EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1050
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Introvert
United States4862 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On January 19 2019 23:19 Ayaz2810 wrote: You should see the right-leaning subs on Reddit (even /r/conspiracy. Better known as T_D2.0 these days). They are salivating over this. Which is remarkable because nowhere in the statement did they say the underlying story is false. They just seem to dispute details. The change from "fuck Mueller" to "LOL BF OWNED BY MUELLER" must be giving people whiplash. While it certainly is silly for trump backers to criticize the notion of untruthful things being said, I think the statement kills off pretty much the entire buzzfeed story. The statement says that all instances of the following two things are inaccurate: - Specific statements made to the SCO - Characterizations of evidence possessed by the SCO. In other words all descriptions of statements made to the SCO and evidence possessed by it. Ask yourself, what does Mueller have other than (1) statements made to his office and (2) documents and testimony? Those are all the things an investigation can even obtain. Certainly Mueller has evidence in his possession, but the statement says that all descriptions in the article of that evidence are inaccurate. | ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
On January 20 2019 04:51 Doodsmack wrote: While it certainly is silly for trump backers to criticize the notion of untruthful things being said, I think the statement kills off pretty much the entire buzzfeed story. The statement says that all instances of the following two things are inaccurate: - Specific statements made to the SCO - Characterizations of evidence possessed by the SCO. In other words all descriptions of statements made to the SCO and evidence possessed by it. Ask yourself, what does Mueller have other than (1) statements made to his office and (2) documents and testimony? Those are all the things an investigation can even obtain. Certainly Mueller has evidence in his possession, but the statement says that all descriptions in the article of that evidence are inaccurate. "BuzzFeed's description of specific statements to the Special Counsel's Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony are not accurate," All instances? I don't see that stated anywhere. It's possible that I'm guilty of this as well, but I think many people on the Trump-y side are reading more into this than they should. This is about the most vague and information-sparse statement I have ever read from anyone... ever. | ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
On January 20 2019 04:39 Introvert wrote: If Trump offers DACA in exchange for only part of the wall then it better be temporary. "Every year you fund the wall is a year of DACA." My only concern is what courts will do with it, but we'll just have to wait and see. Temporary DACA for a permanent wall? Offer declined. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
In fact why should DACA be contigent of a poltical stunt? Shouldn't everyone on both sides should be working towards DACA, rather than holding it hostage for political gain? | ||
|
brian
United States9629 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11624 Posts
| ||
|
BlueBird.
United States3889 Posts
On January 20 2019 05:45 Simberto wrote: Yeah, but it is weird that you have to bribe the republicans with wasting money to get them to do some reasonable governing. How would republicans claim the government is awful at managing money and taxes are wasted on government resources then? | ||
|
Introvert
United States4862 Posts
Interesting. That's what he should have said a few weeks ago. People who want "statesmanship" and "compromise" from him...well that's what it was. But it won't be good enough. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
On January 20 2019 05:37 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Why would DACA require significant funding of itself in the first place? In fact why should DACA be contigent of a poltical stunt? Shouldn't everyone on both sides should be working towards DACA, rather than holding it hostage for political gain? It's not DACA. It is a moment of DACA, to be used again to bargain later. It's a terrible deal and I hope pelosi stays strong. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21950 Posts
no deal. | ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
Year-by-year funding for the wall does not make sense because fundamentally the wall is symbolic in nature and experts already agree it won't prevent illegal immigration. If it is already known it won't be significantly reducing illegal immigration, and we think of "the wall" as a way of dismissing the notion of semi-open borders, beginning the wall is essentially equivalent to finishing the wall. The idea that it is appropriate to demand billions of dollars for something that is already established to be symbolic is simply untenable. We can't allow that. It is a gross disrespect to the idea of governance and dare I say humanity. Political grandstanding shouldn't be allowed to shut down the government. It is a president's job to participate in the politics of the country, but Trump is taking it a step too far by demanding freedom to express his ideology in such a divisive and expensive way. It's not like the $5B is enough to complete the wall. It is a very small amount of the total cost. The total cost of the wall as compared with the amount it will reduce illegal immigration makes is a disaster and disgrace. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
GGQ
Canada2653 Posts
| ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
| ||
|
schaf
Germany1326 Posts
Is that a reasonable assumption? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
| ||
