change anything about the big money flows. If 1 individual cant do business anymore,then someone else will take his place. The whole position about caring for sanctions but not caring about American companys doing business with rusia (making money for both sides) comes across as inconsistent and opportunistic. Russia is a oligarchy. It is ruled by a rich elite chosen to keep their wealth by Putin. The sanctions lock down their money, and by extension, their power. They do not exist in an open, capitalist market. No one will take their place.
Perhaps we could force them into using so many proxies it becomes defacto socialism?
|
United States24761 Posts
Maybe I'm speaking too soon but the State of the Union seems surprisingly tame. I don't see much of an effort to bring the people together but nothing has drawn gasps at least.
|
On January 31 2018 11:31 micronesia wrote:
Maybe I'm speaking too soon but the State of the Union seems surprisingly tame. I don't see much of an effort to bring the people together but nothing has drawn gasps at least.
Right as I watch him go on about that bullshit with the anthem lol
|
I would not be surprised if before 2020 the GOP calls for elections being delayed at this rate.
|
I wonder how many of his cabinet he's pissed off.
|
|
|
All of a sudden the GOP supports Paid Family Leave. Either this a jump the shark moment or the Democrats are that fucking stupid to let Trump of all people get the jump on such an issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
