US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1869
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 | ||
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
| ||
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
A senior Pentagon official told Newsweek Wednesday that the United States is seeking—pending White House approval—to deploy half of an Army armored brigade combat team battalion that includes as many as 30 Abrams tanks alongside personnel to eastern Syria, where lucrative oil fields are under the control of a mostly Kurdish force involved in the U.S.-led fight against the Islamic State militant group (ISIS). The Pentagon-backed militia, called the Syrian Democratic Forces and dominated by the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG), will continue to be involved in securing these oil fields, the official said. source | ||
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
Mohdoo
United States15398 Posts
Replied to a Ben Shapiro video on Facebook praising him lol | ||
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On October 26 2019 07:57 Mohdoo wrote: My uncle loves describing himself as a centrist. Replied to a Ben Shapiro video on Facebook praising him lol Zuckerberg, clearly not enjoying the idea of a Warren or Bernie presidency, met personally with Ben Shapiro and others recently. I have a feeling more people will be suggested to view content by him. | ||
semantics
10040 Posts
On October 25 2019 12:10 Doodsmack wrote: Very big news here that the DOJ's probe of the Russian collusion investigation has become a criminal inquiry, at least in part, meaning that some minimal evidence of crime was found. Of course, committed partisans like this CNN pundit will disregard the probe out of hand. I suspect that the facts are going to come out one way or another, and if in fact there was malfeasance in the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation, the facts will bear it out in a way that partisan arguments can't obfuscate. 3rd time a charm. We need more investigations on the investigation. After all the Senate one didn't find anything, the one in progress before this hasn't found anything although it's not done. So obviously a 3rd probe will do it. | ||
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
On October 26 2019 10:09 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Zuckerberg, clearly not enjoying the idea of a Warren or Bernie presidency, met personally with Ben Shapiro and others recently. I have a feeling more people will be suggested to view content by him. Related to this, the VP for Global Policy, VP for US Public Policy, and Public Policy Director for Global Elections in Facebook's DC office are all extensively tied to the Republican party. Citation: popular.info | ||
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
On October 26 2019 11:53 semantics wrote: 3rd time a charm. We need more investigations on the investigation. After all the Senate one didn't find anything, the one in progress before this hasn't found anything although it's not done. So obviously a 3rd probe will do it. Then after this one doesn't find anything they will need to do an investigation of the investigation of the investigation to make sure that the people investigating the investigators weren't potentially breaking the law while investigating others potentially breaking the law while investigating. It's simple really. On October 26 2019 01:21 Doodsmack wrote: I mean theres probably a good faith argument that international law can get "broken" in certain situations. Obama violated international law when he sent an assassin team into Pakistan to get OBL. He violated Pakistan's sovereignty without Pakistan's consent. Israel also violated international law when they kidnapped Eichmann in Brazil (and there was a lot of controversy at the time I believe). So I'm not sure it's the case that barr absolutely needed to say the US cant do it because of international law. It's not the OLC opinion that is the issue. The issue is that when he was called to testify about the opinion he refused to provide the opinion while claiming that it was against department policy which was demonstrably not the case since other recent OLC opinions had been recently released. He instead offered to summarize the opinion, and in doing so left out several principal arguments of it regarding presidential actions, a UN charter, and certain aspects of international law, and when questioned on the opinion he indicated that everything he discussed was in the summary (as in, he indicated he didn't address the UN/international law aspect of the issue). His refusal to provide justification for his opinion that presidents could order the FBI to do these kidnappings and his behaviour had made those questioning him suspicious, so they ended up subpoenaing the opinion, only to find that he had been misleading. The differences between the summary and opinion eventually got leaked to the press, who then asked Bush Sr. and the AG about it. Once legal experts got a hold of the opinion, it became clear why he didn't want it released since his arguments were considered to be not up to typical standards and failed to address common questions. He also took strange stances on issues that were different than the government's previous ones and made dangerous assumptions about how government worked. The thing with this opinion was that it reversed a previous OLC opinion that had only come out a few years prior, which immediately made people suspicious. The previous opinion had factored in international law, domestic law, and a UN charter and concluded against the US having the power to kidnap citizens of a country without permission of the country, since they considered it to essentially be an act of war. Keep in mind this was a very different time than post-9/11 US. But that's not the point I suppose. The point is that Barr lied, or at the very least was deliberately misleading, about the contents of his opinion when questioned by congress, and left out information that would have substantially weakened his position on the issue. He has done this type of thing several times in the past, including this year. | ||
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
https://www.pbs.org/video/how-gop-efforts-to-reshape-federal-courts-could-affect-2020-1572043875/ User was warned for this post. | ||
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43797 Posts
On October 26 2019 01:39 Ryzel wrote: Oof, don’t know how that’s going to go over with her constituents. Hawaii is as blue as it gets. I'm confused about what Tulsi Gabbard is doing. She's not popular in the Democratic primary, and she's no longer seeking reelection due to her decreasing popularity in her state. That means that either she doesn't care about being a political player anymore, or that she'll probably run as a third-party presidential candidate to steal votes away during the general election... And based on her crazy, inconsistent rhetoric, I don't actually know if she's more likely to steal votes away from the Democratic nominee or from Trump. She ran on some progressive platforms while simultaneously being a Trump and conservative apologist. She might continue to be more relevant on Fox News, although I feel like her presence on Fox News was mostly because she was happy to criticize the Democratic establishment. | ||
Grackaroni
United States9836 Posts
On October 26 2019 21:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I'm confused about what Tulsi Gabbard is doing. She's not popular in the Democratic primary, and she's no longer seeking reelection due to her decreasing popularity in her state. That means that either she doesn't care about being a political player anymore, or that she'll probably run as a third-party presidential candidate to steal votes away during the general election... And based on her crazy, inconsistent rhetoric, I don't actually know if she's more likely to steal votes away from the Democratic nominee or from Trump. She ran on some progressive platforms while simultaneously being a Trump and conservative apologist. She might continue to be more relevant on Fox News, although I feel like her presence on Fox News was mostly because she was happy to criticize the Democratic establishment. Most likely she's looking for a lucrative speaker slot at FOX as the token democrat who will criticize other democrats and make the channel seem "balanced". I doubt she's actually interested in running as a 3rd party. | ||
Biff The Understudy
France7811 Posts
| ||
![]()
micronesia
United States24579 Posts
On October 27 2019 23:22 Biff The Understudy wrote: Al Baghdadi is dead apparently. Awaiting Trump tweet claiming he did it all by himself. Trump held a press conference an hour or two ago and went over most of the details. He did not claim he did it all by himself. I won't comment on some aspects of his dialogue that I thought was inappropriate, though. | ||
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
The recent comments of John Kelly certainly come to mind when I see stuff like this. Someone should have stepped in and made sure this statement Trump was to read regarding the killing of al-Baghdadi was as neutral and respectful as possible to not ratchet up tensions. It's quite clear at this point everyone who would have done so is gone, and have been replaced with people who say yes to everything and won't offer Trump actual feedback, criticism, or say anything that might upset him. Trump's overly violent description of the events will only make things worse. Apparently the administration didn't bother to notify either the congressional leaders nor the Gang of Eight that this mission was going on. | ||
Lmui
Canada6208 Posts
Apparently he told Lindsey Graham? http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/after-decrying-leaks-trump-shares-sensitive-details-baghdadi-raid As Pelosi said, with Trump, all roads lead to Putin. He's apparently fucked with the Operation with what he did with the Kurds, and he shared way too much sensitive military information. | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On October 27 2019 23:22 Biff The Understudy wrote: Al Baghdadi is dead apparently. Awaiting Trump tweet claiming he did it all by himself. Hasn't the guy "died" like 4 times, or am I thinking of someone else? | ||
Mohdoo
United States15398 Posts
On October 29 2019 06:00 TheYango wrote: Hasn't the guy "died" like 4 times, or am I thinking of someone else? Had a few maybes but this is the first time US has been like "yeah def this time" | ||
Biff The Understudy
France7811 Posts
On October 29 2019 06:00 TheYango wrote: Hasn't the guy "died" like 4 times, or am I thinking of someone else? Really looks like he ran out of luck this time, though | ||
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43797 Posts
On October 29 2019 01:50 Lmui wrote: The administration did notify Russia first, before anyone from Congress because IIRC it would overfly Russian held areas? Apparently he told Lindsey Graham? http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/after-decrying-leaks-trump-shares-sensitive-details-baghdadi-raid As Pelosi said, with Trump, all roads lead to Putin. He's apparently fucked with the Operation with what he did with the Kurds, and he shared way too much sensitive military information. Between Trump sharing his sexual assault conquests, sensitive military information, and the fact that he thinks Osama bin Laden was "handsome", he's pretty much the quintessential TMI Perpetrator in every way possible. | ||
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
Army Officer Who Heard Trump’s Ukraine Call Reported Concerns (NYT) So essentially, Alexander Vindman, who is an Iraq War veteran that was awarded a Purple Heart after being wounded by a bomb, is an NSC official who is an expert on Ukraine. He was so troubled by what he heard in Trump and Zelinsky's phone call (he was on the call) that he reported it to his superiors on multiple occasions. He is scheduled to testify tomorrow and apparently is going to essentially corroborate the whistleblower's account, which to be fair has already been mostly confirmed by other witnesses, and add more details as needed. He worked directly with John Bolton and tried to get Trump to restore the funding to Ukraine, but Trump refused. His opening statement was released and it certainly doesn't make Trump look good. WASHINGTON — A White House national security official who is a decorated Iraq war veteran plans to tell House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that he heard President Trump appeal to Ukraine’s president to investigate one of his leading political rivals, a request the aide considered so damaging to American interests that he reported it to a superior. Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman of the Army, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, twice registered internal objections about how Mr. Trump and his inner circle were treating Ukraine, out of what he called a “sense of duty,” he plans to tell the inquiry, according to a draft of his opening statement obtained by The New York Times. He will be the first White House official to testify who listened in on the July 25 telephone call between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine that is at the center of the impeachment inquiry, in which Mr. Trump asked Mr. Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. “I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine,” Colonel Vindman said in his statement. “I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained.” If you read further into the article, Gordon Sondland is also discussed. It sounds like he could potentially be in some hot water since his account of events doesn't match up with multiple accounts of other officials, and does not line up with what Vindman is to say. Sondland and his lawyer have already apparently been at the SCIF to review and potentially correct testimony. Vindman is a naturalized US citizen from Ukraine and he speaks fluent Russian and Ukrainian, so he communicates with Ukraine quite a bit, and the Ukrainians often communicated their concerns with him. Also interesting to note that Vindman isn't the only Vindman who works for the NSC. His identical twin brother, Yevgeny Vindman, is a lawyer for the NSC. I wish the Republicans the best in their coming campaign to smear the integrity of an *checks notes* Iraq War vet who earned a Purple Heart and has served the US government in a vital role in dealing with the Ukrainian government during a tense period. | ||
| ||