EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1709
| 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 | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12172 Posts
On July 24 2019 06:37 JimmiC wrote: Generally I think it is fine to resort to violence if you or a family member is in immediate danger of violence. And I think the amount of violence you should return is not equal to what was brought on you or more, but rather the minimum that is required to stop the violence that is coming at you. I have different beliefs when it comes to sport and mutually agreed upon combat. That seems very limited. You would never allow any state violence? Or is it that you didn't think of that aspect? Might also be fine with using violence to defend someone in danger who isn't from my family (not as first resort) but this is perhaps something we just disagree on, and it doesn't really matter for this specific conversation. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2550 Posts
On July 24 2019 07:10 JimmiC wrote: This is my point, how can you be "not interested" but waiting for my response to use it some way. That means that he clearly has interest in my answer. The same way I'm not exactly "interested" in GH's line, but I am interested in how that relates to the rest of his point. Is that clearer? (hard to indicate tone on a message board but that is a legit question not a dig) Edit: and point taken, I'm not claiming I get everything the first time or read everything super carefully. This is why I don't jump down peoples throats when they misinterpret me. I just clarify my point, try to write it in a different way so it can be understood. My goal is not to attribute a point of view of GH's revolution that is not true. My goal is that we all understand it the same way. Clearly many of us understand it differently, much like during the abolish the police discussion. Wouldn't it be nice to all be working with the same definitions so we don't have to go through the pages and pages of "you said this" "no I didn't" "well what did you say" "go re read it and find out" and so on and so forth? Thanks! I appreciate the clarification. If I understand correctly, Nebuchad was 'not interested' in your response in the sense that he is not interested in the specific nature of your response, merely in the inevitable binary confirm/deny of your response, so that Nebuchad could lead you to the point they made in the case that you confirm, or follow an obvious argument if you deny. Also, to be clear, even though I am applying pressure to you specifically in this instance, I do understand the desire to grill GH for specifics of his understanding and do not think it is wrong to push anyone to clarify on their beliefs. That said, if the thread at large feels like this argument has run its course, then perhaps it is better to wait until the arguments have solidified into something more tangible/approachable and restart the debate fresh if/when there are new ideas to hash out. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12172 Posts
On July 24 2019 08:28 JimmiC wrote: I am OK with some policing, but not the US style of locking up and throwing away the key. A example is I clearly hate Maduro, I think he is a evil self interested power hungry asshole. I do not think the US should invade and take him out. I think the consequences would be worse as some new person would fill the void. I'm not Ghadi, and I get mad and frustrated. But I think governments and states should be more like him and should be the bigger better people. I'm doing perhaps the exact opposite of moral policing. Blitzkrieg had some wrong information and I corrected it; if being accurate is trying to get you banned, that's probably something that reflects on your posting more than mine. Some policing is okay, good. I see some examples of policing that isn't okay in your post, that's giving me a start; could I get some examples of policing that is okay, and maybe a distinction between the two? For example, is it just about intensity of the violence, or are there some forms of state violence that are never okay regardless of intensity? (I promise, we're almost there.) | ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
I appreciate him doing this. I view it as entirely unacceptable for the DOJ to attempt to limit what he can talk about given there are many open questions relating to his interactions with William Barr that people wanted to ask about. Barr has been rather inconsistent with describing his interactions with Mueller leading up to the release of the report and shortly after to say the least and it would be great to hear the other side of the story. Given Barr's long track record of saying one thing and then that thing not being what it seems once more information comes out, it's doubly so important to hear what Mueller's side of the story is. The DOJ is unhappy about this new development, but ultimately there is nothing they can do about it because both Mueller and the person he is bringing with him are now private citizens. Trump tweeted that it's unfair and a bunch of other nonsense, but as usual nobody taught Trump how to not act guilty and he's just making things worse. If he has nothing to worry about, there would be no need for him to act how he is. With how blatantly partisan the DOJ has been acting since Barr took over, I hope more people start standing up to them like this. Their warnings and threats will only work so long as people listen to them, because there isn't a lot they can do otherwise. edit: Yes, I misread parts of it. It sounds like he will only be there to advise. I still find Trump's response to this completely bizarre though. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4748 Posts
edit: as in, "testify or don't. Your call." | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23221 Posts
On July 24 2019 09:50 Ben... wrote: In other news it sounds like at the last minute Mueller has requested a deputy come with him to testify at his hearing. It sounds like he is doing so to get around the DOJ warning him personally against talking about anything outside of the report itself. I appreciate him doing this. I view it as entirely unacceptable for the DOJ to attempt to limit what he can talk about given there are many open questions relating to his interactions with William Barr that people wanted to ask about. Barr has been rather inconsistent with describing his interactions with Mueller leading up to the release of the report and shortly after to say the least and it would be great to hear the other side of the story. Given Barr's long track record of saying one thing and then that thing not being what it seems once more information comes out, it's doubly so important to hear what Mueller's side of the story is. The DOJ is unhappy about this new development, but ultimately there is nothing they can do about it because both Mueller and the person he is bringing with him are now private citizens. Trump tweeted that it's unfair and a bunch of other nonsense, but as usual nobody taught Trump how to not act guilty and he's just making things worse. If he has nothing to worry about, there would be no need for him to act how he is. With how blatantly partisan the DOJ has been acting since Barr took over, I hope more people start standing up to them like this. Their warnings and threats will only work so long as people listen to them, because there isn't a lot they can do otherwise. I'd say they buried the lede but it's right near the top. Zebley will be there to advise Mueller, but the special counsel will be the only one answering the committee questions, the source said. Democrats only plan to swear in Mueller as a witness. So it seems he's going to have a lawyer next to him to help him find the relevant pages of his report to read from if needed, to me. I've said it before, but I'm not a fan of unnamed sources without the bare minimum of journalistic ethics which would require a reason for their anonymity. On July 24 2019 09:56 Introvert wrote: Apparently the request for guidance came from Mueller himself. And that should be no surprise. He has made it clear repeatedly that he doesn't want to be there in the first place. His press conference was basically one big plea to the committee to leave him alone. This is merely telling Mueller to do what he was going to do already: cite the report while avoiding any other questions. If anything, this may give him a way to dodge questions the Republicans have for him. Mueller already can't deviate from the report one iota. From the very start the DOJ has hold Mueller to do whatever he wants in terms of congressional testimony. edit: as in, "testify or don't. Your call." Yeah, Mueller doesn't want to do this but Democrats seem to think running clips of Mueller reading his report will somehow more than double support for impeachment or slow down Trumps recently (slowly) rising approval rating. | ||
|
HelpMeGetBetter
United States764 Posts
Even if Mueller just verifies the findings without Trump or Barr spinning it through their own filter...this could be big I guess. Usually if Trump and most R's are freaking out this badly, maybe they know something we don't... | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On July 24 2019 10:21 HelpMeGetBetter wrote: I can't imagine Mueller being intimidated into doing anything. I mean Mueller has to know how Trump publicly bashes him and the investigation, which might motive him to do whatever. IDK Even if Mueller just verifies the findings without Trump or Barr spinning it through their own filter...this could be big I guess. Usually if Trump and most R's are freaking out this badly, maybe they know something we don't... This stuff is always clown car embarrassment. Republicans will spit hellfire and damnation and look idiotic, Democrats will try to sound tough and fail. Mueller will look annoyed and bemused and like he has something more important he could be doing with his time through the whole torrid affair. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
It's really important that democrats ask important questions. Not just to shade Trump, and not just about obstruction. Though Mueller already took his 'leave me out of this' stance it seems :X Nadlers opening makes for good clips to counteract Trumps no collusion no obstruction spam though, with Mueller saying no exhoneration. At least in that way this thing has some worth. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21666 Posts
Nothing is going to come of this. My only small hope is that answers some questions about his conversations with Barr concerning the report. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23221 Posts
On July 24 2019 22:03 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Man Mueller doesnt seem prepared at all. Can't even answer the difference between conspiracy and collusion without stumbling He certainly seems past his prime and hard for me to imagine he was much more than the name attached to this thing for credibility. Doesn't seem like someone who spent the last 2 years deeply entrenched in this stuff imo. He came to read and yes/no his own conclusions and seems constantly perplexed as to what he himself allegedly wrote. EDIT: This is cringy af | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23221 Posts
| ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On July 24 2019 22:26 GreenHorizons wrote: I don't think the clips for this are going to be worth much politically and holding Trump accountable for his campaign and presidency is basically completely off the table now. The best we'll get is keeping him to one term and giving him a pile of money as far as I can tell. Yeah I think it's sad but true All the Sessions/Rosenstein manipulation stuff sure does sound really bad for Trump when spoken out loud though. Maybe it will have an effect on everyone who didnt read it | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23221 Posts
On July 24 2019 22:27 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Yeah I think it's sad but true All the Sessions/Rosenstein manipulation stuff sure does sound really bad for Trump when spoken out loud though. Maybe it will have an effect on everyone who didnt read it None of this is anything that wasn't reported and exaggerated for months if not years before the report came out. The report was basically less bad than the years of reporting on what it would say before it. That's to say the report is less damning than it was billed to be (and even described by media after it came out) so it's more likely to result in feelings of disappointment for Democrats and "meh" for Republicans. Mueller was supposed to be a fire-breathing locomotive of justice and he turned out to be a power wheels car with half a charge. EDIT: I find it funny like half the twitch comments are about the combovers/emote spam, we're so doomed. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21666 Posts
On July 24 2019 22:37 GreenHorizons wrote: I think the report is plenty damning, and the examples it lists certainly appear plenty to establish Obstruction of Justice.None of this is anything that wasn't reported and exaggerated for months if not years before the report came out. The report was basically less bad than the years of reporting on what it would say before it. That's to say the report is less damning than it was billed to be (and even described by media after it came out) so it's more likely to result in feelings of disappointment for Democrats and "meh" for Republicans. Mueller was supposed to be a fire-breathing locomotive of justice and he turned out to be a power wheels car with half a charge. The problem is that Congress has to act on it and they are powerless to do so while the Republicans stand behind Trump no matter what. | ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
Edit: PS: fuck this Gohmert guy. He’s peddling a conspiracy based on no proof yet again. | ||
| ||
