|
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 29 2019 03:55 JimmiC wrote:
I think the was missed during the victory lap about the Barr summary. Even if he had nothing to do with the Russian interference, it did happen and MANY people around him were involved. And also he was a white collar criminal before he was president. These are facts.
Yup. Adam Schiff went off on the Republicans over this today for almost 5 minutes after they put out a letter calling for his resignation because Barr's letter claims Trump is innocent. He literally spent 4+ minutes listing out various contacts the Trump Campaign had with Russia. It was great.
It's fun to watch Devin Nunes become increasingly uncomfortable as the whole thing goes on:
|
It is fun to watch a bunch of feckless bootlickers to get what is coming to them. And Shiff is right about the report. There isn’t sufficient evidence to convict, but there is no doubt that the Trump campaigns actions were wrong, unethically and unpatriotic.
|
United States41991 Posts
If in doubt ask how many of them would have called upon a foreign state to release hacked emails. Or have taken the Trump tower meeting. I’ve yet to see a single one of them agree with Trump’s “anyone would have done the same” claim.
|
On March 29 2019 05:17 KwarK wrote:
If in doubt ask how many of them would have called upon a foreign state to release hacked emails. Or have taken the Trump tower meeting. I’ve yet to see a single one of them agree with Trump’s “anyone would have done the same” claim.
Except Obama. Then it would be illegal and very very bad.
|
Lol @ the look of deepfelt disgust at 3:28.
That alone made it worth regardless of content.
|
Schiff is saying what we've been saying in this thread all week. The lack of sufficient evidence to convict does not erase all the known facts which show how "immoral, unethical, and unpatriotic" (well said Schiff) the actions of the Trump team were. Nor does it change the fact the 2016 election was unduly influenced to the point where the outcome very well may have been changed from what it otherwise would have been.
|
United States41991 Posts
2016 was close to the point that you’d be delusional to think Russian state support didn’t swing it, as did any other factor you might name. Some swing states were decided by extremely slim margins. When elections are that close anything can tip the balance either way.
|
On March 29 2019 06:23 KwarK wrote:
2016 was close to the point that you’d be delusional to think Russian state support didn’t swing it, as did any other factor you might name. Some swing states were decided by extremely slim margins. When elections are that close anything can tip the balance either way.
I think you are argue it either way. But for a democracy that is unacceptable and must be dealt with. We are seeing the division is creates playing out live in our own country. The US and other world powers did this to other nations in the past, causing them to fall into civil war. This cannot be the new normal for our country or we will not make it.
|
|
|
apparently Trump is at a rally right now proclaiming he is totally exonerated - even though the summary by the guy he hired said he wasn't 
|
On March 29 2019 08:47 HelpMeGetBetter wrote:apparently Trump is at a rally right now proclaiming he is totally exonerated - even though the summary by the guy he hired said he wasn't You expected Trump to tell the truth?
Or his followers to know/acknowledge the difference?
|
Grand Rapids/Western Michigan is Trump heartland so expect him to go all out with the crazy there
|
On March 29 2019 08:47 HelpMeGetBetter wrote:apparently Trump is at a rally right now proclaiming he is totally exonerated - even though the summary by the guy he hired said he wasn't
That's how he speaks. Mueller failed to find collusion after two years of politicians and media figures telling Americans it was a slam dunk case. He's vindicated. Investigations and prosecutors, particularly special counsels don't declare subjects innocent ... they declare they've found nothing damning.
Two years and 25 million dollars is something to celebrate, right? If we can agree that he's never going to tout his victory in the right way, can you at least admit it's a victory and a huge deal?
|
On March 29 2019 09:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2019 08:47 HelpMeGetBetter wrote:apparently Trump is at a rally right now proclaiming he is totally exonerated - even though the summary by the guy he hired said he wasn't That's how he speaks. Mueller failed to find collusion after two years of politicians and media figures telling Americans it was a slam dunk case. He's vindicated. Investigations and prosecutors, particularly special counsels don't declare subjects innocent ... they declare they've found nothing damning. Two years and 25 million dollars is something to celebrate, right? If we can agree that he's never going to tout his victory in the right way, can you at least admit it's a victory and a huge deal? No, we can't.
The barrier for a President is a tiny bit higher then "I and people around me did a lot of bad shit but technically its not enough to throw me in jail, maybe"
|
On March 29 2019 09:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2019 08:47 HelpMeGetBetter wrote:apparently Trump is at a rally right now proclaiming he is totally exonerated - even though the summary by the guy he hired said he wasn't That's how he speaks. Mueller failed to find collusion after two years of politicians and media figures telling Americans it was a slam dunk case. He's vindicated. Investigations and prosecutors, particularly special counsels don't declare subjects innocent ... they declare they've found nothing damning. Two years and 25 million dollars is something to celebrate, right? If we can agree that he's never going to tout his victory in the right way, can you at least admit it's a victory and a huge deal?
This is fact, Trump lies all the time to the American people and his supporters are happy to cover for him.
|
On March 29 2019 09:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2019 08:47 HelpMeGetBetter wrote:apparently Trump is at a rally right now proclaiming he is totally exonerated - even though the summary by the guy he hired said he wasn't That's how he speaks. Mueller failed to find collusion after two years of politicians and media figures telling Americans it was a slam dunk case. He's vindicated. Investigations and prosecutors, particularly special counsels don't declare subjects innocent ... they declare they've found nothing damning. Two years and 25 million dollars is something to celebrate, right? If we can agree that he's never going to tout his victory in the right way, can you at least admit it's a victory and a huge deal?
This, maybe, is the only true thing in your post. Just because they didn't find enough to charge a sitting president with, doesn't mean they didn't find anything and that it didn't happen.
And anyway, it says more that folks like you are totally down to party after everything your Republicans - and your president - have done to get where you are. You guys don't seem to care about all the land you burned. And you don't seem to notice why that matters.
|
I am interested in HelpMeGetBetter's take. I'm reading the other replies, which basically consist of repeating all the other reasons why you will never admit if and when Trump gets a big victory, and answering questions I never asked. Partisanship here, as elsewhere, is at record highs, and I'm tuning into newer voices.
+ Show Spoiler +I at least one of you think it bears repeating that Trump could be guilty of asundry other acts, and indeed you already think he is on news stories you've heard, the same applies. He could be subject of a four year, 50 million dollar investigation, and still move onto other alleged crimes and conspiracies. It's tiresome.
At least one of you thinks it's worth repeating that Trump lies all the time. Cool.
I've already seen how xDaunt's factual arguments get ignored and pathetically dismissed, so I have learned just how much respect is shown for damaging allegations for your own side.
|
Technically trump is not exonerated from an impeachment standpoint. Barr only said he didnt commit crime based on the burden of proof for crimes (and barrs opinion, for which he got his job, is that the act of firing an FBI director cannot constitute evidence of obstruction). Mueller laid out all the obstruction evidence for the purpose of Congress evaluating it for impeachment purposes. Muellers audience was Congress.
|
On March 29 2019 09:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2019 08:47 HelpMeGetBetter wrote:apparently Trump is at a rally right now proclaiming he is totally exonerated - even though the summary by the guy he hired said he wasn't That's how he speaks. Mueller failed to find collusion after two years of politicians and media figures telling Americans it was a slam dunk case. He's vindicated. Investigations and prosecutors, particularly special counsels don't declare subjects innocent ... they declare they've found nothing damning. Two years and 25 million dollars is something to celebrate, right? If we can agree that he's never going to tout his victory in the right way, can you at least admit it's a victory and a huge deal?
You do know that Mueller is set to recover more in fines than the whole cost of his investigation, right? He is going to make the govt money when all is said and done.
Better returns than Trump's golfing.
|
On March 29 2019 03:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2019 03:05 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 29 2019 02:45 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2019 02:33 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 29 2019 02:29 Plansix wrote:
I have to get to some work, but one point bothered me in your post:
Journalistic integrity is not dead. There are plenty of journalists that are doing great work across the world. They are no longer valued over the muck rakers and pro-wrestling style media coverage. The work still exists, but it is harder to find, not championed the way it should and is now rewarded. Would you say that is a failure of capitalism or of the people. Media companies don't make shitty news because they're shitty people. They do it because shitty people consume it and they make money. Capitalism. The free market will not provide solutions to this problem. I’ve said that news media went to shit when the 24 hour news cycle the norm. The decline of news papers, especially local papers, due to the rise of the internet has also become a major problem. The fact that so much of the internet is “free” to use has created a race to the bottom for news media. Facebook recently put out that they were unable to provide local news in the US because of a lack of reporting, which like me saying I miss the milk I got from the cow I recently slaughtered for its meat. I'd consider it more of a customer is always right situation. People don't want to be informed, they want to click on click bait articles that agree with their views. Capitalism and the media are only delivering what people want and they want a 24 hour news cycle to feed the outrage machine. Capitalism is a race to the bottom if left unchecked. Payday lenders will be successful. Usury will flourish because teh consumer wants money now. So on and so on. But the problem is that in this market, the internet has been given unearned advantages due to laws governing liability for hosting articles that traditional media do not enjoy. Companies like Facebook and Google will not fail. They will simply host the next low quality site in the great churn while they provide us with trash tier news while they soak up enough of the profits to make quality reporting not viable. At least in the era of yellow journalism there was a wide variety of news sources, all which could fail on their own terms and we paid for that news directly.
That advantage is that they don't actually host any content, they just link you to other websites. They're like a tour guide of the internet. Do you think people would actually read quality journalism if google and facebook didn't exist? They'd just see the click bait titles somewhere else.
On March 29 2019 02:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2019 03:05 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
You rail against facebook constantly, but the consumer really does have all the power here. You can look at the ban of white nationalists on the platform and see that if people wanted something different facebook would deliver so long as it improved their bottom line. Do they? I'm not on Facebook any longer, but they have an account for me and my wife. They have accounts for people that never signed up. They collect data on us all. Ads will be delivered to me on the internet based on their data no matter what I do. And lets say you are right, how much damage does Facebook get to do before it fails and the next thing moves in? And will that new thing be better? Do we just hope that if we have the national media landscape upturned enough times we will get a viable system for an informed population? Or subscribe to your fatalism that human nature is terrible and we are doomed to failure because of it? And if that is the case, why do you want to live in a democracy?
and how long does government regulation take and will that even be effective? You can look across the pond at article 11, which in theory would clamp down on link aggregators. We'll see if that actually pans out, but we have a pretty good indication already since a link tax already exists/existed in Germany and Spain. It provided google with a monopoly because you have to be on google and google can choose not to host your content. The little guy doesn't have the clout to charge for links.
Hurting the companies bottom line is the solution to capitalism, not waiting for the government to try to regulate something they don't even understand. Quite frankly I fear direct democracy more than what we have now, but you can't argue that the outrage machine is powerless. If we could direct that energy better it would be great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
