|
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 |
Also, in light of the probe into the Epstein deal, I think that this should be required reading/listening. I for one would love to know why she retracted what she said. I mean specifically. It may not surprise you given my history in this thread, but I believe every word. There is too much evidence in regards to Trump/Epstein, and their fondness for young beautiful women (girls?).
From Epstien's trial:
Q: Have you ever had a personal relationship with Donald Trump?
A. What do you mean by "personal relationship," sir?
Q. Have you socialized with him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Yes?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18?
A: Though I'd like to answer that question, at least today I'm going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth, and 14th Amendment rights, sir.
The Charge: "Defendant Trump tied me to a bed, exposed himself to me, and then proceeded to forcibly rape me [at age 13].... Trump threatened me that, were I ever to reveal any of the details... my family and I would be physically harmed if not killed."
http://www.justiceforkatie.com/
|
This kind of reminds me of the UK scandal when News of the World was hacking the royal family's voicemails for dirt. That caused Murdoch of all people to kill that 168 year old tabloid.
Bezos is about as close to royalty as America gets.
|
On February 08 2019 08:47 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2019 08:34 Kyadytim wrote:On February 08 2019 03:32 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2019 03:24 Kyadytim wrote:
Why are the populous states paying so much of the nation's taxes when they don't have significant power in government?
I don't think anyone whose taxes went up because a congress and president representing a minority of America's population - and decidedly lacking any input or say from the representatives of the states most impacted - decided to repeal the state and local tax exemptions finds an argument that land mass matters compelling. That was literally rural states dictating to urban states. But more importantly, it was also a minority dictating to a majority. It's just fucked up. So you are saying that the results of a single tax bill, that can be undone, in the history of tax bills is justification up end the political dynamic that has existed for 200 years and strip rural states small amount of political power they have in the senate and electoral collect(which isn't even that much)? Are you sure this is a good plan for long term, like over the course of generations? And again, the argument from teh rural states is the only reason California and New England can be so economically prosperous is because of the natural resources and trade that crosses rural states. That was one example off the top of my head. Arguing that the current system that empowers a minority to control a majority has worked fine for 200 years and therefore will continue working is fallacious. Gahlo brought up that the president can be elected by less than a quarter of the votes, and that more or less holds for the Senate, as well. www.washingtonpost.comby 2040 or so, 70 percent of Americans will live in 15 states. Meaning 30 percent will choose 70 senators. Eight states will have just under half of the total population of the country, 49.5 percent I've brought this up before, but the problem of disproportionate voting power is getting worse. The time to fix it is now, not in 20 years when the system is falling apart and half of the country has functionally no say in the federal government. This conversation keeps going in circles. This argument get brought up, me and p6 say "yeah but how do you fix it without causing more problems?" and instead of offering any real solutions the same argument is brought up again with any potential issues ignored. Its the same as useing salt in the north and in midwestern states. Its bad for the earth and creates incredible problems but we still use it.
What I find weird about your position is that most, if not all of the problems that you see arising from this are problems that aren't fixed by the system you have right now. You're afraid of trading something that you don't have.
|
|
|
i find it pretty funny that a lot of the republican push back on AOC centers around her perceived inability, lack of qualifications, and perceived ‘gaffes’
after all, they elected donald trump. talk about a cognitive dissonance.
that said, i really am enjoying the strategy by AOC so far, though i haven’t read anything on the green new deal yet. i mean moreso just the incessant spotlight on how corrupt some of this shit is, and the attempt at some kind of transparency to a degree, at least as far as i can tell.
|
AOC is dangerous because she is breaking the ingrained US public perception that all politicians are shit and the voter can’t do anything about it. They’ll start to have more and more standards for who they elect now, and more and more aspiring politicians will see that it’s possible to be elected with “wild” views without the backing of the establishment.
AOC represents the force of positive change taking place, but the trick is surviving as a country long enough to see it come to fruition.
|
On February 08 2019 23:18 brian wrote:
i find it pretty funny that a lot of the republican push back on AOC centers around her perceived inability, lack of qualifications, and perceived ‘gaffes’
after all, they elected donald trump. talk about a cognitive dissonance.
that said, i really am enjoying the strategy by AOC so far, though i haven’t read anything on the green new deal yet. i mean moreso just the incessant spotlight on how corrupt some of this shit is, and the attempt at some kind of transparency to a degree, at least as far as i can tell.
Trump has business experience. Saying that AOC is unqualified is an assertion that she doesn’t understand the rules of the game, which most conservatives equate with reality
|
On February 09 2019 01:54 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2019 23:18 brian wrote:
i find it pretty funny that a lot of the republican push back on AOC centers around her perceived inability, lack of qualifications, and perceived ‘gaffes’
after all, they elected donald trump. talk about a cognitive dissonance.
that said, i really am enjoying the strategy by AOC so far, though i haven’t read anything on the green new deal yet. i mean moreso just the incessant spotlight on how corrupt some of this shit is, and the attempt at some kind of transparency to a degree, at least as far as i can tell. Trump has business experience. Saying that AOC is unqualified is an assertion that she doesn’t understand the rules of the game, which most conservatives equate with reality Yeah, that business experience really showed with how he skilfully deflected blame for the shutdown.... oh wait.
There is nothing skilled or qualified about Trump in any way, shape or form. Any cry of 'unqualified' coming from someone that supports Trump is laughable at best.
|
yea, parroting what Gorsameth said. i understand the criticism, absolutely. but it’s not one that isn’t equally levied at Trump, and he’s president. this here is the dissonance. everyone who still defends their election of trump does so on the line roughly ‘i sent him there to shake things up.’ i’m confident i can find this quote from each trump voter on the site. And if anyone’s not seeing the exact same thing in AOC, they’ve got their eyes closed.
And his business experience (or proven lack there of in many areas) doesn’t seem quite translatable to ‘the rules of the game.’ in fact, i’d argue he has demonstrated specifically that he doesn’t understand the rules of the game time and time again. he’s trying to play his own game. and doing so with reasonable success, which i’d also share the same praise for AOC.
|
And people in “business” are going to promote policies that benefit that industry. And promote their views and skills as something that will yield the best results for everyone at large, even when that is not true. You are not going to see a many CEOs promoting robust and powerful consumer protection and labor laws.
This is the reason they are going to hard after someone like AOC. They have correctly identified her communication skills as a real threat the meritocracy narrative. That she will undercut their argument that regulations hurt working class people, rather than keep the boot of the capitalist off the work class’s neck.
|
look, i obviously agree wth you in my interpretation of trump. but others’ disagreement is not necessarily dissonance. it’s a disagreement in evaluation of skill and in what skills are relevant
as to the seemingly dissonant, “i sent trump to drain the swamp,” i think that’s quite explicable in a “rules of the game” framework, just as it is understandable why some might think AOC naive. Trump still pays lip service to an underlying shared American ideology
|
|
|
On February 08 2019 11:47 Ayaz2810 wrote:Also, in light of the probe into the Epstein deal, I think that this should be required reading/listening. I for one would love to know why she retracted what she said. I mean specifically. It may not surprise you given my history in this thread, but I believe every word. There is too much evidence in regards to Trump/Epstein, and their fondness for young beautiful women (girls?). From Epstien's trial: Q: Have you ever had a personal relationship with Donald Trump? A. What do you mean by "personal relationship," sir? Q. Have you socialized with him? A. Yes, sir. Q. Yes? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18? A: Though I'd like to answer that question, at least today I'm going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth, and 14th Amendment rights, sir. The Charge: "Defendant Trump tied me to a bed, exposed himself to me, and then proceeded to forcibly rape me [at age 13].... Trump threatened me that, were I ever to reveal any of the details... my family and I would be physically harmed if not killed." http://www.justiceforkatie.com/
The odds that Trump didn't partake of young girls along with Epstein are somewhere around zero. Trump in 2002:
“I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump booms from a speakerphone. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”
And this is from a recent Miami Herald article:
"The Herald also identified about 80 women who say they were molested or otherwise sexually abused by Epstein from 2001 to 2006. About 60 of them were located — now scattered around the country and abroad. Eight of them agreed to be interviewed, on or off the record. Four of them were willing to speak on video."
www.nationalreview.com
|
On February 09 2019 02:28 JimmiC wrote:
Question, I thought getting Trumps tax returns was a big thing the Dems were going to do when they took the house? What happened?
I believe they have started that process. The Trump team already has a strat in place to delay it though.
It is not a 'give us his taxes right now!' kind of thing, there are rules to be followed
|
On February 09 2019 02:28 JimmiC wrote:
Question, I thought getting Trumps tax returns was a big thing the Dems were going to do when they took the house? What happened?
The process started yesterday...or at least started to start. Essentially, the best method they have is using the Ways and Means committee to request it from the treasury for private review, and then would have to vote on releasing it. The R's on the committee will do their best to delay this as long as humanly possible and Trump will legally challenge any public release, so they need to make sure their rationale (which is required by the statute) is legal and airtight.
It's also pretty stupid politically to do it right now rather than closer to the election (which is why the chest-beating by some Dems on the committee is odd to me)...but that may actually be to their advantage in advocating it's not purely politically motivated.
Expect much handwringing about defying norms on both sides. If they end up released Trump will just lie about their contents anyway.
|
yea, unless his tax returns are suddenly clear evidence of all his grifting, which i mean, they’re probably not right? then going the tax return route seems like a really shitty play.
there are enough avenues of substance to attack the administration that doing the petty things just comes off petty, imo.
|
The other thing is the Russia investigation reviewed his tax returns and likely will have them in the final report. To there is a debate about how much political effort to put behind it when they could just wait for the report to land on their doorstep.
|
|
|
oof, any comparison to the Oracle is quite insulting.
|
The NYT proved that he received a total of over $600M from his father. Aside from that he just has debt. Any argument that he has good business acumen is simply wrong. Hes a creature of the media, has been since the 70s/80s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
