|
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 |
The U.S. faces strong opposition at the UN to its shift on Israeli settlements after declaring it no longer believes Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories are illegal.
So that's in addition to being (with Israel) the only countries that voted against UN General Assembly draft resolutions calling for a nuclear weapons-free Middle East, measures to stop an arms race in outer space, and an end to the blockade of Cuba. To establish a pattern of the US ignoring international consensus when it suits them.
Monday’s announcement by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo reversed a four-decade-old U.S. position on Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. The move was welcomed by Israel but drew condemnation from Palestinians and Arab leaders.
At the United Nations, the U.S. policy shift came under fire from the EU and an array of Security Council members, including Russia and China.
“All settlement activity is illegal under international law and it erodes the viability of the two-state solution and the prospects for a lasting peace,” British Ambassador to the UN Karen Pierce told reporters before the meeting. She spoke on behalf of Germany, France, Poland, Belgium and Britain, the EU’s current Security Council members.
www.reuters.com
EDIT: Gors wrote some satire about the US's disregard for international law and our population's lackadaisical attitude about it that feels relevant regarding our roguishness
+ Show Spoiler +On November 23 2019 22:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2019 22:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 23 2019 22:41 Gorsameth wrote:On November 23 2019 22:32 Wombat_NI wrote:On November 23 2019 22:20 Gorsameth wrote:On November 23 2019 21:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 23 2019 21:45 Gorsameth wrote:On November 23 2019 21:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 23 2019 21:19 Gorsameth wrote:On November 23 2019 20:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
That he's obviously and unabashedly criminal, and also the president of the US. The belief leading up to Trump was that he couldn't get elected or if he did the system would check his brazen criminality.
That belief was obviously wrong. Rather than reconcile that, Democrats look at the copious amounts of smoke (the kabuki of Mueller/Ukraine) as evidence there's no reason to worry about the bright hot thing (the systems inability to remove an obviously corrupt president). So instead of 'wasting' time on Trump with the possible payoff of winning the next Presidential election you would want them to waste time on re-writing the constitution and the entire electoral system? No. I think that obvious cynicism is part of why support for impeachment isn't over 60% in the first place (wombat touched on this). I'm sure "lets not care about what the President does no matter how bad or blatant it is because the system has fundamental flaws that are really hard to fix" can't possibly end badly. Literally no one is making that argument? Though you seem to be making the inverse? Yes a lot of American's don't seem to give a shit about what happens, not much you can do about it. Fortunately they are also unlikely to vote so their opinion (or lack thereof) on something doesn't matter anyway.
Do the polls talking about support for impeachment poll everyone, or 'likely voters'? Lots that can and should have been being done about it instead of the superficial stuff Democrats went after to avoid implicating themselves. Registered and likely mostly, the lower rated ones sometimes poll adults. So its fine that the Democrats are going after Trump but it would be nice if they did more. Great. But even if there was political will (which I agree there isn't) to do more. Could they? Most are not as utterly stupid as Trump & Co. Lets start with the obvious one. Bush and the Iraq war.
Sure he lied to the people a bunch and misrepresented military intelligence. But what are you going to throw in him in jail for?Edit: My point is the system as it exists allows for this to happen. And you'r not going to change the system so its impossible to get all but the most obvious and stupid instances, like Trump. That? Is it a crime? This is that dangerous reliance on process to reach justice I talk about, maybe not, but the torturing people definitely is/was anyway. Not holding his administration accountable doesn't just put him joking with Ellen and Spicer dancing with the stars, it results the exact people supervising those war crimes getting promoted. If only there was an international tribunal that could judge over these things and try to hold leaders accountable. Pity America didn't sign up to it and the President is actually authorised to invade the Netherlands to 'liberate' any US personal held for trial. Americans seemed to have let that one slide, guess the people don't really care.
|
|
|
I find the reflex of GH to point at the US when China is rightfully critiqued amusing. The only thing missing is telling us how actually its the democratic party that is at fault. There are times when being critical of the US is warranted. Here it's not.
|
On November 26 2019 04:32 Broetchenholer wrote:
I find the reflex of GH to point at the US when China is rightfully critiqued amusing. The only thing missing is telling us how actually its the democratic party that is at fault. There are times when being critical of the US is warranted. Here it's not.
I find the habitual nature to attack me or a source instead of engaging the information or my argument amusing as well as the whataboutism about China in the US politics thread. So at least we're all having fun.
|
Northern Ireland25010 Posts
On November 26 2019 04:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2019 04:32 Broetchenholer wrote:
I find the reflex of GH to point at the US when China is rightfully critiqued amusing. The only thing missing is telling us how actually its the democratic party that is at fault. There are times when being critical of the US is warranted. Here it's not. I find the habitual nature to attack me or a source instead of engaging the information or my argument amusing as well as the whataboutism about China in the US politics thread. So at least we're all having fun.
While I do generally appreciate your posting and your angles in this instance I feel it was your good self that was indulging in whataboutery when the Chinese example was brought up.
The US in my view has historically been worse practically than other nations like China have been, because they were the dominant hegemonic power, so when wielded it had more impact than more morally objectionable behaviour by other nations that lacked the ability to really influence things on a wider sense.
China is getting that power to wield now, and while I’m critical of the US frequently China is an altogether different beast again. There’s not even the pretence of democracy there
|
What is your argument? You were asked if your stance on China has changed and your next post is the USA sucks. Please explain how the two are related. I believe both countries are dangerous and terrible in their own way but I feel no need to compare them or bring up one when the other is discussed.
Over the last few pages I have seen that kind of posting quite often from you. Whenever something is brought up that is bad, like China treating minorities or Republicans defending trump, you find a way to call out the morally better side and act like they are equivalent. Or worse.
|
On November 26 2019 04:51 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2019 04:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2019 04:32 Broetchenholer wrote:
I find the reflex of GH to point at the US when China is rightfully critiqued amusing. The only thing missing is telling us how actually its the democratic party that is at fault. There are times when being critical of the US is warranted. Here it's not. I find the habitual nature to attack me or a source instead of engaging the information or my argument amusing as well as the whataboutism about China in the US politics thread. So at least we're all having fun. While I do generally appreciate your posting and your angles in this instance I feel it was your good self that was indulging in whataboutery when the Chinese example was brought up. The US in my view has historically been worse practically than other nations like China have been, because they were the dominant hegemonic power, so when wielded it had more impact than more morally objectionable behaviour by other nations that lacked the ability to really influence things on a wider sense. China is getting that power to wield now, and while I’m critical of the US frequently China is an altogether different beast again. There’s not even the pretence of democracy there
I answered the question,
+ Show Spoiler +On November 25 2019 23:28 GreenHorizons wrote:I question various depictions of them and the lack of context with which they are assessed yeah. There's also the whole "remove the beam" thing.
then someone asked the question again (which would have got the same answer) and I moved on to something else and engaged around that.
+ Show Spoiler +I think people need a "Chinese politics" thread since they want to talk about that (maybe I'll expand there but I'd bet you'd draw out more Chinese posters [edit2: chuchuchu would probably disagree with you on democracy for example]as well) rather than active ethnic cleansing campaigns the US is assisting despite global opposition (of at least 1 of them). EDIT: Or they can just talk about Chinese politics here if that's their thing, they're free to do as they please. + Show Spoiler +I don't know if chuchuchu is Chinese but they know more about Chinese politics than anyone I've seen post here.
|
Somehow, I doubt that hiding your "answers" in spoilers is going to convince anybody that you aren't deflecting when people enquire on your opinions.
|
A ruling has been made on the court case McGahn, Bolton, and several others were waiting on with regard to being compelled to testify. The judge did not like the government's arguments to say the least. From some of what I've read, it seems like see attempted to implicitly target Barr in some of her comments on the DOJ. Given his past statements on the powers of the Executive Branch and his suggestions that people in the Executive Branch should be immune from certain legal situations, it makes sense that she would clearly point out how, as per the Constitution, nobody can be above the law, and that subpoenas are a lawful tool, not a political one.
Washington (CNN)A federal judge decided Monday that President Donald Trump's former White House counsel Don McGahn must testify to the House of Representatives in its impeachment probe.
"However busy or essential a presidential aide might be, and whatever their proximity to sensitive domestic and national-security projects, the President does not have the power to excuse him or her from taking an action that the law requires," Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote.
"Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings," Jackson said.
The ruling is a blow to Trump and White House efforts to block parts of the impeachment inquiry. It could encourage resistant witnesses from the administration to testify and could bolster any case House Democrats make to impeach the President for obstructing its proceedings or obstructing justice.
|
Even if they can't squirm their way out, what's the penalty for ignoring a subpoena and is that punishment enforceable at all?
|
On November 26 2019 09:45 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Even if they can't squirm their way out, what's the penalty for ignoring a subpoena and is that punishment enforceable at all? In theory Congress can have the them arrested, either through their own sergeant at arms (Congress had a jail but its not been used in god knows how long), by asking the DoJ (who work for Trump and he can tell them not to comply) or by going through a civil court who can then fine/jail the person in question.
In practice I doubt its actually enforceable.
|
Thank you. I was wondering, even if they say they must and they don't, who will actually go after them? Gives Dems some talking points but that's about it. I think they have enough to vote and get it to Senate, but it won't go anywhere.
|
On November 26 2019 10:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2019 09:45 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Even if they can't squirm their way out, what's the penalty for ignoring a subpoena and is that punishment enforceable at all? In theory Congress can have the them arrested, either through their own sergeant at arms (Congress had a jail but its not been used in god knows how long), by asking the DoJ (who work for Trump and he can tell them not to comply) or by going through a civil court who can then fine/jail the person in question. In practice I doubt its actually enforceable.
Yes, it's a grey area because it's not been something that's had to be dealt with in modern times in anything resembling this context. It sounded like they were pondering daily fines/salary garnishment for not appearing, but nothing concrete has come out one way or another about what they'd actually do.
In other news, 538 has updated their impeachment polling with 3 new polls, though 2 are YouGov with different questions. That dip we saw previously was indeed a one-off dip, as support is now back up several points to where it was a week ago, and is actually up a bit more on where it was late last week. These are the first polls conducted on and just after the days the Sondland and Hill/Holmes testimony occurred. Democrat support appears to be creeping upward, as two of the polls have it at 85%+. More notably, support among independents is essentially now split among impeach/don't impeach, and in the largest poll, support for impeachment is up by 3 points for independents. The Democrat support being what it is isn't necessarily surprising, but if Independent support truly does increase in a significant fashion and the number of undecided people goes down, then we will know for sure whether or not these hearings had any impact.
One important thing to note is that the third poll that does not show independents up is that the question is markedly different. This third poll is about impeaching and removing Trump, while the two with just impeachment as the question are where we saw gains. If these results hold up in further polling, then it would certainly suggest that with the evidence that came out last week, the public now is increasingly in favour of impeachment and a senate trial (which, from my understanding, McConnell has already said he would allow). We'll have to see if similar results continue as more polls come out.
|
On November 26 2019 14:39 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2019 10:30 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2019 09:45 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Even if they can't squirm their way out, what's the penalty for ignoring a subpoena and is that punishment enforceable at all? In theory Congress can have the them arrested, either through their own sergeant at arms (Congress had a jail but its not been used in god knows how long), by asking the DoJ (who work for Trump and he can tell them not to comply) or by going through a civil court who can then fine/jail the person in question. In practice I doubt its actually enforceable. Yes, it's a grey area because it's not been something that's had to be dealt with in modern times in anything resembling this context. It sounded like they were pondering daily fines/salary garnishment for not appearing, but nothing concrete has come out one way or another about what they'd actually do. In other news, 538 has updated their impeachment polling with 3 new polls, though 2 are YouGov with different questions. That dip we saw previously was indeed a one-off dip, as support is now back up several points to where it was a week ago, and is actually up a bit more on where it was late last week. These are the first polls conducted on and just after the days the Sondland and Hill/Holmes testimony occurred. Democrat support appears to be creeping upward, as two of the polls have it at 85%+. More notably, support among independents is essentially now split among impeach/don't impeach, and in the largest poll, support for impeachment is up by 3 points for independents. The Democrat support being what it is isn't necessarily surprising, but if Independent support truly does increase in a significant fashion and the number of undecided people goes down, then we will know for sure whether or not these hearings had any impact. One important thing to note is that the third poll that does not show independents up is that the question is markedly different. This third poll is about impeaching and removing Trump, while the two with just impeachment as the question are where we saw gains. If these results hold up in further polling, then it would certainly suggest that with the evidence that came out last week, the public now is increasingly in favour of impeachment and a senate trial (which, from my understanding, McConnell has already said he would allow). We'll have to see if similar results continue as more polls come out.
We're still under peak impeachment support, under 50% support for impeachment, and Trump's favorability is higher than when he won the election.
I don't think any of that will change much (in favor of Democrats) as it fades from people's focus.
|
Democrats shooting themselves in the foot with the impeachment inquiry to be honest instead of spending time to reform the party.
Waste of time.
|
The Democrats leading the impeachment inquiry are not the ones who would be reforming the party, and those two things are not mutually exclusive.
|
On November 26 2019 00:34 JimmiC wrote:Thank you for posting, this confirms all the whispers that have been sneaking out of China for years about these. With China's extreme controls on the media and internet it is not surprising that it took this long for confirmation. I hope more of these leaks come out, there is a lot of horrible, horrible human rights abuses going on that need to be taken out into the open in the hopes that international pressure can be placed in hopes of some changes, though I'm not sure it will work. Those in power are so wealthy and so committed to control I'm not any amount of pressure will matter. It also really puts into perspective why the people of Hong Kong are so scared and willing to fight for their freedom so hard. They don't want to be put in "reeducation" camps and I'm sure stamping out their freedom and bending them to Chinese will will be a top priority at some point.
One of the scariest aspect of China is that it cannot distinguish from the reality and the agenda it is pushing.
We recently had a landslide victory for pro-democratic members in the district council votes.
What's interesting is that China actually spend a lot of effort in pushing for this vote, they have stars making promotion MV, they have front page ads telling people to vote.
Apparently the oversea branch of their state newspaper had submitted an article for pro-Beijing camp victory.
They truly believed in a lie that they created, a silent majority who just are against the protesters, who will vote and win big to isolate the protesters and give the police the moral support they lacked.
What I personally am most afraid of, isn't Hong Kong but that this issue, with the potential spread of social credit system will create a truly dystopian future across the globe, as China spread its influence.
A future where humans are born in a system that creates agenda and mold people to it.
This is why we are seeking help from the US.
We understand they aren't doing it for justice/freedom whatever, we know they are kinda a war driven regime, but this is serious.
We have a quite a strong Anti-CCP segment in Hong Kong, and that is why we are very vocal and always keeping an eye.
But the rest of the world? I think you will all fall until it's kinda too late, not just because it's far across the ocean, but also because CCP is the best at infiltration and create agenda
|
Morning Consult poll taken after the debate has Biden at 30, Sanders at 21, Warren at 15, and Buttigeg at 9. Morning Consult has had Biden at 32 for months now, so a slight dip for him, but I think the most notable change is Warren's steady slide every week now since late October when she was at 20%. Of course we need 2-5 more polls post debate to get a feel for its actual effect, but I think we could be seeing a Sanders v Biden as the front-runners as Warren loses support. Buttigeg winning Iowa and NH is of course still in play, which hurts Sanders who did very well in these states over Clinton.
Morning Consult has a massive sample size, regularly their polls surpass 15,000. For comparison Emerson, Ipsos, Yougov, and Monmouth rarely crack a thousand. Its certainly good to see changing trends among a much more significant test group.
|
On November 26 2019 21:55 farvacola wrote:
The Democrats leading the impeachment inquiry are not the ones who would be reforming the party, and those two things are not mutually exclusive.
Also they're still passing legislation, groups of people can easily do two or more things at the same time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
