EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1712
| 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 | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
| ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On July 25 2019 01:34 Ryzel wrote: I present to the thread for your viewing pleasure (in case you missed it), the Mueller hearing and public response. Dem Speaker: Did Trump do bad things? Mueller: Refer to the report Dem Speaker: That means Trump’s a criminal! Dem response: Yeah! Trump got pwned! Repub response: Whatever, invalid because Mueller’s report is worthless. Repub Speaker: Are there issues with the report? Mueller: Can’t comment on it Repub Speaker: That means report is worthless! Repub response: Yeah! Mueller got pwned! Dem response: Whatever, invalid because Trump is a criminal and they support him. The End Also GH, thanks for clarification. I definitely agree that the “nominal” purpose of the checks and balances system is not being met. Do you happen to have examples of cases in which the checks and balances system specifically aided in keeping non-oligarchs out of power (the “real” purpose of the system)? Pretty bad summary (also, the hearing is still going on). It's important to note that a large (disturbingly large portion of the population) has not read the report, or even if they did would have a hard time interpreting the contents of it. Even members of congress did not read the entire report. Now the public can get a version of it from Mueller. Also important to note, another large portion of the population simply just get to hear the lies told by trump (and republicans), who said (paraphrase) "the hearings went great, I'm really happy with them." (which is bullshit, trump was shitting his pants the whole time and will continue to, and then lie about it). The hearings offer a moment for the world to see in a more "yes/no" style of information, the actual truth, which is that we were extremely compromised in our elections and to trumps favor, with trump openly inviting the influence of a hostile government. That is on the record and openly stated. The truth is in short supply these days, and this hearing was a formal place to air it openly. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On July 25 2019 04:43 ShambhalaWar wrote: Pretty bad summary (also, the hearing is still going on). It's important to note that a large (disturbingly large portion of the population) has not read the report, or even if they did would have a hard time interpreting the contents of it. Even members of congress did not read the entire report. Now the public can get a version of it from Mueller. Also important to note, another large portion of the population simply just get to hear the lies told by trump (and republicans), who said (paraphrase) "the hearings went great, I'm really happy with them." (which is bullshit, trump was shitting his pants the whole time and will continue to, and then lie about it). The hearings offer a moment for the world to see in a more "yes/no" style of information, the actual truth, which is that we were extremely compromised in our elections and to trumps favor, with trump openly inviting the influence of a hostile government. That is on the record and openly stated. The truth is in short supply these days, and this hearing was a formal place to air it openly. Alas, the truth is largely irrelevant in modern America. There are Americans who were shocked to hear that the Mueller Report said anything bad about Donald Trump. Without an overall climate shift things like this aren't going to accomplish much. It's all stupid grandstanding. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23218 Posts
On July 25 2019 04:11 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Mueller says he didn't interview Trump because it would to take too much time to fight for it in court. There goes the 'total cooperation' angle. Good questioning from Maloney That's the best I've seen but at the same time I find myself asking "too much time" for what? Like Mueller had Bingo plans that trumped pursuing Trump/holding him accountable or "too much time" like he'd lose? If it was important to interview him as Mueller said, and the allegations serious (as is their desire for accountability), shouldn't he have just fought that fight? Or is he essentially saying the results would be the same regardless? It does bite into the "total cooperation" narrative, but I imagine Republicans saying "of course he wouldn't cooperate with a witch hunt" or something to that effect. On July 25 2019 07:44 iamthedave wrote: Alas, the truth is largely irrelevant in modern America. There are Americans who were shocked to hear that the Mueller Report said anything bad about Donald Trump. Without an overall climate shift things like this aren't going to accomplish much. It's all stupid grandstanding. completely agree (though not a climate climate shift, that's not working either  )EDIT: Wild to see the echo chamber that developed on Reddit's reaction to this, you'd think Trump was going down yet again or that he'd be prosecuted after leaving (what it seems Republicans are going to run against in 2020) reading that stuff. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On July 25 2019 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote: That's the best I've seen but at the same time I find myself asking "too much time" for what? Like Mueller had Bingo plans that trumped pursuing Trump/holding him accountable or "too much time" like he'd lose? If it was important to interview him as Mueller said, and the allegations serious (as is their desire for accountability), shouldn't he have just fought that fight? Or is he essentially saying the results would be the same regardless? It does bite into the "total cooperation" narrative, but I imagine Republicans saying "of course he wouldn't cooperate with a witch hunt" or something to that effect. completely agree (though not a climate climate shift, that's not working either )EDIT: Wild to see the echo chamber that developed on Reddit's reaction to this, you'd think Trump was going down yet again or that he'd be prosecuted after leaving (what it seems Republicans are going to run against in 2020) reading that stuff. Not gonna lie, I phrased it that way deliberately to see if you'd notice  | ||
|
Taelshin
Canada418 Posts
As a person who didn't think Mueller testifying was going to be the smoking gun, but was interested to hear what would come out of this, I can honestly say i'm shocked, almost completely blown away by this spectacle. I literally feel bad for Mueller after this. So The democrat's for the most part stayed on the report, literally just reading lines out of the report, then having Mueller agree that "yes if its in the report", which I mean would have been fine and all, but he seemed to not even know WHAT was in the report half the time. It was so bad that even the democrats seem'd annoyed with his responses. The Val Demings part + Show Spoiler + From the Republican side it was pretty much what I expected, they asked questions Mueller couldn't or wouldn't answer, there was a couple good hits but honestly when the person testifying is that much of a lifeless board its hard to call anything a win here. I've already seen people floating around that Mueller was pretending to be "slow" or "unintelligent" (something that bill Clinton and George Bush allegedly did) to stall the the hearing but After watching it all, I truly believe that Mueller had VERY little to do with this entire report, likely he barely read it and signed his name on the bottom line. A couple month's ago when Mueller did that 10 minute press conf, he seemed meek and not all that impressive(not what was expected out of the Legendary Special Council Robert Mueller). After this hearing, though, meek and not impressive would be too kind, this was pathetic he looked like he should be in an old folks home not up on stage getting blasted with questions. Frankly It seemed like both the D's and the R's knew more about this report then Mueller did(by a landslide). It beg's the question, why for the love of god why did anyone let Mueller do this, if It was Jerry Nadler pushing for him to testify, why? Did no one actually speak to Mueller before this circus and notice that he was not fit for this sort of thing? They hung the man out to dry here and believe me i'm no Mueller fan. I see this as a loss for the democrats over all but nothing insane, it just means its less likely they push Impeachment, and as for the republicans, Id say it was a wash, Maybe slightly better considering now it feels much easier to say "Its over and done with". Sorry if that's all over the place just wanted to get my fresh thoughts out there. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4329 Posts
On July 25 2019 03:13 GreenHorizons wrote: Is "pass" typically an acceptable answer in this kinda thing? Gonzales at least had to keep repeating that he couldn't remember. "If it's in the report I support it" further indicates to me Mueller was in more of a managerial position than an investigative one. You’d think he would have brushed up on the report a little before the hearing. I watched the Ratcliffe questioning and Mueller looked like he just wanted this whole thing over.And this was the guy the Dems had their impeachment hopes pinned on? They need to start living in the real world. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
Still, the dems got enough out of it. Video confirmation there is no hoax, no witch hunt, that everything the president said about the investigation was a lie, that russian interference was real and current, (reminder that Mitch is still blocking bills strengthening the election infrastructure..), that Trump campaign accepted the help gladly and then tried to cover it up, that the report did not exonerate the president. Nothing new for those who read the report but still important to have on tape. This Schiff part alone would be worth it + Show Spoiler + And for the 'over and done with', you have to realize that the counterintelligence part which is outside of Muellers purview is still ongoing. This is where the bribery and/or blackmail of Trump associates is still being investigated currently. "There are many elements of the FBI looking at different aspects of that issue.' 'Currently?' Currently. Mueller looked like a grandpa a little too often, he was definitely not as sharp as Comey, but it's not democrats job to protect his image. Unlike Trump wants you to believe, he's not 'their guy' after all. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23218 Posts
On July 25 2019 22:00 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Dems wanted to get more clarification on obstruction, but it ended up being same old OLC rollercoaster unfortunately. Still, the dems got enough out of it. Video confirmation there is no hoax, no witch hunt, that everything the president said about the investigation was a lie, that russian interference was real and current, (reminder that Mitch is still blocking bills strengthening the election infrastructure..), that Trump campaign accepted the help gladly and then tried to cover it up, that the report did not exonerate the president. Nothing new for those who read the report but still important to have on tape. This Schiff part alone would be worth it + Show Spoiler + And for the 'over and done with', you have to realize that the counterintelligence part which is outside of Muellers purview is still ongoing. This is where the bribery and/or blackmail of Trump associates is still being investigated currently. "There are many elements of the FBI looking at different aspects of that issue.' 'Currently?' Currently. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=317&v=kN83LOmrMhE&t=2m21s Mueller looked like a grandpa a little too often, he was definitely not as sharp as Comey, but it's not democrats job to protect his image. Unlike Trump wants you to believe, he's not 'their guy' after all. Enough for what? | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
Nothing probably, since they didn't get much new compared to the report, which was expected since Mueller announced that he wouldn't.. Nadlers pushing for impeachment so maybe that's something. I meant enough to make it worth it to have the interview as earlier posters were framing it as a loss because Mueller didn't look sharp. I think they got plenty of important video material. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23218 Posts
On July 25 2019 22:14 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Nothing probably, since they didn't get much new compared to the report, which was expected since Mueller announced that he wouldn't.. Nadlers pushing for impeachment so maybe that's something. I meant enough to make it worth it to have the interview as earlier posters were framing it as a loss because Mueller didn't look sharp. I think they got plenty of important video material. Sounds like meh spin from both sides to me. Was just theater that will be satisfactory for both bases and ignored/missed by most everyone else imo. Dems need things like ambiguous implications of "ongoing investigations" and tweetable clips but they are just salvaging the last couple years they invested in Mueller so that their base doesn't see them as failures who were silly to look to a criminal fmr FBI director in hopes he'd hold Trump accountable (which he potentially could have if he argued against the OLC opinion). Just to flush out the alternative a bit: Mueller argues against the opinion, brings his case for an indictment, maybe he gets shut down on the sitting president technicality, maybe not. Regardless, instead of the mealymouthed stuff Dems did get they could have got Mueller attempting to indict the president and the president getting out of it explicitly because he's a sitting president. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28664 Posts
But pretty relevant to this forum; Andrew Yang answering a question on what his favorite videogame is. + Show Spoiler + apparently he was a protoss player | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17980 Posts
On July 25 2019 22:50 Liquid`Drone wrote: Weird that I hadn't seen this before? (apologies if I've simply missed it) But pretty relevant to this forum; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjJ2zEaU0so Andrew Yang answering a question on what his favorite videogame is. + Show Spoiler + apparently he was a protoss player I was going to say "instant frontrunner" for playing SC, but then he had to say he played protoss. Ewwww. Trump is better than a filthy Protosser!  | ||
|
Ryzel
United States529 Posts
On July 25 2019 04:43 ShambhalaWar wrote: Pretty bad summary (also, the hearing is still going on). It's important to note that a large (disturbingly large portion of the population) has not read the report, or even if they did would have a hard time interpreting the contents of it. Even members of congress did not read the entire report. Now the public can get a version of it from Mueller. Also important to note, another large portion of the population simply just get to hear the lies told by trump (and republicans), who said (paraphrase) "the hearings went great, I'm really happy with them." (which is bullshit, trump was shitting his pants the whole time and will continue to, and then lie about it). The hearings offer a moment for the world to see in a more "yes/no" style of information, the actual truth, which is that we were extremely compromised in our elections and to trumps favor, with trump openly inviting the influence of a hostile government. That is on the record and openly stated. The truth is in short supply these days, and this hearing was a formal place to air it openly. I feel like this assessment is predicated on several assumptions that are inaccurate. 1) Your first paragraph states tons of people didn’t read the report, but now they can hear Mueller’s take on it. It’s not like these hearings went over every single iota of the report though, just several snippets of it...which have already been talked about before in many news articles. So it doesn’t really address the issue of most people not having read the report (at least, not any more than previous coverage). Mueller’s take on his own report seems irrelevant, since the text should stand for itself (as I’m sure he would agree). Not to mention that Mueller walked back an answer he had given during the hearings before they even ended, implying his own testimonial is not necessarily the be-all-end-all on the topic. 2) Your second paragraph talks about a population with several characteristics... - They only hear lies by Trump (and presumably Fox News) about the Mueller report - They are unable or unwilling to hear news about the Mueller report by any other source (“simply just get to hear...” seems to imply no other source) - They ARE able and willing to listen in to the Mueller hearings I’m going to flat out disagree with your statement that the population you’ve described is large and/or meaningful, on the basis that the 2nd and 3rd characteristics I’ve listed seem very unlikely to be applied simultaneously to any one person. I’m open to being proved wrong though. 3) It seems the take-away of your analysis is that the hearings were important because they demonstrated the “actual truth” in a way that previous coverage did not. What exactly about the hearings lent itself more “truth” value than previous coverage? Were all parts true? Some more than others? Was Mueller’s inability to put to rest several conspiracy theories brought up by Republicans indicative of the truth as much as his ability to affirm the Democrats? To me, it seemed like the hearings simply attached faces and sound bites to previous coverage. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On July 25 2019 22:57 Acrofales wrote: I was going to say "instant frontrunner" for playing SC, but then he had to say he played protoss. Ewwww. Trump is better than a filthy Protosser! I thought exactly the same thing lol. Scumbag protoss. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12169 Posts
On July 25 2019 22:57 Acrofales wrote: I was going to say "instant frontrunner" for playing SC, but then he had to say he played protoss. Ewwww. Trump is better than a filthy Protosser! Fuck this now I like him a little more again ^_^ | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23218 Posts
On July 26 2019 00:55 Nebuchad wrote: Fuck this now I like him a little more again ^_^ Now I know why we aren't quite sympatico politically + Show Spoiler +    | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12169 Posts
On July 26 2019 01:35 GreenHorizons wrote: Now I know why we aren't quite sympatico politically + Show Spoiler + Terrans are the capitalists, obv, the Good Guys (TM) Zergs are the fascists, direct threat to the universe but terrans love TvZ and would rather fight against zerg than fight against protoss. Also I hate zergs and I hate fascists it checks out ^.^ Protoss are the socialists, everyone hates them for bad reasons. Cheeses are Venezuela, "Macro protoss has never worked"... I know my game! | ||
| ||
