| 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 | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23411 Posts
Congress and the parties aren't going to remove Trump by most estimates, so we're left with voting him out, which was the same option we started with when he won. That's to say the only solution our system offers to the next Trump is voting them out, provided they respect the results. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9005 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23411 Posts
On April 19 2019 11:52 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I don't think it is that cynical GH. As voting persons in the US, we expect change. And we expect fellow voters to do the right thing. When this expectation is not met, we are left with what we currently have; dysfunction at all levels. Hence the wave of freshmen congress members with wildly different backgrounds and seemingly outrageous ideas. Most of us know we cannot continue on this path, so we try to change it. So far, the results have left us wanting. "cynical" is a weird word so I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that. This when this expectation is not met, we are left with what we currently have; dysfunction at all levels. Hence the wave of freshmen congress members with wildly different backgrounds and seemingly outrageous ideas. Most of us know we cannot continue on this path, so we try to change it. So far, the results have left us wanting. Is what I find fascinating. For me it was Obama that taught me this lesson for the last time. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44896 Posts
On April 19 2019 11:01 xDaunt wrote: No criminal charge = fully exonerated. There is no middle ground here, despite Mueller’s best attempts to create the appearance of impropriety out of whole cloth. Isn't this like saying that the two opposing verdicts in a courtroom are Guilty and Innocent, as opposed to the reality of Guilty and Not Guilty? Not providing a strong or technical enough case for guilt doesn't prove innocence. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9005 Posts
On April 19 2019 12:15 GreenHorizons wrote: "cynical" is a weird word so I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that. This Is what I find fascinating. For me it was Obama that taught me this lesson for the last time. But we know that Obama was halted in congress. He couldn't do anything without a massive amount of EOs. Which is why people were dissatisfied. Give him a functioning congress and things would have been wildly different. It's like the scene in Interstellar. Obama was trying to solve a complex problem with both hands tied behind his back. He did the best he could. I won't fault him for that. I have my other grievances with him though, so he's not a saint in my eyes. And by cynical, I meant that it isn't as bad as you make it seem. The political discourse in this country has taken a different flavor than the one we grew up knowing. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23411 Posts
On April 19 2019 12:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: But we know that Obama was halted in congress. He couldn't do anything without a massive amount of EOs. Which is why people were dissatisfied. Give him a functioning congress and things would have been wildly different. It's like the scene in Interstellar. Obama was trying to solve a complex problem with both hands tied behind his back. He did the best he could. I won't fault him for that. I have my other grievances with him though, so he's not a saint in my eyes. And by cynical, I meant that it isn't as bad as you make it seem. The political discourse in this country has taken a different flavor than the one we grew up knowing. I'm as familiar with that story as anyone, I've told it myself right here. Like I said though, Obama taught me the lesson many are slowly learning from Democrats in the Trump era. About their ineffectiveness, their trash performance in places like Baltimore, Chicago, etc... their support for mass incarceration, prison labor, on and on. Basically the naive (imo) worldview that held together longstanding US myths and their own realities is finally falling apart for people that had prior to Trump been able to avoid noticing, or confronting it seriously, by one way or another. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23411 Posts
On April 19 2019 13:35 JimmiC wrote: I mean America has issues no doubt. Lots of them, but it is not Gotham from the batman comics. It is still a pretty good country to have been born into when compared globally. So hopefully you are right that Trump has opened the eyes of people to how corrupt it is and how without proper checks and balances how close it is to falling into the hands of a guy so incompetent that the only saving him from obstruction is that he is such a poor leader that none of his people followed his orders. Hopefully the people speak with their votes and demand more accountability and a higher standard for their leader. Gotham at least had Batman? US comparisons being "pretty good...when compared globally" necessitates that we ignore the disparate amount of wealth we wield as a nation. When you compare apples to apples (per capita and similar situation comparisons) we lag behind almost all of our peers in almost every metric that matters (imo, though I could dig up some data if this is a point of contention). As to gaining awareness of the current situation, yes at least some people are, the politicians and most of corporate media however still seem as hopeless as ever to me. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On April 19 2019 11:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: If Mueller deferred to Congress to decide to indict or not, that doesn't mean he was exonerated. It just means that Mueller punted to Congress, which he should do. Edit: I suck at formatting BBCode lol. "Exonerate" comes from the Latin: exonerō, exonerāre — to discharge, to unload; hence to our modern usage meaning "to free from accusation" or "to acquit." Are we really going to say that he wasn't exonerated? OJ Simpson was exonerated. Until he wasn't. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23411 Posts
On April 19 2019 14:54 IgnE wrote: "Exonerate" comes from the Latin: exonerō, exonerāre — to discharge, to unload; hence to our modern usage meaning "to free from accusation" or "to acquit." Are we really going to say that he wasn't exonerated? Leave it to IgnE to one-up my dictionary post, nonetheless, that does seem like a useful clarification. So that that conversation can progress should it return. | ||
KwarK
United States43136 Posts
On April 19 2019 14:54 IgnE wrote: "Exonerate" comes from the Latin: exonerō, exonerāre — to discharge, to unload; hence to our modern usage meaning "to free from accusation" or "to acquit." Are we really going to say that he wasn't exonerated? OJ Simpson was exonerated. Until he wasn't. There is an implication of innocence in the claim of exoneration which is completely at odds with Mueller’s conclusion of wrongdoing. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
Edit: I mean look, we all know what dauntless meant, and he knows we know what he meant, so what's the point in arguing about connotation? The better response to "he was exonerated" is "fine, but he's not innocent," not "he wasn't exonerated." You can clarify the connotation without getting mired in an unwinnable argument over "semantics." | ||
|
PoulsenB
Poland7711 Posts
| ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8601 Posts
On April 19 2019 17:21 PoulsenB wrote: So what will be the aftermath of the report's release, realistically speaking? a treasure chest leading into the 2020 election. impeachment was off the table once Dems felt that Republicans would never impeach Trump - their side's President. which in turn means that they are in a bind. one's demise also dooms the other. so a clean 2020 victory is the way to go for Dems. problem is, Trump is many things, and many things he says he is not. though one thing he is for sure, a survival expert. a 2020 win is anything but certain. for both sides. and Trump has got a lot to lose. by losing the next election he could lose just about everything. the(winning?) persona he created around his narcicissm and inherited wealth, a lot of personal wealth, his brand. there are so many court cases in the pipeline, and as President he proves quite the challenge for the justice system. just read some key parts of the Mueller report. so the best way to get rid of him is by showing him the door in 2020... it somehow feels like on party is there to game the system for their gain, the other is playing not to lose or play to keep it intact. which makes for great drama don't get me wrong, but 4 years of this seemed plenty. for the next 20 years. at least. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21904 Posts
On April 19 2019 15:21 IgnE wrote: Mueller specifically says Trump was not exonerated. The report lays it out very well.He was exonerated. He is not innocent. Two completely compatible statements. Edit: I mean look, we all know what dauntless meant, and he knows we know what he meant, so what's the point in arguing about connotation? The better response to "he was exonerated" is "fine, but he's not innocent," not "he wasn't exonerated." You can clarify the connotation without getting mired in an unwinnable argument over "semantics." Mueller could not charge the President because of DoJ guidelines, additionally because a declaration of guilt without a trail would remove the ability of the defended to defend himself the report cannot reach a guilty verdict. The only conclusion Mueller could reach was exonerated, which is specifically says it did not reach. Additionally Mueller has a whole section about how it is Congress job to protect investigations from Obstruction of Justice through the use of the Presidents official powers. So yes, Mueller does pass the buck to going after Trump over Obstruction of Justice to Congress and he does so rather explicitly. This is what you get when you make up your mind on the report and say dumb things without actually reading the report. I look forward to xDaunt's rebuttal when he has read the report and has been unbanned. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21904 Posts
Less redacted stuff then I expected, tho some things that could prove juicy because there is a lot of black lines surrounding contact between Wikileaks and the Campaign which I assume revolves around the ongoing case with Roger Stone. Biggest question I had coming in was the Trump Tower meeting, which basically comes down to Yes Jr. broke the law by going to the meeting but since no information was actually passed on its hard to prove it had sufficient value and more importantly the law requires 'wilful' acts which means you need to know the law exists before you can break it and its reasonable to assume Trump Jr. didn't know he couldn't accept info from a foreign government. Lots of contact between the Campaign and Russia but since collusion is not a legal term the investigation focused on Coordination between the 2 parties, of which no evidence was found. Basically I do something good for you, you do something good for me. But since we never actually discussed with each other that we would do these things its outside the scope of the investigation. I'm going to say they get off on a technicality there, and yes that is just my personal opinion. The Obstruction investigation is a lot more interesting. Lots of events that can all constitute obstruction, and in my eyes did, but the report lays out that it can't reach a verdict other then exonerated because DoJ guidelines means Meuller won't indict the President and you can't declare someone guilty in a report without going to a trail to allow the defended to defend himself. Specifically lays out its the job of Congress to handle the President obstructing an investigation through the use of his constitutional powers (firing Comey, trying to fire Meuller ect). The big question is will, and more importantly I guess, can the Democrats actually do anything with this in Congress. I doubt they will start impeachment proceedings considering it has no hope of getting past the Senate and I don't know what other tools they have. Funny note, the report mentions its entirely possibly to charge Trump with Obstruction of Justice after his Presidency ends, This could still get nasty for Trump even if Congress isn't able to act now. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25875 Posts
‘Exonerated of the charges’ to me means basically just that, when people say ‘totally exonerated’, or I do it means an individual is cleared of what they were accused of, but also of wrongdoing in the area, in a moral/spirit of the law sense. Some legal codes have a ‘not proven’ verdict in addition to the innocent/guilty, which is how some of Mueller’s report reads. As to why we and wider society are arguing distinct from each other’s frameworks is confusing and irritating to me. At least within here, maybe not elsewhere opposition to Trump haven’t set the bar at nailing him if he does anything illegal, and anything else is fine so it’s not really a refutation of criticisms if he’s merely not prosecuted. Likewise many of us actually don’t like the partisanship and increasing polarisation of things and concede there are problems there, it’s not really a good defence as Trump is he is probably the single biggest courter and flamer of the phenomenon. Oh no poor Donald felt attacked by a bogus investigation, makes his conduct totally explicable and fine. I seem to recall a certain man throwing his lot in with the birther conspiracy crowd not all that long ago. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25875 Posts
On April 19 2019 13:54 GreenHorizons wrote: Gotham at least had Batman? US comparisons being "pretty good...when compared globally" necessitates that we ignore the disparate amount of wealth we wield as a nation. When you compare apples to apples (per capita and similar situation comparisons) we lag behind almost all of our peers in almost every metric that matters (imo, though I could dig up some data if this is a point of contention). As to gaining awareness of the current situation, yes at least some people are, the politicians and most of corporate media however still seem as hopeless as ever to me. The US has its cultural tropes though, kinda hard to punch through. Which are actively courted to justify bad systems and bad outcomes. I get dismissed as some whiny pinko Euro when I point some of these things out. Even though it’s not from a sneering Euro superiority point, more bafflement that a country like the Us doesn’t have some of these things. So either I can try to argue against people’s culturally ingrained beliefs, or argue that they don’t really have them or they’re actively manipulated by those that benefit. Basically all of which are exercises in futility up there with headbutting a wall. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Super Smash Bros Other Games summit1g5467 Grubby3181 FrodaN825 Skadoodle253 C9.Mang0179 Day[9].tv150 Pyrionflax126 Maynarde109 Chillindude12 fpsfer  1 |
|
PiGosaur Monday
OSC
The PondCast
OSC
Wardi Open
CranKy Ducklings
Safe House 2
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Safe House 2
|
|
|
EPT
