|
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 October 11 2019 08:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2019 08:01 Mohdoo wrote:On October 11 2019 06:29 Lmui wrote:
The US is shitting away any chance of co-operation in the middle east. It's caused shitshows in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. Having the Kurds assist is the most politically sensible decision. It involves a group which is trusted by the local populace, shares the same values as the foreign power (US), and a common goal (fight ISIS). It's the cheapest investment to achieve power in the region.If this doesn't get reversed in the next few days, I'd expect the GOP to fully break with Trump on Syria.
It was just a braindead decision by Trump I still firmly believe that if Democrats win in 2020, the world will be like: "So, that was fucked, but if you make systematic changes to make your system less volatile, we're cool", everyone will move on and clean up the pieces. Some damage can't be undone, but Trump is so unique that I don't think it is difficult for people to understand Warren/Biden/Sanders would immediately cancel tariffs and stuff like that. Trump is weird. No one else is. If we are able to show the world we learned from our mistakes, I really think we'll be welcomed back. But have we? Or will we? I mean, c'mon. It's America. We'll apologize, fix some things, but at the end of the day, we'll elect another trumpian person that'll isolate us and we'll have to start all over again.
Conservatives are too tribal to hold on to Trump once he's come and gone. Remember how Republicans felt about the Bush family? Romney? McCain? All of them are complete trash in the eyes of mainstream republican philosophy right now. Trump is their leader, said they are bad, so they are bad. As soon as their chest beating leader is dethroned, they'll forget he existed. Because their culture places such emphasis on hierarchy and power, once that power transfers, so too does the "loyalty", if you can even call it that.
|
I agree I don't see them sticking beside the man when he's out of power, but it'll take 8 years before they find someone either just like him or worse and circle the wagons around that new persona. So unless we have a GH level of revolution in the system, then we're an election away from repeating the same mistakes over again.
|
I don't know what you're expecting from politics modoo. You're loyal to the leader, when that leader leaves and is no longer the leader what is there to be loyal to or for? When the next leader is chosen you are then loyal to them as long as they're the leader.
|
|
|
On October 11 2019 08:23 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know what you're expecting from politics modoo. You're loyal to the leader, when that leader leaves and is no longer the leader what is there to be loyal to or for? When the next leader is chosen you are then loyal to them as long as they're the leader.
Bigger arguments with his assertion aside, it is funny that we just spent 8 years with Obama, who was untouchable for the media and every Democrat. The candidates had some tepid, backhanded criticism of him at one debate recently, his people put the word out, and next debate it was nothing but praise. They still can't criticize him.
As for people backing off Trump, I kinda doubt. Polling shows his support among the GOP is still rock solid, even if they think what he did (or maybe, possibly tried to do) with Ukraine was inappropriate, or they think we shouldn't just leave our allies hanging. That's a very Republican position anyways.
I'll use this opportunity to point out how the Democrats are currently screwing up: by not following normal procedures for an impeachment inquiry. They make it look as blatantly partisan as it is. On one hand Pelosi says they have to do it no matter what, since the issue is too important. On the other hand they refuse to take a vote and spent weeks sending angry letters that didn't have any actual force. I'm still not 100% sure they have started sending actual subpoenas instead of those documents they called subpoenas but weren't.
|
On October 11 2019 08:54 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2019 08:23 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know what you're expecting from politics modoo. You're loyal to the leader, when that leader leaves and is no longer the leader what is there to be loyal to or for? When the next leader is chosen you are then loyal to them as long as they're the leader. On the other hand they refuse to take a vote and spent weeks sending angry letters that didn't have any actual force. I'm still not 100% sure they have started sending actual subpoenas instead of those documents they called subpoenas but weren't.
Can you explain this? Everything I've read has stated a vote is not required. A lot of right wing people keep claiming she needs to do a vote, but why? What does that change when the house already has the power to investigate/subpoena etc?
|
Got any source for this claim?
Bigger arguments with his assertion aside, it is funny that we just spent 8 years with Obama, who was untouchable for the media and every Democrat. The candidates had some tepid, backhanded criticism of him at one debate recently, his people put the word out, and next debate it was nothing but praise. They still can't criticize him
|
On October 11 2019 09:01 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2019 08:54 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2019 08:23 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know what you're expecting from politics modoo. You're loyal to the leader, when that leader leaves and is no longer the leader what is there to be loyal to or for? When the next leader is chosen you are then loyal to them as long as they're the leader. On the other hand they refuse to take a vote and spent weeks sending angry letters that didn't have any actual force. I'm still not 100% sure they have started sending actual subpoenas instead of those documents they called subpoenas but weren't. Can you explain this? Everything I've read has stated a vote is not required. A lot of right wing people keep claiming she needs to do a vote, but why? What does that change when the house already has the power to investigate/subpoena etc?
Whether or not it's required doesn't matter to what I'm saying. There is normal, historical procedure for an inquiry. They aren't following it. And all their changes make it look more like a partisan witch hunt than the serious matter they all say it is. Combine that with the fact that people like Nadler have been claiming their work is impeachment related for months, or that they want the "whistleblower" to be permanently anonymous, and it stinks even more.
|
On October 11 2019 09:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Got any source for this claim? Show nested quote +Bigger arguments with his assertion aside, it is funny that we just spent 8 years with Obama, who was untouchable for the media and every Democrat. The candidates had some tepid, backhanded criticism of him at one debate recently, his people put the word out, and next debate it was nothing but praise. They still can't criticize him
Which part? I mean, I was there reading the news for all those years. Remember, there are people who actually think Obama's biggest "scandal" was wearing a tan suit, and that was just like one dude on twitter.
In a bit I think I can find the story about the Obama people who put the word out, if you want.
|
United States24756 Posts
What is the problem with a whistle-blower remaining anonymous? If it turns out their write-up was inaccurate, then it should be discounted. If it turns out they lied through their teeth, then they should be quietly disciplined such as by termination. It's important that people be able to blow the whistle without fear of reprisal. Right now I know I wouldn't blow the whistle because I don't trust that I would be defended, and the corruption or other illegal activities within the government would persist.
|
On October 11 2019 09:13 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2019 09:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Got any source for this claim? Bigger arguments with his assertion aside, it is funny that we just spent 8 years with Obama, who was untouchable for the media and every Democrat. The candidates had some tepid, backhanded criticism of him at one debate recently, his people put the word out, and next debate it was nothing but praise. They still can't criticize him Which part? I mean, I was there reading the news for all those years. Remember, there are people who actually think Obama's biggest "scandal" was wearing a tan suit, and that was just like one dude on twitter. In a bit I think I can find the story about the Obama people who put the word out, if you want.
Just the part about his people putting the word out. I'll do a bit of diggin' on my own as well. I was paying attention to the past administration but probably not as deeply as you.
|
On October 11 2019 08:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2019 08:01 Mohdoo wrote:On October 11 2019 06:29 Lmui wrote:
The US is shitting away any chance of co-operation in the middle east. It's caused shitshows in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. Having the Kurds assist is the most politically sensible decision. It involves a group which is trusted by the local populace, shares the same values as the foreign power (US), and a common goal (fight ISIS). It's the cheapest investment to achieve power in the region.If this doesn't get reversed in the next few days, I'd expect the GOP to fully break with Trump on Syria.
It was just a braindead decision by Trump I still firmly believe that if Democrats win in 2020, the world will be like: "So, that was fucked, but if you make systematic changes to make your system less volatile, we're cool", everyone will move on and clean up the pieces. Some damage can't be undone, but Trump is so unique that I don't think it is difficult for people to understand Warren/Biden/Sanders would immediately cancel tariffs and stuff like that. Trump is weird. No one else is. If we are able to show the world we learned from our mistakes, I really think we'll be welcomed back. But have we? Or will we? I mean, c'mon. It's America. We'll apologize, fix some things, but at the end of the day, we'll elect another trumpian person that'll isolate us and we'll have to start all over again.
The real thing to consider here is that while Trump is testing the boundaries of American democracy, he's a bumbling fool, hopefully unable to really break anything. However, he's showing the weaknesses of the system clear as day, and smarter people than him are watching.
If Trump is able to get away with what he's doing because of how those with the checks and balances to his power are unwilling to act, imagine then if the position was beset by someone with political connections, above-average intelligence, and ambition to power.
If post-Trump America does not go through major revisions of its system to patch some of the obvious errors which has been shown the last few years, the suspension of its democracy is only a whisper away.
|
On October 11 2019 09:13 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2019 09:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Got any source for this claim? Bigger arguments with his assertion aside, it is funny that we just spent 8 years with Obama, who was untouchable for the media and every Democrat. The candidates had some tepid, backhanded criticism of him at one debate recently, his people put the word out, and next debate it was nothing but praise. They still can't criticize him Which part? I mean, I was there reading the news for all those years. Remember, there are people who actually think Obama's biggest "scandal" was wearing a tan suit, and that was just like one dude on twitter. In a bit I think I can find the story about the Obama people who put the word out, if you want.
Personally my favourite Obama moment was when he cracked a joke about blowing kids up with predator drones in front of a room of adoring journalists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On October 11 2019 09:11 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2019 09:01 crms wrote:On October 11 2019 08:54 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2019 08:23 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know what you're expecting from politics modoo. You're loyal to the leader, when that leader leaves and is no longer the leader what is there to be loyal to or for? When the next leader is chosen you are then loyal to them as long as they're the leader. On the other hand they refuse to take a vote and spent weeks sending angry letters that didn't have any actual force. I'm still not 100% sure they have started sending actual subpoenas instead of those documents they called subpoenas but weren't. Can you explain this? Everything I've read has stated a vote is not required. A lot of right wing people keep claiming she needs to do a vote, but why? What does that change when the house already has the power to investigate/subpoena etc? Whether or not it's required doesn't matter to what I'm saying. There is normal, historical procedure for an inquiry. They aren't following it. And all their changes make it look more like a partisan witch hunt than the serious matter they all say it is. Combine that with the fact that people like Nadler have been claiming their work is impeachment related for months, or that they want the "whistleblower" to be permanently anonymous, and it stinks even more.
And what is this "normal, historical" procedure and where is it laid out? There have been 4 presidential impeachment inquiries in US history if you count Trump, and each has been handled completely differently than the others.
The Republicans keep saying a vote is required, but when asked where this requirement is stated, they either don't answer or dodge the question. Where is it stated that a vote is required?
The Republicans have thrown out anything resembling a norm in the government with this administration, so any expectation that the Democrats still follow these norms seems quite hypocritical. If they want the Democrats to follow norms, then they themselves should as well. Perhaps as a start, since the Republicans have seemingly chosen their 2020 horse, they should follow the norm that people running for president release their tax returns.
On October 11 2019 09:15 micronesia wrote:
What is the problem with a whistle-blower remaining anonymous? If it turns out their write-up was inaccurate, then it should be discounted. If it turns out they lied through their teeth, then they should be quietly disciplined such as by termination. It's important that people be able to blow the whistle without fear of reprisal. Right now I know I wouldn't blow the whistle because I don't trust that I would be defended, and the corruption or other illegal activities within the government would persist.
Well said. It's doubly important that the whistleblower be given the opportunity to stay anonymous given the number of death threats being thrown around.
|
On October 11 2019 09:15 micronesia wrote:
What is the problem with a whistle-blower remaining anonymous? If it turns out their write-up was inaccurate, then it should be discounted. If it turns out they lied through their teeth, then they should be quietly disciplined such as by termination. It's important that people be able to blow the whistle without fear of reprisal. Right now I know I wouldn't blow the whistle because I don't trust that I would be defended, and the corruption or other illegal activities within the government would persist.
Given the obvious tilt of the bureaucracy, I'm sure you'd be fine.
But we aren't going to impeach and maybe remove a president based on someone we will never get to meet. Amusingly enough, your argument is made by both sides sometimes. "We have the transcript, and by itself it's damning/exonerating." Which causes one to ask why the Democrats want to talk to him still... for one thing we still have no smoking gun, as it were, so this person's interpretation is very important, as is the info he supposedly has from others.
On October 11 2019 09:19 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2019 09:13 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2019 09:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Got any source for this claim? Bigger arguments with his assertion aside, it is funny that we just spent 8 years with Obama, who was untouchable for the media and every Democrat. The candidates had some tepid, backhanded criticism of him at one debate recently, his people put the word out, and next debate it was nothing but praise. They still can't criticize him Which part? I mean, I was there reading the news for all those years. Remember, there are people who actually think Obama's biggest "scandal" was wearing a tan suit, and that was just like one dude on twitter. In a bit I think I can find the story about the Obama people who put the word out, if you want. Just the part about his people putting the word out. I'll do a bit of diggin' on my own as well. I was paying attention to the past administration but probably not as deeply as you.
On October 11 2019 09:19 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2019 09:13 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2019 09:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Got any source for this claim? Bigger arguments with his assertion aside, it is funny that we just spent 8 years with Obama, who was untouchable for the media and every Democrat. The candidates had some tepid, backhanded criticism of him at one debate recently, his people put the word out, and next debate it was nothing but praise. They still can't criticize him Which part? I mean, I was there reading the news for all those years. Remember, there are people who actually think Obama's biggest "scandal" was wearing a tan suit, and that was just like one dude on twitter. In a bit I think I can find the story about the Obama people who put the word out, if you want. Just the part about his people putting the word out. I'll do a bit of diggin' on my own as well. I was paying attention to the past administration but probably not as deeply as you.
I can't find an article about anythbing behind the scenes as of yet, but many were public about it. And besides, we saw those debates, we saw how different they were from each other. And Obama was paying attention.
Joe Biden is fair game. Barack Obama is not.
Former Obama White House officials and allies responded in force Thursday to stress that message after several Democratic contenders criticized the former president in a debate that featured uncharacteristically tough assessments of his policies.
The disparagement of aspects of Obama’s record led to stern warnings that the tactic could backfire on the presidential candidates themselves — and perhaps arm Republicans with ammunition to attack the eventual Democratic nominee next fall.
“Stay away from Barack Obama,” advised Steve Elmendorf, a well-known Democratic lobbyist who worked on John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign.
“I don’t know why you would attack Barack Obama or his record or any part of him when he’s the most popular person in the party,” he added. “And I don’t think it helps for the general election voters, either. I don’t know what they’re thinking.”
Republicans have already seized on the division. Donald Trump Jr., President Donald Trump’s eldest son, tweeted Thursday morning how nice it was “to see Democrats finally go after Obama’s failed policies very aggressively.”
****
Obama, who has largely stayed on the sidelines and has no plans to endorse in the primary, understands that the Democratic Party has changed since 2008 and candidates won’t be entirely in lockstep with him, according to the source close to him.
He wants to see them share a forward-looking vision for the country but doesn’t mind a fact-based criticism of his record, said the source, who described talking about what the Obama administration did — and what the candidates would do differently — as the appropriate way to criticize him.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/01/democratic-debate-obama-biden-1444825
|
On October 11 2019 09:53 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2019 09:15 micronesia wrote:
What is the problem with a whistle-blower remaining anonymous? If it turns out their write-up was inaccurate, then it should be discounted. If it turns out they lied through their teeth, then they should be quietly disciplined such as by termination. It's important that people be able to blow the whistle without fear of reprisal. Right now I know I wouldn't blow the whistle because I don't trust that I would be defended, and the corruption or other illegal activities within the government would persist. Given the obvious tilt of the bureaucracy, I'm sure you'd be fine. But we aren't going to impeach and maybe remove a president based on someone we will never get to meet. Amusingly enough, your argument is made by both sides sometimes. "We have the transcript, and by itself it's damning/exonerating." Which causes one to ask why the Democrats want to talk to him still... for one thing we still have no smoking gun, as it were, so this person's interpretation is very important, as is the info he supposedly has from others. Show nested quote +On October 11 2019 09:19 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 11 2019 09:13 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2019 09:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Got any source for this claim? Bigger arguments with his assertion aside, it is funny that we just spent 8 years with Obama, who was untouchable for the media and every Democrat. The candidates had some tepid, backhanded criticism of him at one debate recently, his people put the word out, and next debate it was nothing but praise. They still can't criticize him Which part? I mean, I was there reading the news for all those years. Remember, there are people who actually think Obama's biggest "scandal" was wearing a tan suit, and that was just like one dude on twitter. In a bit I think I can find the story about the Obama people who put the word out, if you want. Just the part about his people putting the word out. I'll do a bit of diggin' on my own as well. I was paying attention to the past administration but probably not as deeply as you. Show nested quote +On October 11 2019 09:19 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 11 2019 09:13 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2019 09:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Got any source for this claim? Bigger arguments with his assertion aside, it is funny that we just spent 8 years with Obama, who was untouchable for the media and every Democrat. The candidates had some tepid, backhanded criticism of him at one debate recently, his people put the word out, and next debate it was nothing but praise. They still can't criticize him Which part? I mean, I was there reading the news for all those years. Remember, there are people who actually think Obama's biggest "scandal" was wearing a tan suit, and that was just like one dude on twitter. In a bit I think I can find the story about the Obama people who put the word out, if you want. Just the part about his people putting the word out. I'll do a bit of diggin' on my own as well. I was paying attention to the past administration but probably not as deeply as you. I can't find an article about anythbing behind the scenes as of yet, but many were public about it. And besides, we saw those debates, we saw how different they were from each other. And Obama was paying attention. Show nested quote +Joe Biden is fair game. Barack Obama is not.
Former Obama White House officials and allies responded in force Thursday to stress that message after several Democratic contenders criticized the former president in a debate that featured uncharacteristically tough assessments of his policies.
The disparagement of aspects of Obama’s record led to stern warnings that the tactic could backfire on the presidential candidates themselves — and perhaps arm Republicans with ammunition to attack the eventual Democratic nominee next fall.
“Stay away from Barack Obama,” advised Steve Elmendorf, a well-known Democratic lobbyist who worked on John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign.
“I don’t know why you would attack Barack Obama or his record or any part of him when he’s the most popular person in the party,” he added. “And I don’t think it helps for the general election voters, either. I don’t know what they’re thinking.”
Republicans have already seized on the division. Donald Trump Jr., President Donald Trump’s eldest son, tweeted Thursday morning how nice it was “to see Democrats finally go after Obama’s failed policies very aggressively.”
****
Obama, who has largely stayed on the sidelines and has no plans to endorse in the primary, understands that the Democratic Party has changed since 2008 and candidates won’t be entirely in lockstep with him, according to the source close to him.
He wants to see them share a forward-looking vision for the country but doesn’t mind a fact-based criticism of his record, said the source, who described talking about what the Obama administration did — and what the candidates would do differently — as the appropriate way to criticize him. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/01/democratic-debate-obama-biden-1444825
Thank you for that. To me it seems that while they are "defending" Obama and his time in the WH, they are making a good point that it doesn't do the party any good to attack him. The main opponent they need to face off with is trump, not obama. So when they try to score points by being "different" they aren't really making a case for themselves as to how they can beat trump in the general election.
I wouldn't go so far as to say he's untouchable, just that it isn't the most opportune time to go after him.
|
United States24756 Posts
On October 11 2019 09:53 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2019 09:15 micronesia wrote:
What is the problem with a whistle-blower remaining anonymous? If it turns out their write-up was inaccurate, then it should be discounted. If it turns out they lied through their teeth, then they should be quietly disciplined such as by termination. It's important that people be able to blow the whistle without fear of reprisal. Right now I know I wouldn't blow the whistle because I don't trust that I would be defended, and the corruption or other illegal activities within the government would persist. Given the obvious tilt of the bureaucracy, I'm sure you'd be fine. No? I could discover illegal activity that benefits the executive branch leadership; I could discover illegal activity that benefits congress' current impeachment hearing. I could discover illegal activity that exposes the evils of establishment politicians on both sides of the aisle. There is no way to say how much of a target I would have on my back unless you assume I am blowing the whistle for partisan rather than ethical reasons... which is insulting.
But we aren't going to impeach and maybe remove a president based on someone we will never get to meet. True. The point is that once the whistle is blown, the accusations are confirmed through independent verification. Any evidence discovered as a result of a whistle-blower is still relevant, even if we find out tomorrow that the whistle-blower is actually hillary, putin, pence, or hitler. Attacking the whistle-blower's anonymity, in addition to being horrible for encouraging ethical governing, is completely illogical from a perspective of making a legitimate defense. It only makes sense for partisan reasons.
Amusingly enough, your argument is made by both sides sometimes. Arguments are not amusing simply because they are embraced by both sides of the aisle. This idea that democrats and republicans have to disagree on everything is grotesque. "We have the transcript, and by itself it's damning/exonerating." This was not my argument. Learn to read instead of blindly spread propaganda. Which causes one to ask why the Democrats want to talk to him still... for one thing we still have no smoking gun, as it were, so this person's interpretation is very important, as is the info he supposedly has from others. We will never have a smoking gun. Somehow, Trump has made that impossible no matter what he does or what high crime he actually commits. This is going to be a battle of inches on the field and Pelosi knows it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
