EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1170
| 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 | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8930 Posts
| ||
|
Howie_Dewitt
United States1416 Posts
On March 01 2019 09:28 IyMoon wrote: I think the point is the rules never changed. People just started to enforce them If you run a stop sign 100 times, and time 101 you get pulled over, you don't get to complain about a rule change. But the large majority of people (and the "average" person, at that) define what is normal and acceptable to that average, and that average moves on what is acceptable. One hundred years ago, segregation in the South was largely accepted by the white majority living there (I think). To someone who grew up as a product of their environment, you basically do have to say that the rules that they worked with as a child have changed. Even if your moral compass dictates that racism is never acceptable, it sure as hell used to be to most people; I think you do kind of have to tell people that the average has moved, and they must keep up. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On March 01 2019 08:38 On_Slaught wrote: Sigh. Another bold faced lie for Republicans in Congress to ignore. And this one is having real world, dangerous consequences (see the recent attempt to sneak nuclear reactors to Saudi). Apparently both Kelly and McGahn wrote internal memos at the time saying Trump ordered them to give Kushner TS clearance despite security experts, including the CIA, saying not to. Trump, ofc, on the record said he had no role in Kushner receiving his clearance. Sad how far the party of security and rule of law has fallen. Someone as compromised, not to mention unqualified, as Kushner leading foreign policy discussions should scare everyone. I like how his lies are pretty much an admission that it would be wrong to have done the thing he's lying about, and then he gets caught. It is pretty clear from all the evidence that his lying is pathological. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8930 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8930 Posts
On March 01 2019 11:02 WolfintheSheep wrote: Why are people even talking about "rules" when it comes to topics like racism? There are no rules when it comes to social interaction. No one ever handed you a rulebook on how to act around your family or friends, or coworkers, or complete strangers. You learn and you fuck-up and you try to fix your fuck-ups. Or get your fuck-ups fixed for you. But those people then spin the conversation to assault and demonizing the people who did the "correcting." "Street justice" is a thing (has been since slavery i.e. Rosewood) but in today's "civilized" world, that is frowned upon. | ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
On March 01 2019 08:38 On_Slaught wrote: Sigh. Another bold faced lie for Republicans in Congress to ignore. And this one is having real world, dangerous consequences (see the recent attempt to sneak nuclear reactors to Saudi). Apparently both Kelly and McGahn wrote internal memos at the time saying Trump ordered them to give Kushner TS clearance despite security experts, including the CIA, saying not to. Trump, ofc, on the record said he had no role in Kushner receiving his clearance. Sad how far the party of security and rule of law has fallen. Someone as compromised, not to mention unqualified, as Kushner leading foreign policy discussions should scare everyone. https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1101245624115232768 This is where you can count on Republicans to harp on the Deep State to fight things like this. Right guys? ...Guys? | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On March 01 2019 09:40 micronesia wrote: Uh, on another topic, a few days ago, a federal judge ruled that an all-male military draft was unconstitutional. It was not an injunction, so no immediate changes are required, but it implies that women would have to also register for selective service. I don't think it's getting a tremendous amount of attention because no immediate changes are required, but I really don't see any way around making both men and women register if the process as a whole isn't going anywhere. If this actually ends up going through, I'm hopeful this draws attention to the primitive and silly nature of how they actually track Selective Service registration-I got multiple "you will go to jail" letters that were painful to sort out because one state's driver's licenses couldn't handle a hyphen, and the version of me without a hyphenated last name wasn't registered for the draft. Never mind both versions had the same birth day and address, can't be bothered checking that. I'm guessing something similar happens to men who change their name after marriage, but it seems like it would probably affect far more women. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On March 01 2019 14:14 mozoku wrote: You know a US politics thread has gone awry when it's so caught up in right-bashing and the hidden rules of racism that quarterly GDP numbers don't even make the thread on the day they're released. Well it's not like those GDP numbers are your priority either. You didn't even bother to post them. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On March 01 2019 14:32 WolfintheSheep wrote: Well it's not like those GDP numbers are your priority either. You didn't even bother to post them. FWIW, 2.9%, they got out yesterday. And this is on the first full year of the tax cuts (and the trade wars) | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5277 Posts
On March 01 2019 09:06 Nebuchad wrote: (i get the tone but i don't care)a discussion on race without the racism.This discussion that you're trying to have. What is it? -'cause you have a problem, right?. you have racists, and they are racists because they separate people based on races. -'cause i'm assuming you have a goal here, one other than perpetuating said racism. in 30+ years of liberal rule you did fuck all to alleviate the problem; not even your doubling/tripling down on it helped 'cause all you needed was a little miniHitler to come and the old shit was back on. that to me says you failed, your course of action failed, your whole system of dealing with it failed. now, any reasonable human being would acknowledge that failure, would start talking about what/why/how it failed to try to fix it. so far, is that understandable?. also, i was inquiring more about the rules of discussion rather than the rules of behavior when talking about race/racism because there's no way someone would be able to come up with some rules of conduct that would nullify racism(not to mention here that for some of you that would also mean rules for ones neurons to follow, literally). | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On March 01 2019 09:21 IgnE wrote: well do you think there are rules and do you think they have changed? youve agreed with plansix here, who, as usual, has cooked up a contradictory gallimaufry of empty psychologizing, so im not sure where to start maybe you could tell me whether you think #metoo changed anything Do you think #metoo changed anything? And if so, what do you think it changed? On March 01 2019 14:14 mozoku wrote: You know a US politics thread has gone awry when it's so caught up in right-bashing and the hidden rules of racism that quarterly GDP numbers don't even make the thread on the day they're released. It's not the posters' fault that the Republicans embarrassed themselves in a Congressional hearing again. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11928 Posts
On March 01 2019 17:06 xM(Z wrote: (i get the tone but i don't care)a discussion on race without the racism. -'cause you have a problem, right?. you have racists, and they are racists because they separate people based on races. -'cause i'm assuming you have a goal here, one other than perpetuating said racism. in 30+ years of liberal rule you did fuck all to alleviate the problem; not even your doubling/tripling down on it helped 'cause all you needed was a little miniHitler to come and the old shit was back on. that to me says you failed, your course of action failed, your whole system of dealing with it failed. now, any reasonable human being would acknowledge that failure, would start talking about what/why/how it failed to try to fix it. so far, is that understandable?. also, i was inquiring more about the rules of discussion rather than the rules of behavior when talking about race/racism because there's no way someone would be able to come up with some rules of conduct that would nullify racism(not to mention here that for some of you that would also mean rules for ones neurons to follow, literally). No, it's not very understandable. What is the content of that discussion on race, and why is it detrimental to the discussion that racism is a part of it? Also the main reason why liberal rule did fuck all to alleviate most of the issues is because liberal rule supports capitalism, and capitalism is very happy when there is a hierarchy of people, it means it can exploit the people at the bottom easier. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On March 01 2019 08:57 xM(Z wrote: Good to know that the intention was to rail against "the lefties" and to do so you will write utter garbage that racism is defined on urinary bladder cancer.i don't care about your opinions of race; what it constitutes, what it embodies, what it portraits, what it expresses, what/if any value it has, etcetcetc. that article in Nature used the word race; go ask them what they fucking meant with it. i couldn't care less if you separate people based on ear shape, body hair or their ability to crack their knuckles then call them races and no one should care, but what they should care about is: once(if) you have them, what do you do with them?. there are no words/terms left to use in discussions with the lefties, words that can be agreed upon at the start of an argument so trying to skew loaded meanings by ways of synonyms, i figured, might work. well that's a big fat no, because even when one manages to make an argument (barely)tangentially related(which is an heroic feat btw), in this case to race, lefties would just move the goal post then act as if it justifies everything. Ex: someone mentioned race realism as if it has a more precise meaning or something but looking even at superficial definitions, some see it as literally racism while others as something opposed to race denialism, which is obviously one and the same thing to you ... ?. anyway, after you figure out what the rules are then maybe you'll be presented with arguments that are understandable. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On March 01 2019 17:06 xM(Z wrote: (i get the tone but i don't care)a discussion on race without the racism. -'cause you have a problem, right?. you have racists, and they are racists because they separate people based on races. -'cause i'm assuming you have a goal here, one other than perpetuating said racism. in 30+ years of liberal rule you did fuck all to alleviate the problem; not even your doubling/tripling down on it helped 'cause all you needed was a little miniHitler to come and the old shit was back on. that to me says you failed, your course of action failed, your whole system of dealing with it failed. now, any reasonable human being would acknowledge that failure, would start talking about what/why/how it failed to try to fix it. so far, is that understandable?. also, i was inquiring more about the rules of discussion rather than the rules of behavior when talking about race/racism because there's no way someone would be able to come up with some rules of conduct that would nullify racism(not to mention here that for some of you that would also mean rules for ones neurons to follow, literally). How do you get to '30+ years of liberal rule'? 3 out of 5 of the Presidents from those 30 years were Republican, and one of the key platform points of Republican politics is how evil liberals are and doing everything possible to prevent liberal values from corrupting America. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43797 Posts
Who's more reliable: Trump or KJU? I honestly have no idea. In Rare News Conference, North Korea Offers Its Own Version Of Summit Collapse ... "What we proposed was not the removal of all sanctions but the partial removal," Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho said through an interpreter in Hanoi. He said North Korea sought relief from five U.N. sanctions imposed in 2016 and 2017 that hurt the country's economy, out of a total of 11, in exchange for disabling its main nuclear complex. But earlier, Trump said at his own news conference from Hanoi that Kim, North Korea's leader, "wanted the sanctions lifted in their entirety, and we couldn't do that." ... Excerpt taken from here: https://www.npr.org/2019/02/28/699006894/in-rare-news-conference-north-korea-offers-its-own-version-of-summit-collapse | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9346 Posts
On March 01 2019 19:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: North Korea just made a statement contradicting Trump's reason for not reaching an agreement at the recent summit meeting. Trump had originally said that he and Kim Jong Un couldn't make a deal in Vietnam because KJU wanted all sanctions removed, which was a compromise that Trump wasn't willing to make. On the other hand, NK diplomat Ri Yong Ho just insisted that KJU had asked for only half of the sanctions (specifically, the ones that are severely undermining NK's economy) to be lifted as a trade for NK disabling its main nuclear complex. Who's more reliable: Trump or KJU? I honestly have no idea. Excerpt taken from here: https://www.npr.org/2019/02/28/699006894/in-rare-news-conference-north-korea-offers-its-own-version-of-summit-collapse I think on the balance of probability they are both lying. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On March 01 2019 08:38 On_Slaught wrote: Sigh. Another bold faced lie for Republicans in Congress to ignore. And this one is having real world, dangerous consequences (see the recent attempt to sneak nuclear reactors to Saudi). Apparently both Kelly and McGahn wrote internal memos at the time saying Trump ordered them to give Kushner TS clearance despite security experts, including the CIA, saying not to. Trump, ofc, on the record said he had no role in Kushner receiving his clearance. Sad how far the party of security and rule of law has fallen. Someone as compromised, not to mention unqualified, as Kushner leading foreign policy discussions should scare everyone. https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1101245624115232768 This is a big proven lie. And given how during the Cohen hearing I've seen so many republican congressmen say that a proven liar loses all credibility I am sure they will do their duty and stop the president here, especially when it endangers America's safety. | ||
| ||
