|
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 20 2019 10:43 JimmiC wrote:
It amazes me when some of the hard core for their party are shocked that the people are not holding there own people as accountable for their actions as they would like. Do you hold your people accountable for their shitty behavior? I see no holding Trump responsible. I have not read a big post on why Stephen King and his like are a embarrassment for the party.
If anything I think Dems have been more reasonable including things like making people step down. I think this shows some lack of self awareness.
If we're going percentage-wise, Democrats have done infinity% more to hold themselves accountable than Republicans have done. They will look for any reason why they don't have to step down, and they will always conveniently forget to mention their shitty behavior, or that of their ilk, and try to own their shit. It's always denial, projection, and blame-shifting. If we're constantly talking about how bad the Democrats are(see Gillum, Abrams all of a sudden), the conversation is simultaneously not about Trump and the Republicans who live to serve him. It's very effective, and it's why some choice posters even here will do it all the time.
Also it's hard to argue that Trump isn't a pussy-grabbing pathological liar who isn't fit for his suit, let alone his job. It's true to the point of moot-ness.
|
I believe in proper airport screening. Due to the national security risks involved, it is important to thoroughly search any potential dangerous individuals.
|
That's a fucking child molester, not security.
|
Yeah... that looks suspicious to me. I'm not throwing around the word, but someone needs to make sure that the guy was following regulations there. I have no idea how stringent the US airport security is these days, though
|
Interestingly, but take it with a grain of salt, this is what the mother says.
I’m that parent. It was be escorted out by the police or submit. They basically terrorized my kids talking about how they would bring in the police (and they did). I asked for an alternative screening. Asked why he couldn’t be wanded ... he’s a minor.
There is no backstory. He sounded no alarms. The TSA made up a story that his laptop set off an explosive detector. He had no laptop. I’m his mother.
Want to make one thing clear. I know many will be looking at my responses now. My son never had a laptop of his own during TSA search, never tested positive for any explosives, went through ALL traditional screening. This was a complete INVENTION of TSA
Let me repeat something to @AskTSA and their “Myth Busting” team. My son didn’t own a laptop of his own. Want to try another story now? I think you have everyone’s attention again. What say you?
They indeed claimed that it was his Laptop setting of an explosives detector. This is the TSA answer.
Screening procedures allow for the pat-down of children under certain circumstances. In this instance, a laptop alarmed which required add'l screening. Officers must resolve all alarms before allowing passengers through the checkpoint. For more info, see:
Now, everyone can make of it what they want, it's statement versus statement. I'm inclined to believe that this is a ruse, especially considering that if it was indeed a laptop setting of the alarm, it's the laptop that's checked vigorously, not the person carrying it. I've indeed set of an explosive detector before (the bag contained hair products and eLiquids, had to be one of those), and while i was briefly pat down, they concentrated their search on what set off the detector. In the end, nothing was confiscated, the policemen (on german airports apparently police gets always notified if the detectors go off) were very nice and even sorted me out so i could take my "vape tools" like calipers etc with me on the plane. As a sidenote, they also made a visible effort to "conceal" their MPs to not come off as threatening.
I stick with my gut feeling, this wasn't "normal".
edit: mother is in the twitter answers to the linked tweet, cba to link all tweets now
|
As bad as this is: Why is it shared from an account named "Deep state exposed"? And why is Trump retweeting it? Is Clinton behind this too or something? Instead or retweeting the problem, how about doing something about it? That seems like something someone with presidential powers might be able to do.
|
Trump's retweeting it because it "confirms" his claims about the deep state, i assume. You've got a point with "Deep State Exposed" sharing it though, and more importantly, the mother not even flinching at that.
|
On March 20 2019 19:57 Excludos wrote:
As bad as this is: Why is it shared from an account named "Deep state exposed"? And why is Trump retweeting it? Is Clinton behind this too or something? Instead or retweeting the problem, how about doing something about it? That seems like something someone with presidential powers might be able to do.
Trump still has no idea what the president does and all the people who could have informed him have been chased out.
|
On March 20 2019 20:21 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2019 19:57 Excludos wrote:
As bad as this is: Why is it shared from an account named "Deep state exposed"? And why is Trump retweeting it? Is Clinton behind this too or something? Instead or retweeting the problem, how about doing something about it? That seems like something someone with presidential powers might be able to do. Trump still has no idea what the president does and all the people who could have informed him have been chased out.
Trump has more important things to do, like engaging in petty squabbles and proving the point of those who are pointing out his mental health deficiencies. This is exactly the kind of person I want to be in charge of the worlds largest military.
|
Can we get this electoral college abolished already. We must stand by our convictions and do what is right for our democracy. The person with the most support among the people is who should be president.
|
I read that the WHs defense in one of the many cases against them is that doing what was asked would take time from Trump's ability to fulfill his constitutional duties. I found that response to be particularly hilarious given how little he actually does. God forbid he has to take time out of watching Fox News, golfing, and tweeting.
You could show how terrible a president Trump is solely by quoting himself from past tweets. By this point there are likely hundreds of instances of him doing things he criticized before. Easiest book ever. Call it "Trump according to Trump" with a picture of him yelling at himself on the cover and the rest of the book writes itself.
|
On March 21 2019 01:02 On_Slaught wrote:I read that the WHs defense in one of the many cases against them is that doing what was asked would take time from Trump's ability to fulfill his constitutional duties. I found that response to be particularly hilarious given how little he actually does. God forbid he has to take time out of watching Fox News, golfing, and tweeting. You could show how terrible a president Trump is solely by quoting himself from past tweets. By this point there are likely hundreds of instances of him doing things he criticized before. Easiest book ever. Call it "Trump according to Trump" with a picture of him yelling at himself on the cover and the rest of the book writes itself.
TrumpvsTrump has its own subreddit, and indeed there are more than enough to fill a book.
|
We made booze illegal nation wide for like 13 years. Anything is possible with enough political will. But it will be very hard.
|
Why in the world is anyone talking about Stacey abrams in 2020? She was a total nobody before her governor race and she did a pretty bad job at that race. Then she handled herself like shit after the race. She has perhaps even less charisma than Elizabeth Warren. What am I missing?
|
Why wouldn't she just run for the senate seat in Georgia? That seems like a much better play than jumping into the Thunder Dome.
|
NY Mag “Could Joe Biden and Stacey Abrams Form an Early Dream Ticket for 2020”
538 wrap-up
Although Abrams has yet to be included in any 2020 polls in our database, if she did enter the presidential race, she could inspire plenty of excitement around her campaign. Abrams is a progressive, 45-year-old, African-American woman who served as the Democratic leader in the Georgia House of Representatives for six years. That background means she could appeal to both the party’s left and establishment wings, not to mention those voters who believe the party should move on from nominating older white men.
But if she were to embark on a presidential campaign, Abrams would likely face several challenges. The “lanes” she’d be running in are quite crowded with candidates who are already busy building donor networks and relationships with activists in early-primary states. For example, in a national campaign, Abrams could not necessarily bank on carrying African-Americans, who have been her base in Georgia, since voters may have a dozen candidates to choose from, including at least two other black candidates, one of whom is a woman. And despite her fame, Abrams has never won an election for any office higher than state representative; it would be unprecedented for a career politician 1 to earn the party nomination with so little experience
When the topic of race sex and age stand out in the DNC’s calculus, she’s a ticket-booster. A couple front runners are old white men. Dems historically don’t like old presidential candidates ... exactly zero (non-incumbent) since 1856. Race and sex are much talked about in Dem circles, and white and male are the wrong answers to that question. VP spot could assuage that tension for whom it matters.
On March 21 2019 02:27 Mohdoo wrote:
Why in the world is anyone talking about Stacey abrams in 2020? She was a total nobody before her governor race and she did a pretty bad job at that race. Then she handled herself like shit after the race. She has perhaps even less charisma than Elizabeth Warren. What am I missing?
First time I’ve heard it in this thread. Why do you think so?
User was warned for this post.
|
when is Mueller report coming,Is it still "soon"?
|
On March 21 2019 02:46 pmh wrote:
when is Mueller report coming,Is it still "soon"?
Probably not, they asked for a time extension.
But we can expect more indictments soon , that has been hinted at
|
Joe Biden is going to have a real tough time making it through a primary. His voting history and a whole bunch of other issues are not going to impress younger voters once the mythical bumbling uncle of the White House persona fades away. I doubt he is going to be able to shed is boomer-centrist baggage. And he is a terrible campaigner.
|
yeah he's coasting on "reminds me of obama" vibes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
