|
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 13:00 CatharsisUT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2019 11:16 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2019 11:08 micronesia wrote:
Introvert, the American public doesn't need to accept the words of an anonymous CIA agent. They can just accept the evidence that is discovered when the whistle-blower causes investigators to take a look at the incidents in question. For example, the transcript of the Ukraine call was released after and at least partly as a result of the whistle-blower blowing the whistle. Who the whistle-blower is doesn't change the content of the Ukraine transcript, regardless of your opinion of the transcript itself. To out this whistle-blower without his consent is to all but eliminate whistle-blowing. yes, if we are going to use them to remove duly elected presidents, we are going to have find out who they are. Absolutely. The whistle blower is the source of much of this, his supposed concern and consternation is the impetus. This is an inherently political process, used in political ways, for political ends. Therefore, we ought to see as much of it as possible. You are treating this as some criminal trial, but as we have all been reminded ad nauseum the past few weeks, this is not a criminal proceeding. The investigators are not to have their credibility assumed. This is very silly. If someone told you "that chemical plant is poisoning the water," then you went and tested and, yep, the water is poisoned, what possible difference does the identity of the whistleblower make? It's such an obvious distraction it shouldn't be taken seriously.
because this situation is not that simple. for one, we don't have any nice test for the poisoned water.
On October 11 2019 13:04 hunts wrote:
How does someone with a straight face say that exposing the whistleblower, after trump himself made threats against him, after what happened to epstein, is the "right thing to do?" Your guy, the president, literally threatened the whistleblower. What possible good reason could there be to expose him to the public? He said his thing, he pointed in the direction of corruption, it has been found and is being investigated. The republicans are just foaming at the mouth for the whistle blower to get exposed so trump can go and rage about him on twitter and pay off somebody to go silence him.
Trump is all bluster. most of the time he says something he shouldn't and one of two things happens:
1. "No sir, we can't do that because it would be illegal/inappropriate/outside our power." And nothing happens.
2. Trump straight up says something crazy and everyone who's spent the past four years watching him goes "oh look! another brain fart!" and it's gone just as quickly. I take a threat to hang the WB for treason just as seriously as I took "lock her up!"
Not sure how Epstein ties into this though.
might be done with this topic for now we'll see.
|
On October 11 2019 13:00 CatharsisUT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2019 11:16 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2019 11:08 micronesia wrote:
Introvert, the American public doesn't need to accept the words of an anonymous CIA agent. They can just accept the evidence that is discovered when the whistle-blower causes investigators to take a look at the incidents in question. For example, the transcript of the Ukraine call was released after and at least partly as a result of the whistle-blower blowing the whistle. Who the whistle-blower is doesn't change the content of the Ukraine transcript, regardless of your opinion of the transcript itself. To out this whistle-blower without his consent is to all but eliminate whistle-blowing. yes, if we are going to use them to remove duly elected presidents, we are going to have find out who they are. Absolutely. The whistle blower is the source of much of this, his supposed concern and consternation is the impetus. This is an inherently political process, used in political ways, for political ends. Therefore, we ought to see as much of it as possible. You are treating this as some criminal trial, but as we have all been reminded ad nauseum the past few weeks, this is not a criminal proceeding. The investigators are not to have their credibility assumed. This is very silly. If someone told you "that chemical plant is poisoning the water," then you went and tested and, yep, the water is poisoned, what possible difference does the identity of the whistleblower make? It's such an obvious distraction it shouldn't be taken seriously. Indeed.
The person who was known as "Deep Throat" that basically brought about the Watergate scandal did not reveal their identity to the public until much later in life. Somehow, despite this, the Watergate scandal managed to become the literal thing people refer to when they think of a massive scandal.
edit:
On October 11 2019 13:04 hunts wrote:
How does someone with a straight face say that exposing the whistleblower, after trump himself made threats against him, after what happened to epstein, is the "right thing to do?" Your guy, the president, literally threatened the whistleblower. What possible good reason could there be to expose him to the public? He said his thing, he pointed in the direction of corruption, it has been found and is being investigated. The republicans are just foaming at the mouth for the whistle blower to get exposed so trump can go and rage about him on twitter and pay off somebody to go silence him.
Yes, exactly. It'd be one thing if the president hadn't already threatened the life of this person, but Trump very much overtly threatened this person. If this person was a person testifying against the mob or something, their identity would definitely be kept secret and they would likely be in witness protection. Given Trump's actions, similar treatment for this whistleblower is reasonable. Whether or not Trump was serious or not when he said this does not matter. There are people who listen to what he says and take it literally. Don't forget last year a man mailed pipe bombs to all of the people Trump listed off in the past as enemies.
The Republicans only want this person's identity so they can character assassinate them just like they do for everyone else who speaks out.
|
On October 11 2019 12:39 Introvert wrote:
IIRC in each case there was a formal vote by the entire House, and also I think in each case the minority party was allowed to call witnesses and issue subpoenas. Maybe in the 19th century things were a little more up in the air.
You don't have to go back to the 19th century to find shared subpoena power. It was still a thing as early as four years ago. The republican controlled house killed it off so that they could investigate obama.
I don't even have the words for how two-faced your claim here is. You've pretty much eaten all of the cookies and then blamed the democrats for not sharing.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/28/house-republicans-subpoena-trump-943265
“The Republicans have set the standard and, by God, we’re going to emulate that standard,” Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) told POLITICO. Almost a year ago today.
|
On October 11 2019 13:51 patrick321 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2019 12:39 Introvert wrote:
IIRC in each case there was a formal vote by the entire House, and also I think in each case the minority party was allowed to call witnesses and issue subpoenas. Maybe in the 19th century things were a little more up in the air. You don't have to go back to the 19th century to find shared subpoena power. It was still a thing as early as four years ago. The republican controlled house killed it off so that they could investigate obama. I don't even have the words for how two-faced your claim here is. You've pretty much eaten all of the cookies and then blamed the democrats for not sharing. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/28/house-republicans-subpoena-trump-943265Show nested quote +“The Republicans have set the standard and, by God, we’re going to emulate that standard,” Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) told POLITICO. Almost a year ago today.
I'll come back in here just to make a critical clarification.
This is not the situation to which I was referring. That story involved the ability of chairmen to issue subpoenas of their own accord without minority party input. On impeachment, it it involves the ability of the minority to compel evidence and witnesses. (something that happened in the Clinton impeachment, not sure about before that).
|
That story involved the minority party having their voices silenced in regards to subpoenas. Your complaint today is that the minority party has had its voice silenced in regards to subpoenas.
The Republicans have set the standard and, by God, we’re going to emulate that standard
If only their was a golden rule that one could follow to avoid things like this from happening.
|
Kind of? It's more like there's precedent and tradition for how impeachment goes and it's not being respected because the House is trying to have it both ways. So in some sense, they are operating under the current, normal procedure rules? but the rules for impeachment proceedings are normally different anyways, so it's not a good, direct comparison.
|
On October 11 2019 14:18 Introvert wrote:
Kind of? It's more like there's precedent and tradition for how impeachment goes and it's not being respected because the House is trying to have it both ways. So in some sense, they are operating under the current, normal procedure rules? but the rules for impeachment proceedings are normally different anyways, so it's not a good, direct comparison.
And what about all the precedent and tradition that trump has completely discarded? Where were your outcries then?
|
I could literally take what you just said and replace every instance of 'impeachment' with 'committee rules' and the argument wouldn't really change. You've said a lot of empty words.
"there's precedent and tradition for how committee rules goes and it's not being respected"
"but the rules for committee subpoenas are normally different"
|
|
|
On October 11 2019 14:33 patrick321 wrote:
I could literally take what you just said and replace every instance of 'impeachment' with 'committee rules' and the argument wouldn't really change. You've said a lot of empty words.
"there's precedent and tradition for how committee rules goes and it's not being respected"
"but the rules for committee subpoenas are normally different"
Don't seem that empty to me. I've given two specific examples of what is different this time around-- the vote of the full House and the subpoenas. You pointed out the GOP changed the rules on the minority for normal, everyday oversight. I'm not arguing that the GOP didn't change the rules or that it wasn't an important departure. I'm saying the contexts are sufficiently different that a easy comparison can't be drawn. I'll refer back to piece I referenced last page, where what is being done is making impeachment "casual to the point of being conversational."
The “impeachment by press conference” action of Pelosi is an entirely new animal. After her press conference, I told The Washington Post that this was not any recognizable process and that the approach taken by Democrats on presidential impeachment was “casual to the point of being conversational.” It would allow a type of immaculate impeachment that suddenly comes to life by the unilateral declaration of the speaker.
I suppose you could argue it's following a trend, but I think it's quite obvious that if we are having an "impeachment inquiry" the proper precedent to check would be previous inquiries, first and foremost.
edit: and as a final night-time note here, please notice that I didn't defend any previous rule change or try to explain it away, but again, if we are going to be lectured by Pelosi about how important their work on this issue is, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect they actually act seriously, and wonder why they refuse to do so.
|
The democrat's prevention of the republican's subpoena power is an almost identical tit-for-tat to what the republicans did five years ago. Your cries of tradition are nothing more than a shallow echo of the democrat's own cries from back then.
I agree that ethically the democrats should have a house vote but since the subpoena power is tied directly to it they have good reason to forgo it.
And proper precedents change. That's what happened five years ago and that's what's happening now. I don't like the way politics is heading but you can't be blind to the past either.
|
On October 11 2019 13:09 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2019 13:00 CatharsisUT wrote:On October 11 2019 11:16 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2019 11:08 micronesia wrote:
Introvert, the American public doesn't need to accept the words of an anonymous CIA agent. They can just accept the evidence that is discovered when the whistle-blower causes investigators to take a look at the incidents in question. For example, the transcript of the Ukraine call was released after and at least partly as a result of the whistle-blower blowing the whistle. Who the whistle-blower is doesn't change the content of the Ukraine transcript, regardless of your opinion of the transcript itself. To out this whistle-blower without his consent is to all but eliminate whistle-blowing. yes, if we are going to use them to remove duly elected presidents, we are going to have find out who they are. Absolutely. The whistle blower is the source of much of this, his supposed concern and consternation is the impetus. This is an inherently political process, used in political ways, for political ends. Therefore, we ought to see as much of it as possible. You are treating this as some criminal trial, but as we have all been reminded ad nauseum the past few weeks, this is not a criminal proceeding. The investigators are not to have their credibility assumed. This is very silly. If someone told you "that chemical plant is poisoning the water," then you went and tested and, yep, the water is poisoned, what possible difference does the identity of the whistleblower make? It's such an obvious distraction it shouldn't be taken seriously. because this situation is not that simple. for one, we don't have any nice test for the poisoned water. Show nested quote +On October 11 2019 13:04 hunts wrote:
How does someone with a straight face say that exposing the whistleblower, after trump himself made threats against him, after what happened to epstein, is the "right thing to do?" Your guy, the president, literally threatened the whistleblower. What possible good reason could there be to expose him to the public? He said his thing, he pointed in the direction of corruption, it has been found and is being investigated. The republicans are just foaming at the mouth for the whistle blower to get exposed so trump can go and rage about him on twitter and pay off somebody to go silence him. Trump is all bluster. most of the time he says something he shouldn't and one of two things happens: 1. "No sir, we can't do that because it would be illegal/inappropriate/outside our power." And nothing happens. 2. Trump straight up says something crazy and everyone who's spent the past four years watching him goes "oh look! another brain fart!" and it's gone just as quickly. I take a threat to hang the WB for treason just as seriously as I took "lock her up!" Not sure how Epstein ties into this though. might be done with this topic for now we'll see. The words don't do harm defense when the president doesn't need to do anything but what for others to heed his words and pull the trigger for him (figuratively and literally).
Yeah, that's running a marathon in a circle on thin ice. It's going to break apart at some point.
|
On October 11 2019 13:09 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2019 13:00 CatharsisUT wrote:On October 11 2019 11:16 Introvert wrote:On October 11 2019 11:08 micronesia wrote:
Introvert, the American public doesn't need to accept the words of an anonymous CIA agent. They can just accept the evidence that is discovered when the whistle-blower causes investigators to take a look at the incidents in question. For example, the transcript of the Ukraine call was released after and at least partly as a result of the whistle-blower blowing the whistle. Who the whistle-blower is doesn't change the content of the Ukraine transcript, regardless of your opinion of the transcript itself. To out this whistle-blower without his consent is to all but eliminate whistle-blowing. yes, if we are going to use them to remove duly elected presidents, we are going to have find out who they are. Absolutely. The whistle blower is the source of much of this, his supposed concern and consternation is the impetus. This is an inherently political process, used in political ways, for political ends. Therefore, we ought to see as much of it as possible. You are treating this as some criminal trial, but as we have all been reminded ad nauseum the past few weeks, this is not a criminal proceeding. The investigators are not to have their credibility assumed. This is very silly. If someone told you "that chemical plant is poisoning the water," then you went and tested and, yep, the water is poisoned, what possible difference does the identity of the whistleblower make? It's such an obvious distraction it shouldn't be taken seriously. because this situation is not that simple. for one, we don't have any nice test for the poisoned water. Show nested quote +On October 11 2019 13:04 hunts wrote:
How does someone with a straight face say that exposing the whistleblower, after trump himself made threats against him, after what happened to epstein, is the "right thing to do?" Your guy, the president, literally threatened the whistleblower. What possible good reason could there be to expose him to the public? He said his thing, he pointed in the direction of corruption, it has been found and is being investigated. The republicans are just foaming at the mouth for the whistle blower to get exposed so trump can go and rage about him on twitter and pay off somebody to go silence him. Trump is all bluster. most of the time he says something he shouldn't and one of two things happens: 1. "No sir, we can't do that because it would be illegal/inappropriate/outside our power." And nothing happens. 2. Trump straight up says something crazy and everyone who's spent the past four years watching him goes "oh look! another brain fart!" and it's gone just as quickly. I take a threat to hang the WB for treason just as seriously as I took "lock her up!" Not sure how Epstein ties into this though. might be done with this topic for now we'll see.
The fact that you don't want to see or don't want to accept how dangerous what Trump does is for american democracy puzzles me.
I am honestly not sure it will survive another four years at that rate. He is a man who accepts no limit to his power, doesn't recognize any counterpower and check and balances, and call treason any form of opposition or even criticism. That would be ok if he didn't have the whole republican party behind him.
Don't serve me the "he doesn't really mean it" or "it's just brain farts" and so on. Even Hitler benefited from that line of reasoning. People just were saying that he was putting a show and so on and so forth.
Trump is not Hitler, but I think there is a real chance that america slips into authoritarianism. And if it does you will be responsible with all of those who excused and minimized the extremely serious damage this lunatic is doing.
|
On October 11 2019 14:59 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2019 14:33 patrick321 wrote:
I could literally take what you just said and replace every instance of 'impeachment' with 'committee rules' and the argument wouldn't really change. You've said a lot of empty words.
"there's precedent and tradition for how committee rules goes and it's not being respected"
"but the rules for committee subpoenas are normally different"
Don't seem that empty to me. I've given two specific examples of what is different this time around-- the vote of the full House and the subpoenas. You pointed out the GOP changed the rules on the minority for normal, everyday oversight. I'm not arguing that the GOP didn't change the rules or that it wasn't an important departure. I'm saying the contexts are sufficiently different that a easy comparison can't be drawn. I'll refer back to piece I referenced last page, where what is being done is making impeachment "casual to the point of being conversational." Show nested quote +The “impeachment by press conference” action of Pelosi is an entirely new animal. After her press conference, I told The Washington Post that this was not any recognizable process and that the approach taken by Democrats on presidential impeachment was “casual to the point of being conversational.” It would allow a type of immaculate impeachment that suddenly comes to life by the unilateral declaration of the speaker. I suppose you could argue it's following a trend, but I think it's quite obvious that if we are having an "impeachment inquiry" the proper precedent to check would be previous inquiries, first and foremost. edit: and as a final night-time note here, please notice that I didn't defend any previous rule change or try to explain it away, but again, if we are going to be lectured by Pelosi about how important their work on this issue is, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect they actually act seriously, and wonder why they refuse to do so.
If your problem is that Congress is becoming a tyranny of the majority leader, in which the minority, despite being elected officials have no input, then I agree that is a huge problem. The impeachment inquiry as it is now is yet another step down this road.
The problem is that this just another step down the road that was already started down, with Newt Gingrich as the first to weaponize the speakership against the minority party. Seems both parties are going to abuse these powers and hollow out American democratic institutions for a while longer until maybe at some point there will be enough people sick and tired of partisan bullshit to think about the election reforms needed to drag the country's legal basis out of the 18th century.
|
On October 11 2019 08:01 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +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. Remember this is pretty much what happened after Bush. The world collectively went 'ok, this was just an anomaly, America is back to being our reliable ally and friend'. Only for 8 years later to go even more bat shit crazy.
I'm not so sure you will find the world as forgiving the 2nd time. Sure publicly they will smile and pat the US on the back in front of the camera's but behind closed doors I think the cat is out of the bag and the world known America can go crazy every 4/8 years at random and cannot be relied upon beyond the current President.
|
On October 11 2019 18:45 Gorsameth 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. Remember this is pretty much what happened after Bush. The world collectively went 'ok, this was just an anomaly, America is back to being our reliable ally and friend'. Only for 8 years later to go even more bat shit crazy. I'm not so sure you will find the world as forgiving the 2nd time. Sure publicly they will smile and pat the US on the back in front of the camera's but behind closed doors I think the cat is out of the bag and the world known America can go crazy every 4/8 years at random and cannot be relied upon beyond the current President.
i think the world would be more forgiving, because the entire world wants to believe that america has their shit together again. every country in the world is literally rooting for it and if they see it happen theyll probably try their hardest to keep that as the status quo.
if america votes in another retard down the line the rest of the world would probably lose faith again, but honestly i dont think most people lose faith in the american government, because eventually things will get better again. its the american people that become a mockery and become targets of insults, memes, laughter etc for letting another idiot in again.
i mean americans are "half jokingly" considered to be the dumbest people in the world already. when a meme like that follows an entire countrys population it isnt for no reason
|
On October 11 2019 13:09 Introvert wrote:Trump is all bluster. On October 10 2019 07:15 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Whatever the case the EU should take Trumps threat to economically destroy Turkey seriously. Come on Trump supporters, who is right and who is wrong here do you think? Or do you just ignore each other when you contradict each other when you cheerlead for Trump?
On October 10 2019 08:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
1.Trump introducing punitive economic tariffs on Turkey, like he has already on Europe, China and Mexico (Until they buckled and negotiated)
Also I want to point out this alternate reality iplaynettles has going on where these countries buckled. Meanwhile Europe is planning to sanction Boeing, Turkish tanks invaded Syrian Kurd controlled areas, and China forced the NBA to self censor itself to be anti-democracy.
|
Norway28730 Posts
Nettles is a trump fanboy, introvert isn't.
|
He certainly excuses for everything Trump does and is overly concerned to never argue with anybody who supports Trump.
|
Ony in the American democrazy can a persident publicly state that he broke the law and then break the law on live television again and his supporters still call the opposition partisan for trying to get the public opinion to turn on him. That is so ridiculous. The line of defense of the republican party in all of this is to trust in their base voters to be unable to tell reality and propaganda apart and be outraged by a "single greatest political witchhunt, in the world probably" and vote republican again despite the clear evidence of their party violencing all kinds of criminal and moral rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
