|
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 May 06 2018 10:54 m4ini wrote:Oh. You mean literally like the Cohen story that was misreported by NBC? Because that was based on "someone saying something". The "sources inside the whitehouse" are by far the weakest evidence you can have. In fact, "someone saying something" already should ring alarm bells. If on the other hand you actually have documents (and i'm pretty sure that one of the biggest investigative newspapers in the world would be able to tell if something's official or not, especially considering that they've already dealt with highly classified material from the US government), then we're talking. The "Cohen was in prague".. Not entirely correct, is it.That said, i'm not sure if you actually know what happened back then or if i don't know about the secret powers that the "position" of former SoS brings with it. There still is a difference between lobbying (that's what Kerry is doing, that's the ONLY thing he can do) and threatening one side of a negotiating table that you have no business with. It's moronic to argue otherwise. Nobody would've given a shit if they'd went to the press calling the deal all kinds of names if they felt like it, that's not what they did though. They did not lobby, they actively intervened by threatening. I know i'm repeating myself. That being said, for your own good, be sceptical if you hear "sources say". Hell, even be sceptical if you see the "seen documents". Not believing it is something else entirely. As a small refresher, lets not act like this would be some elaborate scheme that never happened before. Fucking Harvey Weinstein did the exact same thing. Literally the same thing. If he has the connections or whatever is needed to get these people to work for him, you bet Trump/aides have it too.
"Misreported." Last I saw they never if their source was bad or if they simply misunderstood his information. Either way it's bad.
And I'm not sure what that link was supposed to show me.
My point is that just because a story is written about Trump or his team doesn't mean I believe it, or that I believe the interpretation the reports have.
I think, like most people do when not trapped by heavy partisanship, that the Logan Act is dumb. If you read that part of the act, "lobbying" is a crime.
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
But your post is playing a lot of word games. I said I don't believe it "yet." The difference between that and your preferred "skepticism" is almost nil in context.
My post had two points.
A) That story should be treated skeptically (let's use your word)
and
B) John Kerry is out there "breaking the law" and all of a sudden the press is more or less quiet. Meanwhile the senators were telling Iran that this deal is not going to be recognized later because it's a treaty but isn't being passed through the constitutionally required peocess.
You may object to that but I wanted to remind everyone that these outrages over unauthorized diplomacy are one-sided.
|
What's your basis for believing the John Kerry story but being skeptical of the Israeli surveillance story?
|
On May 06 2018 11:27 Doodsmack wrote:
What's your basis for believing the John Kerry story but being skeptical of the Israeli surveillance story?
Because the press and others don't have an animus against Kerry? Also read it and see the difference. (And, yes, I know there is a law professor in there saying it's not a violation of the act, but the great thing is that it's never been used so we don't actually know).
I know for a fact people in this thread take different views of different stories. It's obviously wrong to say that you must believe all mainstream news stories or none.
edit: and we've already read about Kerry meeting the Palestinians.
|
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/05/facebook-accused-introducing-extremists-one-another-suggested/
Facebook has helped introduce thousands of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) extremists to one another, via its 'suggested friends' feature, it can be revealed.
The social media giant - which is already under fire for failing to remove terrorist material from its platform - is now accused of actively connecting jihadists around the world, allowing them to develop fresh terror networks and even recruit new members to their cause.
Researchers, who analysed the Facebook activities of a thousand Isil supporters in 96 countries, discovered users with radical Islamist sympathies were routinely introduced to one another through the popular 'suggested friends' feature.
Using sophisticated algorithms, Facebook is designed to connect people who share common interests.
So we knew that ISIL or ISIS or w.e was using social media to recruit, but I just find it crazy that facebook, which has sophisticated keyword scrapers for their ads to approve or disapprove illegal ads or just ads against their ToS, but weren't able to notice they were building terrorist cells within their network? I'm sure they have keyword scrapers for Arabic ads, if so... I mean, assuming they didn't have a department in their company looking for terrorist networks, and it was a lot of data you need to still go through.
I would of just though some one at the company would have notice, and stopped it before it got out of control.
|
On May 06 2018 03:45 Doodsmack wrote:
Very interesting scoop here. I can’t see the article due to a pay wall. I’ll bet Mueller is checking the money laundering angle thoroughly.
User was warned for this post.
It depends on what the projects were, but yeah, generally you want to use a lot of debt when buying real estate. The returns just aren't worth it otherwise.
|
On May 06 2018 11:36 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2018 11:27 Doodsmack wrote:
What's your basis for believing the John Kerry story but being skeptical of the Israeli surveillance story? Because the press and others don't have an animus against Kerry? Also read it and see the difference. (And, yes, I know there is a law professor in there saying it's not a violation of the act, but the great thing is that it's never been used so we don't actually know). I know for a fact people in this thread take different views of different stories. It's obviously wrong to say that you must believe all mainstream news stories or none. edit: and we've already read about Kerry meeting the Palestinians.
You've contorted your view of news stories beyond what's reasonable if you're just disbelieving based on an assumed animus. The "way it's written" is also not a reliable tell. News stories can be judged individually. Also the Kerry story has one source, the Israeli story has multiple sources plus original documents.
|
On May 06 2018 13:02 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2018 11:36 Introvert wrote:On May 06 2018 11:27 Doodsmack wrote:
What's your basis for believing the John Kerry story but being skeptical of the Israeli surveillance story? Because the press and others don't have an animus against Kerry? Also read it and see the difference. (And, yes, I know there is a law professor in there saying it's not a violation of the act, but the great thing is that it's never been used so we don't actually know). I know for a fact people in this thread take different views of different stories. It's obviously wrong to say that you must believe all mainstream news stories or none. edit: and we've already read about Kerry meeting the Palestinians. You've contorted your view of news stories beyond what's reasonable if you're just disbelieving based on an assumed animus. The "way it's written" is also not a reliable tell. News stories can be judged individually. Also the Kerry story has one source, the Israeli story has multiple sources plus original documents.
News stories can be judged individually.
And what, pray tell, do you think I'm doing with the Israeli story? That story names almost no one, doesn't lay out any details of the documents, doesn't talk to anyone who might have a different take, etc. Using "sources" instead of "source" doesn't automatically put you over the line of credibility. Besides, for the Kerry story it's implied there are at least 3 people who know what he was up to. The reporter talks to multiple people, gets outside opinions, etc. The difference between the two is night and day.
I thought it was obvious that when I made my comment about only believing stories that come from people in the WH is t that it relates to things in the WH people would know. This deal with Kerry is separate. I'm not the one here that is contorting anything, that would be other posters.
And I will reiterate. This could be true, but I don't know it to be true yet. The fact they ran to Ben Rhodes and didn't even name the organization is a little weird to me.
edit: this may seem like nitpicking but both the McClatchy story and the NBC wiretap story were posted here and then they get left here. It took what, 24 hours for someone else to post the correction to the NBC story? People should not come into this thread and believe everything that gets posted because no one follows up. So this latest story will sit here, we'll wonder if it's inaccurate, or maybe just misleading, or maybe true, but only in that last circumstance we will ever hear about it again.
|
your statement about only believing WH stories sounded like those are the only stories you believe right away. and Your initial criticism of the Israel story was mainly that it didn’t fall under the umbrella of stories you believe. This distinction between the Kerry and Israel stories is still artificial and far from night and day. It is presumably just your bias, in the absence of a substantive distinction beyond “look how it’s worded” and “it’s got outside commentary in it.” You’ve states before that you are auto-dismissing any story related to the Mueller investigation (aka the FBI investigation of Donald a Trumps and his campaign). It sounds like pro Donald trump bias to me.
|
On May 06 2018 14:12 Doodsmack wrote:
your statement about only believing WH stories sounded like those are the only stories you believe right away. and Your initial criticism of the Israel story was mainly that it didn’t fall under the umbrella of stories you believe. This distinction between the Kerry and Israel stories is still artificial and far from night and day. It is presumably just your bias, in the absence of a substantive distinction beyond “look how it’s worded” and “it’s got outside commentary in it.” You’ve states before that you are auto-dismissing any story related to the Mueller investigation (aka the FBI investigation of Donald a Trumps and his campaign). It sounds like pro Donald trump bias to me.
You’ve states before that you are auto-dismissing any story related to the Mueller investigation (aka the FBI investigation of Donald a Trumps and his campaign).
I have? What could I have said that would lead you to that intreptation?
edit: look at the way I interact with those stories. I ignore most of them, but I reply to a decent number of them as well.
edit2 a word and some tense fixing that's what writing in a hurry gets you
|
On May 06 2018 17:49 Big J wrote:
I am losing 3% wage every year, I don't give a damn about any of your collectivist metrics.
Wealth inequality is not a problem, it is THE problem. There is absolutly no difference between creating a dictatorship in which you control half the economy yourself, or creating a system that you call a free market but then you give away 50% of your market weights for being born.
Liberalism has been a success, capitalism on the other has always distored once it went from a chance-based, equal market weight situation into a fascism of inbred rich kids, who believe they are doing good because "they are creating jobs". (Pretty easy thing if you are extremely wealthy. Since a "job" is nothing but some guy being paid for doing something another guy likes. It has per se little to nothing to do with creating a healhy economy, which is the general process of satisfying needs)
Easily the best post of 2018
|
On May 06 2018 18:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2018 17:49 Big J wrote:
I am losing 3% wage every year, I don't give a damn about any of your collectivist metrics.
Wealth inequality is not a problem, it is THE problem. There is absolutly no difference between creating a dictatorship in which you control half the economy yourself, or creating a system that you call a free market but then you give away 50% of your market weights for being born.
Liberalism has been a success, capitalism on the other has always distored once it went from a chance-based, equal market weight situation into a fascism of inbred rich kids, who believe they are doing good because "they are creating jobs". (Pretty easy thing if you are extremely wealthy. Since a "job" is nothing but some guy being paid for doing something another guy likes. It has per se little to nothing to do with creating a healhy economy, which is the general process of satisfying needs) Easily the best post of 2018
Well hell is freezing over, because for once I actually agree with GH on something. That said I don't know what the context is, or why you posted it here. This has been one of the central conflicts between the right and the left for quite a while now.
edit: Should probably specify I agree with the content of the original post, not that's it in any way the "best post of 2018".
|
On May 06 2018 19:32 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2018 18:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 06 2018 17:49 Big J wrote:
I am losing 3% wage every year, I don't give a damn about any of your collectivist metrics.
Wealth inequality is not a problem, it is THE problem. There is absolutly no difference between creating a dictatorship in which you control half the economy yourself, or creating a system that you call a free market but then you give away 50% of your market weights for being born.
Liberalism has been a success, capitalism on the other has always distored once it went from a chance-based, equal market weight situation into a fascism of inbred rich kids, who believe they are doing good because "they are creating jobs". (Pretty easy thing if you are extremely wealthy. Since a "job" is nothing but some guy being paid for doing something another guy likes. It has per se little to nothing to do with creating a healhy economy, which is the general process of satisfying needs) Easily the best post of 2018 Well hell is freezing over, because for once I actually agree with GH on something. That said I don't know what the context is, or why you posted it here. This has been one of the central conflicts between the right and the left for quite a while now.
the claim (best post 2018) seems hyperbolic to me; especially for an out of context cross-posting rant. a good post? one could make an argument for that, I'd disagree ofc, but there could be a respectable argument; but best post 2018? that should be a much higher standard which this does not approach.
|
On May 06 2018 12:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:It depends on what the projects were, but yeah, generally you want to use a lot of debt when buying real estate. The returns just aren't worth it otherwise.
how does debt increase the return?
|
This is probably the same type of reason Trump wasn’t at Laura Bush’s funeral. He’d be a disgrace to the event.
|
On May 07 2018 01:29 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2018 12:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:It depends on what the projects were, but yeah, generally you want to use a lot of debt when buying real estate. The returns just aren't worth it otherwise. how does debt increase the return?
As a relative novice at financial stuff, I imagine he means real estate investments are usually highly leveraged? I don't know if that's true or not, but that would raise the rate of return if I understand what it is correctly (and I'm not totally sure I do)
|
so rather than buy 1 building in cash he could have bought 10 buildings with debt? and then shared his return on those 10 buildings with the debt financiers, but overall eventually owned 10 buildings?
|
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/05/politics/donald-trump-border-wall-close-country-remark/index.html
President Donald Trump seemed to float a new idea about border control during a tax reform roundtable in Ohio.
The President was in the midst of criticizing Democrats during a riff about border security when he slipped in the idea that people might "have to think about closing up the country."
"They don't want the wall, but we're going to get the wall, even if we have to think about closing up the country for a while," Trump said. "We're going to get the wall. We have no choice. We have absolutely no choice. And we're going to get tremendous security in our country."
So, I know the US has closed it's borders before, but those were during times of real war... Immigration is already way down, as I previously stated in a different post, so I don't understand the whole "Closing the borders" spiel to get the wall up...
|
On May 07 2018 01:57 ShoCkeyy wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/05/politics/donald-trump-border-wall-close-country-remark/index.htmlShow nested quote +President Donald Trump seemed to float a new idea about border control during a tax reform roundtable in Ohio.
The President was in the midst of criticizing Democrats during a riff about border security when he slipped in the idea that people might "have to think about closing up the country."
"They don't want the wall, but we're going to get the wall, even if we have to think about closing up the country for a while," Trump said. "We're going to get the wall. We have no choice. We have absolutely no choice. And we're going to get tremendous security in our country." So, I know the US has closed it's borders before, but those were during times of real war... Immigration is already way down, as I previously stated in a different post, so I don't understand the whole "Closing the borders" spiel to get the wall up...
which part of it and its motivations is unclear? or are you being rhetorical?
I'm pretty sure I can help explain why it's happening; but would need to clarify which exact part you're unclear about.
|
On May 06 2018 23:56 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2018 19:32 Excludos wrote:On May 06 2018 18:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 06 2018 17:49 Big J wrote:
I am losing 3% wage every year, I don't give a damn about any of your collectivist metrics.
Wealth inequality is not a problem, it is THE problem. There is absolutly no difference between creating a dictatorship in which you control half the economy yourself, or creating a system that you call a free market but then you give away 50% of your market weights for being born.
Liberalism has been a success, capitalism on the other has always distored once it went from a chance-based, equal market weight situation into a fascism of inbred rich kids, who believe they are doing good because "they are creating jobs". (Pretty easy thing if you are extremely wealthy. Since a "job" is nothing but some guy being paid for doing something another guy likes. It has per se little to nothing to do with creating a healhy economy, which is the general process of satisfying needs) Easily the best post of 2018 Well hell is freezing over, because for once I actually agree with GH on something. That said I don't know what the context is, or why you posted it here. This has been one of the central conflicts between the right and the left for quite a while now. the claim (best post 2018) seems hyperbolic to me; especially for an out of context cross-posting rant. a good post? one could make an argument for that, I'd disagree ofc, but there could be a respectable argument; but best post 2018? that should be a much higher standard which this does not approach.
Why don't you provide a counterexample then? Logic alone dictates that there must be "a best" post, right? If the claim is so hyperbolic it should be relatively easy to find a better post.
|
On May 07 2018 01:52 IgnE wrote:
so rather than buy 1 building in cash he could have bought 10 buildings with debt? and then shared his return on those 10 buildings with the debt financiers, but overall eventually owned 10 buildings?
That's my understanding of it, at least. You buy a bunch of properties using mostly loaned money, then you have to pay the interest on the loans but you also get all the appreciation of the properties, and you're getting equity on a bunch of properties instead of just one. I can imagine a few reasons somebody would choose not to leverage their investments, I'm sure someone with more financial understanding than me could list more:
-You're a skittish investor who likes low-risk, low-reward investments.
-You can't get anybody to loan to you for some reason.
-You don't want to give lenders the information about your finances that they would need to approve a loan.
I thought it was already well-known that all the major banks had blackballed Trump? That seems like the easiest explanation then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
