|
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 |
On March 01 2019 21:49 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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 there duty and stop the president here, especially when it endangerous America's safety.
Ah, but they were a step ahead. You see, they are mostly proven liars as well. Accordingly, having no credibility, their statement that proven liars have no credibility has no crediibility, meaning that Trump is credible, and you are checkmated by their 4D chess. TAKE THAT, CNN.
|
On March 01 2019 21:38 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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 I think on the balance of probability they are both lying.
It could have also been the case that Trump had always planned to walk away from the table, even before the meeting had started. It could have been because he thinks it would show power, or because he's just too lazy to actually care, or because he's just too afraid of being embarrassed or ignorant (or D. All of the above).
|
This whole story about Kushiner’s security clearance and the amount of lies surrounding it is never going to die. And it is going to be amazing when Kushiner and Ivanka are forced to testify before the House.
|
On March 02 2019 00:04 Plansix wrote:
This whole story about Kushiner’s security clearance and the amount of lies surrounding it is never going to die. And it is going to be amazing when Kushiner and Ivanka are forced to testify before the House. I would hope that post-Trump there will be a VERY thorough investigation if anyone with an inappropriate clearance mishandled or sold classified information.
|
It is a real problem. We joke about it like it is harmless, because all the Trump family members are clowns. But they could very easily get someone killed or put a lot of people at risk just by giving the wrong person information. And the Trump family is filled with a bunch of jokers who are facing off with people who are so much more qualified when them. It is frightening.
|
I'm a bit baffled by this parade of clowns at CPAC. Is this supposed to be a serious event? I dont understand why this would be the speaker list. The only clown they're missing is Donald Trump. Maybe he'll be the grand finale.
|
yea, kushner with top secret clearance in a room with career spies should really be a cause for concern. if he’s even half as easy to manipulate as his father in law, i can’t imagine the damage they’ve already done.
|
United States41989 Posts
I thought Jared was caught doing consultant work for Mo BoneSaw about how best to escape consequences for killing journalists. We’re past the possibility of deaths.
|
|
|
On March 02 2019 00:48 JimmiC wrote:
My concern is that he has a personal agenda. It should be a requirement that someone in this position has nothing personal at stake. It is crazy that he is actively looking for loans and deals for his families personal dealing while fulfilling this role.
It is a requirement, which is why he was initially denied. The President ordered that he be approved, over the objection of career professionals.
|
Actual quotes from Trump on Kim from his recent interview with Hannity:
"Sharp as you can be."
"A real leader."
"Why shouldn't I like him?"
"He's a character. He's a real personality. He's very smart."
Question: are these asinine comments more a result of his aggressive stupidity and ignorance or sinister love of authoritarians? Conservatives feel free to answer too!
|
Trump loves dictators and anyone who flatters him. Forget if they are responsible for the torture and murder of US citizens, they were nice to Trump and Trump wants a deal.
|
United States41989 Posts
In Kim’s defence he runs a lot of death camps so he can’t be expected to have knowledge of unhealthy conditions in any specific one. You might think he could presume it from the name, or from the design, or from seeing any one of them and extrapolating. But as Trump explained, it’s not reasonable to expect a man responsible for so many deaths to have knowledge of all of them.
|
On March 02 2019 00:56 On_Slaught wrote:
Actual quotes from Trump on Kim from his recent interview with Hannity:
"Sharp as you can be."
"A real leader."
"Why shouldn't I like him?"
"He's a character. He's a real personality. He's very smart."
Question: are these asinine comments more a result of his aggressive stupidity and ignorance or sinister love of authoritarians? Conservatives feel free to answer too!
He commends the people who he sees as behaving the way he wants to behave. He wants to behave those ways because he's an emotionally stunted, insecure shmuck.
|
Shit I didn’t know about my senator until today. She was a personal finance guru, which makes a lot of sense. And was a registered Republican until the 1990, when she decided the system they were creating fucked over work class people. This shit should be front and center going forward.
|
On March 01 2019 17:34 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2019 09:21 IgnE wrote:On March 01 2019 09:06 NewSunshine wrote:On March 01 2019 08:50 IgnE wrote:
that’s blatantly ignorant and ahistorical of you to say I think it's going to be difficult to answer you without knowing what rules you thought there were, and when you think they changed. On March 01 2019 09:04 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2019 08:50 IgnE wrote:
that’s blatantly ignorant and ahistorical of you to say When it comes to racism and consent, the historical reality is that no one wants to hear it. The debate about what they mean is born out of historical oppression of women and minorities. The resistance of men and dominate white culture(in the US) to accept these concepts and ton navigate their complexities. You are correct that the rulers have changed. But they have always been changing. The resistance to learning these rules is born out of a desire to not wanting to follow them at all. It is far easier to not worry if they are racist and not give a shit if a woman wanted to fuck them or not. It basically comes down to this. All my life I've been hearing/reading/seeing dudes talk about these amorphous "rules of dating", which never made any sort of sense to me, and ultimate amounted to little more than wanting to find any way to "crack the code" of just being a decent person and finding someone you like. It's one of the more harmless examples. If this is something that has been "changing", it's because it never had a real form to begin with. 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?
yes it obviously changed the rules of engagement. there are two clear examples, i think: the first is that ten years ago it would have been impossible to imagine someone like aziz ansari having his career flattened in response to an article alleging the things he apparently did. second, it would have been impossible to imagine a short story called Cat Person in the New Yorker leading to a 7 figure book deal
|
Cat Person is a pretty good read, imo. Is it necessarily a bad thing that we are taking women’s stories in good faith? Sure there needs to be further discussion on how to respond to these stories, but I don’t see how any of this is worse than before.
|
no one said it was a bad thing plansix
|
I wasn’t trying to imply that you were. Apologizes. It was a rhetorical line of questioning, since the entire discussion started with people wanting to know the capital “R” Rules of engagement and if they have changed. I don’t believe the rules changed, to be honest. Even if both those stories were never published, no person wants any woman to remember them that way those dudes were. The biggest difference is that the public is more aware that dating for women is more fraught with risk than we were previously aware of.
|
On March 02 2019 02:24 IgnE wrote:
no one said it was a bad thing plansix
I saw the pushback you got when you said things had changed, but maybe they meant to say that things had changed, but hadn't changed for the worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
