|
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 July 12 2019 21:54 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2019 21:47 JimmiC wrote:On July 12 2019 13:33 KwarK wrote:On July 12 2019 11:55 IgnE wrote:
So who has a plan to avoid certain catastrophe? Thanos I think we would have a few posters would would happily team with him or a different super villain as long as his plan touched on a couple of their key beliefs. i didn’t vote for him because i thought he was some moral compass, i voted for him because he represents a change from the norm. for his ability to actually cut through the red tape and get things done. he doesn’t care about your feelings, he just says what he thinks is right. and if you just listen to him it’s clear that eliminating man made climate change is high on his priorities and he is already doing the work to make those changes happen.
If he's less bad than Trump he's got my vote, alternatively, if he's not I'll that easily become a Trump supporter /s
Obviously I don't pick between an inadequate government or Thanos, I call the Avengers.
|
|
|
And that ladies and gentlemen is what our elections have become. We're at the point where the next election looks like it's between a possible "child rapist" or "not a child rapist".
|
On July 12 2019 22:33 ShoCkeyy wrote:
And that ladies and gentlemen is what our elections have become. We're at the point where the next election looks like it's between a possible "child rapist" or "not a child rapist".
It looks like child rapist is the new Russian collusion. The issue is never evidence, it is only how far the crazies (from both sides) are willing to indulge their fancies ... which is the whole reason for the construction “looks like it’s between a possible.” And, yes, a looks-like-possible smear is exactly what election campaigns have become.
|
Acosta is out.
To follow up. It appears he's actually stepping down and not being kicked out. Which is the only way he would have left the post. I'm still trying to figure out how devos and carson are still employed but they keep quiet for the most part.
Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta is stepping down after criticism over his role in a non-prosecution deal reached years ago with the well-connected businessman accused of sex crimes, Jeffrey Epstein.
Acosta appeared on Friday at the White House with President Trump and announced his resignation.
"I do not think it is fair for this administration's Labor Department to have Epstein as its focus rather than the incredible economy we have today," Acosta said. "The right thing was to step aside."
Acosta said his departure would be effective in one week.
Trump said Acosta had called him to convey his decision and the choice to step down had been Acosta's. Trump praised Acosta as a "fantastic secretary of Labor" and "a tremendous talent. He's a Hispanic man; he went to Harvard."
Top Democrats in Congress had called for Acosta's removal in the wake of new charges against multimillionaire Epstein by federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York.
Not sure what the Hispanic and harvard sentence had to do with anything...
Source is NPR (linking in phone is impossible.)
|
On July 12 2019 22:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2019 22:33 ShoCkeyy wrote:
And that ladies and gentlemen is what our elections have become. We're at the point where the next election looks like it's between a possible "child rapist" or "not a child rapist". It looks like child rapist is the new Russian collusion. The issue is never evidence, it is only how far the crazies (from both sides) are willing to indulge their fancies ... which is the whole reason for the construction “looks like it’s between a possible.” And, yes, a looks-like-possible smear is exactly what election campaigns have become.
The russian collusion was real, whether it was done for Trump doesn't mean anything, but Mueller himself said it was real, and that they did indeed meddle in the election.
|
|
|
On July 12 2019 15:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2019 10:06 xDaunt wrote:
The problem that democrats have with sexual harassment is the same one that they have with racism and identity politics: an utter lack of justifiable principle. In creating retarded, unjustifiable standards to attack their conservative political opponents (“all victims must be believed” is a good example) in the name pure political expediency, the inevitable consequence is that democrats would use these standards against themselves. Stated another way, Democrats are practicing the politics of cannibalism. Nice strawman, nobody ever said that all victims should be believed. I think democrats are perfectly ok with using against themselves the standards they set against Trump. Here it is: next time a democratic candidates boasts on tape groping women, visits the dressing room of pageants to “check”, talks about how the only reason he doesn’t fuck his daughter is their parental bond and that what they have in common is “sex”, cheat on his new, pregnant, thirty years younger wife with an effing pornstar, and is accused of rape by multiple women, we all agree to call him a fucking creep that deserves to go to hell. See, we have different standards than you.
Strawman, huh? You should go revisit what was said during the Kavanaugh hearings.
|
On July 12 2019 23:27 JimmiC wrote:Good news! Man a lot of the bestest people do not work out for various often nefarious reasons. Trump should really look into his hires at his company because there is likely some pretty awful people there. Perhaps a HR firm or something could help him out.
Acosta himself probably got a raw deal since there was apparently some work Epstein was doing with intelligence which made him a protected asset. And Acosta is (probably) forbidden from even revealing the existence of epsteins intelligence work, so he cant use that as a defense.
|
|
|
On July 12 2019 23:29 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2019 23:27 JimmiC wrote:On July 12 2019 22:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Acosta is out. Good news! Man a lot of the bestest people do not work out for various often nefarious reasons. Trump should really look into his hires at his company because there is likely some pretty awful people there. Perhaps a HR firm or something could help him out. Acosta himself probably got a raw deal since there was apparently some work Epstein was doing with intelligence which made him a protected asset. And Acosta is (probably) forbidden from even revealing the existence of epsteins intelligence work, so he cant use that as a defense.
It's a tough spot to be in, but it doesn't ultimately excuse what Acosta did. He's an attorney. He's obliged to do the right thing, even if it sucks.
|
|
|
On July 12 2019 23:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2019 23:29 Doodsmack wrote:On July 12 2019 23:27 JimmiC wrote:On July 12 2019 22:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Acosta is out. Good news! Man a lot of the bestest people do not work out for various often nefarious reasons. Trump should really look into his hires at his company because there is likely some pretty awful people there. Perhaps a HR firm or something could help him out. Acosta himself probably got a raw deal since there was apparently some work Epstein was doing with intelligence which made him a protected asset. And Acosta is (probably) forbidden from even revealing the existence of epsteins intelligence work, so he cant use that as a defense. It's a tough spot to be in, but it doesn't ultimately excuse what Acosta did. He's an attorney. He's obliged to do the right thing, even if it sucks.
That's the catch in this game, the only way to move up/maintain a career is to put yourself on the line (instead of resigning), and you know if shit ever hits the fan you're taking the fall not the directing parties. Pretty much anyone above lower-middle management has done this.
The key is hitching yourself to the right horse and knowing when to cut and run, it's what makes allegiance to Trump so confusing/concerning.
|
On July 12 2019 23:43 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2019 23:41 xDaunt wrote:On July 12 2019 23:29 Doodsmack wrote:On July 12 2019 23:27 JimmiC wrote:On July 12 2019 22:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Acosta is out. Good news! Man a lot of the bestest people do not work out for various often nefarious reasons. Trump should really look into his hires at his company because there is likely some pretty awful people there. Perhaps a HR firm or something could help him out. Acosta himself probably got a raw deal since there was apparently some work Epstein was doing with intelligence which made him a protected asset. And Acosta is (probably) forbidden from even revealing the existence of epsteins intelligence work, so he cant use that as a defense. It's a tough spot to be in, but it doesn't ultimately excuse what Acosta did. He's an attorney. He's obliged to do the right thing, even if it sucks. What are the rules on recusing ones self as a prosecutor? Like if the DA or the CIA tells you make this deal because they are our asset, you ask why, they say nation security, or need to know or something like that. I get you can't go against them but can your recuse yourself and not be complicit. I understand this is likely a CLM (career limiting move) but is it legal?
It depends upon what the issue is. Generally speaking, there's nothing wrong with refusing to prosecute someone. DA's are afforded a ton of discretion in this regard. Nor is there anything per se wrong with offering a favorable plea deal. So insofar as we're talking about these things, I'm not sure that Acosta did anything wrong even if it looks unsavory in retrospect. However, where Acosta did mess up was in hiding the deal from the victims and their families. He broke the law when he did that.
|
On July 12 2019 23:02 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2019 22:46 Danglars wrote:On July 12 2019 22:33 ShoCkeyy wrote:
And that ladies and gentlemen is what our elections have become. We're at the point where the next election looks like it's between a possible "child rapist" or "not a child rapist". It looks like child rapist is the new Russian collusion. The issue is never evidence, it is only how far the crazies (from both sides) are willing to indulge their fancies ... which is the whole reason for the construction “looks like it’s between a possible.” And, yes, a looks-like-possible smear is exactly what election campaigns have become. The russian collusion was real, whether it was done for Trump doesn't mean anything, but Mueller himself said it was real, and that they did indeed meddle in the election.
Then you are roughly as careful in evaluating the meaning of collusion as you are prudent in throwing around possibilities of child rape. The seriousness of the charge stands in inverse proportion with your care at leveling it.
|
|
|
I am pretty uncomfortable with the way plea deals work in the US in general. They seem to mostly have the goal of getting people to confess stuff with no interest taken on if they are actually guilty just to save the system some effort, or like in this case, to let someone with the right connections get away with stuff.
I think a system with a duty to prosecute and to get stuff to court is a lot better.
|
Rather than push for Epstein to have the same sentence any of us would get, we should be using cases like Epstein's to show why our current justice system is extremely overly harsh for most people.
|
United States43967 Posts
On July 12 2019 23:43 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2019 23:41 xDaunt wrote:On July 12 2019 23:29 Doodsmack wrote:On July 12 2019 23:27 JimmiC wrote:On July 12 2019 22:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Acosta is out. Good news! Man a lot of the bestest people do not work out for various often nefarious reasons. Trump should really look into his hires at his company because there is likely some pretty awful people there. Perhaps a HR firm or something could help him out. Acosta himself probably got a raw deal since there was apparently some work Epstein was doing with intelligence which made him a protected asset. And Acosta is (probably) forbidden from even revealing the existence of epsteins intelligence work, so he cant use that as a defense. It's a tough spot to be in, but it doesn't ultimately excuse what Acosta did. He's an attorney. He's obliged to do the right thing, even if it sucks. What are the rules on recusing ones self as a prosecutor? Like if the DA or the CIA tells you make this deal because they are our asset, you ask why, they say nation security, or need to know or something like that. I get you can't go against them but can your recuse yourself and not be complicit. I understand this is likely a CLM (career limiting move) but is it legal?
You can absolutely go against them. If you have proof that someone plans to molest kids and your job is to be the guy society trusts to keep that person away from kids then you just keep doing your job and if they get you fired then you get fired. Conspire to assist the child rapist shouldn’t be an option considered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
