EPTRepublicans are getting very cliche at this point.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1340
| 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 | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21528 Posts
Republicans are getting very cliche at this point. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On April 18 2019 04:08 Gorsameth wrote: And predictably on the eve of its release to the public the message comes that everything in it is a lie anyway. Republicans are getting very cliche at this point. I'm trying to remember the last time that you made a post that had even a remote appearance of being informed on this topic. It's been a while. These one and two-line shitposts of yours are getting quite old. Why don't you actually make a real post? You might learn something in trying to do it. There are certainly some points that your side has to make. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Edit: and now it’s about “sides” like the pro sports or the WWE. | ||
KwarK
United States42262 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15476 Posts
On April 18 2019 04:32 KwarK wrote: I feel like I remember Hillary being the target of investigations, rather than specific crimes. Benghazigate etc. Although I’m sure xDaunt will come out against those any day now, especially given that Hillary actually testified on those matters rather than demanding that those looking into them be fired. I think since xDaunt has an existing suspicion of Clinton, those investigations are warranted. But since Trump beats his chest in a way that allows xDaunt to feel empowered by identifying with Trump, it is bad to investigate Trump. What I have noticed is that people who admire authority or power tend to defend Trump more. It is kinda like how people in trailer parks vote against taxing the rich. There's a reason we used to see "So why not investigate then?" and now its "how fucking dare they want to investigate" | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On April 18 2019 04:32 KwarK wrote: I feel like I remember Hillary being the target of investigations, rather than specific crimes. Benghazigate etc. Although I’m sure xDaunt will come out against those any day now, especially given that Hillary actually testified on those matters rather than demanding that those looking into them be fired. There was a specific act that Congress was looking at with Benghazi -- who gave the order not to save embassy. But that's besides the point, because there was no law enforcement investigation (not that there was a known reason to have one). Likewise, with Hillary's emails, there was a specific crime to investigate -- the unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. In stark contrast, we still don't know what began the investigations into Trump. And very specifically, we don't know why intelligence services were spying on his people in 2015-2016 before the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane. This is the million dollar question. I think that what we're ultimately going to find out is that the intelligence services under Obama were spying on political opponents without a valid predicate, but we're not there yet. If/when it's confirmed that Mifsud is a western agent instead of a Russian one, then we'll know. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On April 18 2019 04:36 Mohdoo wrote: I think since xDaunt has an existing suspicion of Clinton, those investigations are warranted. But since Trump beats his chest in a way that allows xDaunt to feel empowered by identifying with Trump, it is bad to investigate Trump. What I have noticed is that people who admire authority or power tend to defend Trump more. It is kinda like how people in trailer parks vote against taxing the rich. There's a reason we used to see "So why not investigate then?" and now its "how fucking dare they want to investigate" At some point very early in the conversation, they established through implication that it's perfectly okay to lash out at people doing an investigation just because they did an investigation. As long as it was into guys on your(the Republican's) team. They happily skipped right over the part where if your guy is caught running out of a huge cloud of smoke, then there was probably a fire, and the least you guys can do is take an investigation on the chin, because it needs to happen. They're trying to imply it was I've never been accused of committing thought-crime before. That's an interesting experience. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On April 18 2019 04:52 JimmiC wrote: I think that if you are going to pardon some, which I hope doesn't happen because they are completely dirty, you would have to Pardon them all, including the ones that turned on Trump. This my side or your side BS has to stop, it has to be whats right and wrong. If you think that my posts are strictly about "my side or your side," then you have completely missed the boat. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On April 18 2019 04:52 NewSunshine wrote: At some point very early in the conversation, they established through implication that it's perfectly okay to lash out at people doing an investigation just because they did an investigation. As long as it was into guys on your(the Republican's) team. They happily skipped right over the part where if your guy is caught running out of a huge cloud of smoke, then there was probably a fire, and the least you guys can do is take an investigation on the chin, because it needs to happen. They're trying to imply it was I've never been accused of committing thought-crime before. That's an interesting experience. This sentence demonstrates an utterly gross lack of comprehension of what the real issues are and why people are angry about what's happened. Abuse of governmental power is not a trivial issue. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11406 Posts
On April 18 2019 04:55 xDaunt wrote: If you think that my posts are strictly about "my side or your side," then you have completely missed the boat. Dunno, i get exactly the same impression. You always have a lot of reasons why anything against republicans is bad, anything for republicans is good, anything against democrats is good and anything for democrats is bad. I don't think i have seen a single issue of you ever taking a position that can not be summed up like that. Sure, you always find a way to rationalize it, but deep down your decision making process is simply Republicans good, democrats bad. If something is going against republicans, a lot of caution is necessary to never wrongly accuse someone, and to investigate the investigators very thoroughly. If something is going against democrats, those problems never seem to come up. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On April 18 2019 04:58 xDaunt wrote: This sentence demonstrates an utterly gross lack of comprehension of what the real issues are and why people are angry about what's happened. Abuse of governmental power is not a trivial issue. Oh, I agree. But it's not hard to read between the lines, especially when you continue to espouse deluded conspiracies that somehow, Hillary and Obama are still going down, and so are the folks who had the stones to investigate Trump and his not-at-all shady doings, comings and goings. Conveniently, everyone sitting on the rightward pews seems to be spared from your wrath. It's interesting. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 18 2019 04:32 KwarK wrote: I feel like I remember Hillary being the target of investigations, rather than specific crimes. Benghazigate etc. Although I’m sure xDaunt will come out against those any day now, especially given that Hillary actually testified on those matters rather than demanding that those looking into them be fired. Those investigations, all 5 of them, not only turned up nothing, but also delivered no report or finding that could be used to prevent what happened during the attack in the future. The same goes for the emails investigation, which did not issue a recommendation on policy changes for better security. They were investigations that never lead to anything beyond attacking Clinton. Of course, the argument we hear is that the investigation didn’t dig deep enough. Just like all the other investigations into the Clintons. They just need one more shot at it and then will get those Clintons and show America who bad the Democrats really were all these years. It is almost as sad as the Democrats hoping that the country would realize they are the smart ones and stop watching Fox News. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 18 2019 03:54 NewSunshine wrote: For all you seem to think he's "zinging" you on a distinction, isn't that exactly what you're trying to do right now? You're synthesizing an argument and trying to make the discussion about something other than how our healthcare industry in this country is a total failure. And, so far as I can tell, you're the only one participating in this argument. I don’t think he’s recrossing the original contention; just leveling criticism of insurance itself, so I’m okay ending my participation in the argument as well. He said there was a distinction in terms, he meant there was a distinction in what he values and intended it only as a criticism of the system. I’m perfectly fine leaving it as that, as he offered no defense of his original contention. We’ll probably have debates on drafted Democratic plans for insurance before too long, where he can tell me if he thinks it’s insurance (hated/terrible) or care (the real deal). | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On April 18 2019 00:55 Mohdoo wrote: Yeah I agree with all this. Warren, much like Biden, is being propelled by existing interest/prestige, but not actually all that good of a candidate. However, I do think she will be a valuable ally of Bernie's once she bows out. From an election perspective, Bernie is just a superior version of Warren. Similarly, Beto/Booty-jig are just superior versions of Biden. Harris kind of has value, but I'm still not impressed. People who have a chance if they have an insane debate performance but are otherwise toast: Hickenlooper, Gabbard, Booker, Inslee (lmao), yang, castro, Harris. Overall, I am simply not convinced a non-masculine woman can overcome the systematic sociological hurdles present in national politics. There is a certain amount of chest beating that simply hasn't left our voters yet. Clinton was a weird semi-masculine thing that didn't really work in either direction. Klobuchar comes the closest to radiating the same kind of masculine strength we see in AOC. I love the idea of Yang being on stage and presenting the benefits of UBI, but his struggle will be to not appear as a Ron Paul joke. Some candidates have strangely large pots of money right now, but that simply isn't enough. Modern day politics is won on social media, not TV/radio. Bernie and Trump both showed us in 2016 that the game is plain and simply different. I think a lot of voters are continuing to ignore how much charisma/bravado Trump has. It is super crucial. For that reason, I honestly do think the only people with a chance against Trump are: Booty-jig, Klobuchar, Sanders, Beto. Many people associate Biden with his TheOnion persona, but his IRL persona is actually significantly less likable/charismatic. He totally shit the bed in every debate I've seen him in. I don’t think I would have said that AOC is “masculine”, at least not in the same way Clinton was. Is Warren masculine? Buttigieg? Harris? Surely masculinity is not simply equivalent to bravado, otherwise why use such a charged term? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21528 Posts
On April 18 2019 05:31 Danglars wrote: I don't know if we will see a lot of new healthcare plans actually make it past the wishful thinking campaign promises. For one its impossible to get anything done on that end without a super majority is congress because Republicans will block it, but also because there are other things to fight for and the ACA will have to do for now. I don’t think he’s recrossing the original contention; just leveling criticism of insurance itself, so I’m okay ending my participation in the argument as well. He said there was a distinction in terms, he meant there was a distinction in what he values and intended it only as a criticism of the system. I’m perfectly fine leaving it as that, as he offered no defense of his original contention. We’ll probably have debates on drafted Democratic plans for insurance before too long, where he can tell me if he thinks it’s insurance (hated/terrible) or care (the real deal). Its just not politically feasible, imo, to have a big fight over healthcare every 4 years. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10644 Posts
On April 18 2019 04:52 JimmiC wrote: I think we know what xDaunt thinks. He is very clear and direct about it. He is protrump and pro in every way. He think the ends justify the means and while Trump is "no angel" he is sticking it to the deep state. While I disagree with much of it, I don't think their is any question of his position. How does being clear and direct about something qualify as a good thing? Attacking the opposing political side wherever possible? Check. Disregarding any flaws his Leader has because he suits him? Check. Putting his country above all other no matter the morality? Check. Disregarding any BS his "own" party does and even advocating for pardoning people that comitted and were proven guilty of crimes? Check. Being totally okay with disenfranchising and activealy hindering voters that most likely would rather vote for the opposing party? Check. This is not simple partisanship or some run of the mill right wing talk, this is Facism. And I don't see the least bit of hyperbole in this statement. | ||
| ||
