|
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 November 19 2019 02:58 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2019 02:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 19 2019 02:38 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 02:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
Our representation system sucks but it wouldn't be nearly as bad if our politicians (on both sides) didn't prefer it this way.
Democrats need Republicans for the Democratic party to make any sense. Without the current system we’d not have had Bush or Trump and America would be a halfway decent country. We’d not have Manchin torpedoing single payer because those states would all collectively share one senator. I'm not disagreeing that our system sucks, just pointing out that it's this terrible because of longstanding bipartisan consensus that this is best for the politicians. @dmcd Without Republicans Democrats are the conservatives, because they don't actually have a left wing ideology, they have a "prevent the Republicans from making things worse" ideology which doesn't make sense without Republicans If the other party is to their left then it becomes obvious they are conservatives. That's an awful lot of unsubstantiated assumptions you are making there. That the one party exists solely for the position to be in opposition of another party. That without that opposition a party would be without purpose.A wonderful fairy tale. It's as if parties aren't made out of people but of a monolithic entity. Imagine one party disappeared tommorow. They don't make sense to you and behold, yet they still exist.
That would only be the case for one election. The next one there would be 2 parties where there used to be one. Regardless of which one you removed but for different reasons.
Republicans removed would result in one centre-left wing and one right wing party. Democrats removed would result in two different right wing parties, one racist and the other not.
In reality the parties would more or less exist but change name. Same as when the current Republican party formed. If Democrats got a super majority within 3 elections they would probably lose their right wing members to the Republicans that was pulled a bit towards centre to fit them in.
|
On November 19 2019 10:49 Mohdoo wrote:
Biden being anti weed is the peak ok boomer moment of the election so far. What in the world is this shit show campaign
This is why they rarely let him outside anymore.
|
On November 19 2019 12:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2019 10:49 Mohdoo wrote:
Biden being anti weed is the peak ok boomer moment of the election so far. What in the world is this shit show campaign This is why they rarely let him outside anymore.
Enthusiasm for Biden tends to be inversely proportional with how much a person has actually listened to what he has said or looked at any of his policies. He's the most generic, dull candidate that is doing the whole "trying to please everyone by either not taking a stance or taking the safest stance that appeals to the olds" shtick and it's a bad look to say the least. The more he talks, the more people realize he's not a good candidate, so the campaign's best strategy is to not let him speak in the first place.
Like he could have went for the actual safest stance of "we'll let states decide" but no, he had to go for the whole "weed is a gateway drug" argument that appeals to people over 50, because of course he did. It's embarrassing how out of touch his campaign is. Though that can be said about the extreme majority of the DNC and the old-guard establishment Democrats.
|
Biden saying he's against weed legalization, calling it a "gateway drug" disqualifies Biden from consideration for 2 reasons I M O. Support for ending the drug war and legalizing weed federally is a moral imperative when you consider how many human lives are lost that would otherwise not be lost. Pumping money into the government while saving people's lives from cartels is a slam dunk. His anti-weed shit also highlights Biden's failings as a thinking person. How incredibly resistant to learning does someone have to be to still be like "yeah gateway drug, f that stuff" in 2019? Its amazing. Then there's the fact that a growing number of states have already legalized it. And Canada. God damn. He truly is just sticking to what he's always believed and sees no reason to change. A leader must be a nimble, anxious learner. Biden is not. I want him to lose so amazingly bad
|
On November 19 2019 14:06 Mohdoo wrote:
Biden saying he's against weed legalization, calling it a "gateway drug" disqualifies Biden from consideration for 2 reasons I M O. Support for ending the drug war and legalizing weed federally is a moral imperative when you consider how many human lives are lost that would otherwise not be lost. Pumping money into the government while saving people's lives from cartels is a slam dunk. His anti-weed shit also highlights Biden's failings as a thinking person. How incredibly resistant to learning does someone have to be to still be like "yeah gateway drug, f that stuff" in 2019? Its amazing. Then there's the fact that a growing number of states have already legalized it. And Canada. God damn. He truly is just sticking to what he's always believed and sees no reason to change. A leader must be a nimble, anxious learner. Biden is not. I want him to lose so amazingly bad
I agree that a leader should be that, but people in general often don't want that. I mean... it's been a while since we had someone fitting those characteristics in UK politics. And it's not much better in the US. Maybe Obama fits that mold? Maybe. But aside from him who've you had that fits it in the last two decades? Maybe stretch it to three. Two decades only covers three presidents I think...
|
The US is especially against that kind of leader. They call changing your opinion after learning new things and/or facts changing "flip-flopping".
|
Northern Ireland23799 Posts
On November 19 2019 14:06 Mohdoo wrote:
Biden saying he's against weed legalization, calling it a "gateway drug" disqualifies Biden from consideration for 2 reasons I M O. Support for ending the drug war and legalizing weed federally is a moral imperative when you consider how many human lives are lost that would otherwise not be lost. Pumping money into the government while saving people's lives from cartels is a slam dunk. His anti-weed shit also highlights Biden's failings as a thinking person. How incredibly resistant to learning does someone have to be to still be like "yeah gateway drug, f that stuff" in 2019? Its amazing. Then there's the fact that a growing number of states have already legalized it. And Canada. God damn. He truly is just sticking to what he's always believed and sees no reason to change. A leader must be a nimble, anxious learner. Biden is not. I want him to lose so amazingly bad
How? This is so baffling. Half his bloody appeal is name recognition to being VP, said President getting kudos and even some laughs for his ‘I did inhale, that was kind of the point’ remark when asked.
Was rather symbolic that attitudes on that drug had shifted and we’ve seen states change their policies.
Even that remark was at least over 10 years ago, can’t remember if that was campaign Obama or President Obama.
How in the name of almighty Zeus can you think gateway drug rhetoric is factually correct, or politically sensible to have out there on the record?
It’s a discredited position, it’s not a particularly popular position either. Just, bizarre.
|
On November 19 2019 05:47 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2019 04:57 semantics wrote:On November 19 2019 02:34 farvacola wrote:On November 19 2019 02:27 reborn8u2 wrote:
On November 19 2019 01:58 reborn8u2 wrote:
But keep in mind California has about as man people as the bottom 20 states. Should they all bow to their califonian overlords?
YES! That’s how democracy works. I’m not sure how you’re not understanding this. If we all have a vote and one side has more votes than you then they win. I’m really not sure where you’re not getting this. You keep saying you understand but then you pose weird rhetorical questions like “should the majority get to decide policy in a democracy?” as if the answer is obviously no and we’re back to square one.
Yes, if Wyoming and California disagree on a policy then California should get their way. Because more people live there. Obviously.
What you seem to be missing is that is how democracy fails. Those 20 states aren't going to remain loyal to the whole. Britain tried to impose it's will on the colonies, how did that work out for them? States are not unitary beings, the vast majority of “coastal progressive” policies find a lot of popularity even in bottom 20 states. The problem, as has already been discussed, is that those supporters usually dwell in cities. Also for the most part even the coastal states still are largely rural. The US city size isn't that big even for the few exceptions. The rural city divide happens with in every state, the fact we label states and rural or not is because of the failure of representation on the federal level. States are not monolithic, it's only because the current system makes it appear that way that we think of them as such. Western coastal state *land* is mostly rural. The people are mostly industrialized
The us defines rural as unincorporated communities so people are rural when they live in such and area in the US roughly 60mil people fall under this with the avg state being roughly 30% of their population being rural, basically if you get services from the county you're rural no matter what. While California and Washington are well under that 30% Oregon is above it. Although it depends on which projection of the 2010 cenus data you're looking at as that's where most of this comes from.
Still that's 60mil out of a 325mil total. There are very legit rural states in the us in which most of the state population is rural but that's only like 15 states. But some how the rural vote has more appearance of power
|
Biden is clearly a relic of a bygone era but unfortunately emblematic of a lot of the most entrenched parts of the Democratic party.
On November 19 2019 21:48 Simberto wrote:
The US is especially against that kind of leader. They call changing your opinion after learning new things and/or facts changing "flip-flopping".
Depends on the context.
Can you provide an example of the kind of (unfairly criticized) "flip-flopping" you're describing?
|
On November 19 2019 12:37 Ben... wrote:
Like he could have went for the actual safest stance of "we'll let states decide" but no, he had to go for the whole "weed is a gateway drug" argument that appeals to people over 50, because of course he did. It's embarrassing how out of touch his campaign is. Though that can be said about the extreme majority of the DNC and the old-guard establishment Democrats.
Wow people have really been swept away by the headline bubble on this one. His policy stance is actually not the "anti-weed" boomer stance their making it out to be. He wants to decriminalize it and let the states decide whether to legalize recreational marijuana. He wants to reform the justice system around weed as well like making it a schedule ll drug.
"no one should go to jail for it, period,"
www.cnn.com
nypost.com
Unfortunately for his campaign, he couldn't make any statement without a pretty serious gaffe to back it up. Yes the "gateway drug" remark is dumb. It's really outdated and feeds the 'OK boomer' machine. That said I think his actual policy on marijuana isn't too bad.
|
Giving states the leeway to keep low level offenders in jail or otherwise maintain weed criminality is not a good policy, it’s cruelty in the guise of federalism.
|
|
|
On November 19 2019 22:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Biden is clearly a relic of a bygone era but unfortunately emblematic of a lot of the most entrenched parts of the Democratic party. Show nested quote +On November 19 2019 21:48 Simberto wrote:
The US is especially against that kind of leader. They call changing your opinion after learning new things and/or facts changing "flip-flopping". Depends on the context. Can you provide an example of the kind of (unfairly criticized) "flip-flopping" you're describing?
Of both parties. Not just the Dems.
|
On November 19 2019 23:39 Gorgonoth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2019 12:37 Ben... wrote:
Like he could have went for the actual safest stance of "we'll let states decide" but no, he had to go for the whole "weed is a gateway drug" argument that appeals to people over 50, because of course he did. It's embarrassing how out of touch his campaign is. Though that can be said about the extreme majority of the DNC and the old-guard establishment Democrats. Wow people have really been swept away by the headline bubble on this one. His policy stance is actually not the "anti-weed" boomer stance their making it out to be. He wants to decriminalize it and let the states decide whether to legalize recreational marijuana. He wants to reform the justice system around weed as well like making it a schedule ll drug. "no one should go to jail for it, period," www.cnn.comnypost.comUnfortunately for his campaign, he couldn't make any statement without a pretty serious gaffe to back it up. Yes the "gateway drug" remark is dumb. It's really outdated and feeds the 'OK boomer' machine. That said I think his actual policy on marijuana isn't too bad.
The whole idea of "let states decide" is used as a bizarre shield. Leaving it up to states is stupid. We should force every state to do the right thing. This isn't like abortion where there are complicated ethics involved.
1. Fully federalized legally and collecting federal taxes is a slam dunk for revenue
2. Creates more jobs than the braindead "let states decide" bullshit
3. Removes more power and revenue from cartels if federally regulated
4. Less total suffering created from drug war if federally legalized. Keep in mind people spend years in prison for weed. Can you imagine how fucked your life would be if you spent 10 years in prison? Think about it. It is beyond fucked up that we still allow for people to be imprisoned for weed. I think you are understating how tragic the idea of prison is.
I am not willing to pat Biden on the head for being somewhere between a republican and good policy. His policy on weed is complete trash because it leaves benefits for the world on the table for absolutely no reason. We know what an ideal weed policy would look like and I'm not going to congratulate Biden for getting 30% of the way there. He can do better, and as a leader, he is obligated to do better. When your entire purpose is to create policy and define the direction of the country, it is reasonable to demand he do a good job at that rather than his "step in the right direction".
|
|
|
Two correctional guards are being arrested in connection with Jeffrey Epstein's murdercide. Thought this would happen once they both denied culpability.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/prosecutors-preparing-charges-against-two-guards-epstein-death-sources-say-n1085371
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/19/us/jeffrey-epstein-guard-charge/index.html
Two Bureau of Prisons guards were charged by a federal grand jury Tuesday with conspiracy and filing false records in connection with their actions the night Jeffrey Epstein died in prison, according to an indictment.
The two guards, Tova Noel, 31, and Michael Thomas, 41, were taken into custody Tuesday and are expected to appear in federal court in Manhattan on Tuesday afternoon, according to the Manhattan US Attorney's office.
Attorneys for the defendants did not immediately respond to CNN requests for comment.
The charges come more than three months after Epstein was found dead at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, a federal detention facility in lower Manhattan. The multimillionaire was awaiting trial on federal charges accusing him of operating a sex trafficking ring from 2002 to 2005 at his Manhattan mansion and his Palm Beach estate, and allegedly paying girls as young as 14 for sex. He had pleaded not guilty.
New York City's chief medical examiner ruled his August 10 death a suicide by hanging, though a former medical examiner hired by Epstein's legal team has disagreed with that conclusion.
The night of Epstein's death, the guards repeatedly failed to complete the required counts of prisoners on their watch in the specialized housing unit where he was being held, according to the indictment, instead sitting at their desks, browsing the internet for furniture sales and sports news, and moving around the common area. The counts were supposed to take place every 30 minutes.
|
On November 20 2019 05:43 redlightdistrict wrote:Two correctional guards are being arrested in connection with Jeffrey Epstein's murdercide. Thought this would happen once they both denied culpability. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/prosecutors-preparing-charges-against-two-guards-epstein-death-sources-say-n1085371https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/19/us/jeffrey-epstein-guard-charge/index.htmlShow nested quote +Two Bureau of Prisons guards were charged by a federal grand jury Tuesday with conspiracy and filing false records in connection with their actions the night Jeffrey Epstein died in prison, according to an indictment.
The two guards, Tova Noel, 31, and Michael Thomas, 41, were taken into custody Tuesday and are expected to appear in federal court in Manhattan on Tuesday afternoon, according to the Manhattan US Attorney's office.
Attorneys for the defendants did not immediately respond to CNN requests for comment.
The charges come more than three months after Epstein was found dead at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, a federal detention facility in lower Manhattan. The multimillionaire was awaiting trial on federal charges accusing him of operating a sex trafficking ring from 2002 to 2005 at his Manhattan mansion and his Palm Beach estate, and allegedly paying girls as young as 14 for sex. He had pleaded not guilty.
New York City's chief medical examiner ruled his August 10 death a suicide by hanging, though a former medical examiner hired by Epstein's legal team has disagreed with that conclusion.
The night of Epstein's death, the guards repeatedly failed to complete the required counts of prisoners on their watch in the specialized housing unit where he was being held, according to the indictment, instead sitting at their desks, browsing the internet for furniture sales and sports news, and moving around the common area. The counts were supposed to take place every 30 minutes.
Am i being overly cynical in assuming that both guards will also commit suicide while in custody?
|
So what I get from these hearings, especially from Volker (that the Republicans brought in as a witness), is that as I thought, Trump is a gullible idiot.
As Manafort and Giuliani have shady dealings in Ukraine (and being friends with the corrupt previous attorney general), they don't see a lot of good in a real anti-corruption focused country.
So that corrupt AG, with Giuliani as a proxy, feed bullshit conspiracy theories about Ukraine to Trump, gets him to fire the ambassador and all that other stuff to protect their little interests. It doesn't help that he's being investigated for being an unregistered foreign agent of course.
It's hardly the worst Trump has done, he's just a fucking idiot, surrounded by corrupt guys, half taking advantage of him, half grifting. (He's corrupt as well also, don't get me wrong,as in he doesn't have an ounce of principles and feelings, so he thinks whatever is okay and justified)
"Talk to Rudy, talk to Rudy"
|
On November 20 2019 07:34 Nouar wrote:
So what I get from these hearings, especially from Volker (that the Republicans brought in as a witness), is that as I thought, Trump is a gullible idiot.
As Manafort and Giuliani have shady dealings in Ukraine (and being friends with the corrupt previous attorney general), they don't see a lot of good in a real anti-corruption focused country.
So that corrupt AG, with Giuliani as a proxy, feed bullshit conspiracy theories about Ukraine to Trump, gets him to fire the ambassador and all that other stuff to protect their little interests. It doesn't help that he's being investigated for being an unregistered foreign agent of course.
It's hardly the worst Trump has done, he's just a fucking idiot, surrounded by corrupt guys, half taking advantage of him, half grifting. (He's corrupt as well also, don't get me wrong,as in he doesn't have an ounce of principles and feelings, so he thinks whatever is okay and justified)
Trump still has reason to keep Manafort happy given that he's still holding some skeletons back by not talking. I doubt he is oblivious to that fact. Pushing for Zelensky to announce an investigation in Ukraine's 'inference' in 2016 is just a way to make Manafort look less bad, since they uncovered his corruption then.
Like the journalist in Ukraine who first wrote about the payoff ledger that later turned out to contain payments to Manafort, has to defend himself from conspiracies that republicans like Nunes are pushing, during these impeachment hearings. A lot of this is connected to Manafort and thus also in Trumps interest.
https://www.kyivpost.com/article/opinion/op-ed/sergii-leshchenko-republicans-keep-lying-about-me-at-impeachment-hearings.html
|
On November 20 2019 06:34 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2019 05:43 redlightdistrict wrote:Two correctional guards are being arrested in connection with Jeffrey Epstein's murdercide. Thought this would happen once they both denied culpability. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/prosecutors-preparing-charges-against-two-guards-epstein-death-sources-say-n1085371https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/19/us/jeffrey-epstein-guard-charge/index.htmlTwo Bureau of Prisons guards were charged by a federal grand jury Tuesday with conspiracy and filing false records in connection with their actions the night Jeffrey Epstein died in prison, according to an indictment.
The two guards, Tova Noel, 31, and Michael Thomas, 41, were taken into custody Tuesday and are expected to appear in federal court in Manhattan on Tuesday afternoon, according to the Manhattan US Attorney's office.
Attorneys for the defendants did not immediately respond to CNN requests for comment.
The charges come more than three months after Epstein was found dead at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, a federal detention facility in lower Manhattan. The multimillionaire was awaiting trial on federal charges accusing him of operating a sex trafficking ring from 2002 to 2005 at his Manhattan mansion and his Palm Beach estate, and allegedly paying girls as young as 14 for sex. He had pleaded not guilty.
New York City's chief medical examiner ruled his August 10 death a suicide by hanging, though a former medical examiner hired by Epstein's legal team has disagreed with that conclusion.
The night of Epstein's death, the guards repeatedly failed to complete the required counts of prisoners on their watch in the specialized housing unit where he was being held, according to the indictment, instead sitting at their desks, browsing the internet for furniture sales and sports news, and moving around the common area. The counts were supposed to take place every 30 minutes. Am i being overly cynical in assuming that both guards will also commit suicide while in custody?
Sorta, but not really. They are prison guards on the wrong side of the bars, they will be lucky to make it to Christmas in our thunderdome prisons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
