|
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 December 05 2019 21:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2019 21:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
would she end biden and buttigieg? I haven't seen a single person remotely positive towards her running. I get that there are people, that are entirely outside any of my circles, but like.. I just don't understand how she could have any impact, aside from possibly making some democrats like, or dislike a candidate she backs, or criticizes. She'd compete with Biden but definitely wouldn't end his run. Buttigieg's base is different than Biden's no matter how badly people want to paint him as the same type of candidate.
Biden can't afford to lose any more frontrunner status. It's not that she'd crater him like she did in 08 but that he can't afford to lose even 5% of his support at this point.
Buttigieg's base are next gen establishment folks. Basically the "More women prison guards and defense contractors!" crowd.
|
Northern Ireland24523 Posts
On December 05 2019 21:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2019 21:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 05 2019 21:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
would she end biden and buttigieg? I haven't seen a single person remotely positive towards her running. I get that there are people, that are entirely outside any of my circles, but like.. I just don't understand how she could have any impact, aside from possibly making some democrats like, or dislike a candidate she backs, or criticizes. She'd compete with Biden but definitely wouldn't end his run. Buttigieg's base is different than Biden's no matter how badly people want to paint him as the same type of candidate. Biden can't afford to lose any more frontrunner status. It's not that she'd crater him like she did in 08 but that he can't afford to lose even 5% of his support at this point. Buttigieg's base are next gen establishment folks. Basically the "More women prison guards and defense contractors!" crowd.
Haha, yeah the type to share op eds like ‘The World’s First Openly Gay Dictator’ as a sign of incremental progress.
|
The New York Times made an article about the torture programs of the CIA after 11/9. It made me want to both puke and cry.
Here it is
It's really hard to understand how the american public is ok with that. I don't see how one that is not affected by a higher level of psychopathy can see those drawings and not feel sick.
|
On December 05 2019 21:57 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2019 21:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 05 2019 21:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 05 2019 21:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
would she end biden and buttigieg? I haven't seen a single person remotely positive towards her running. I get that there are people, that are entirely outside any of my circles, but like.. I just don't understand how she could have any impact, aside from possibly making some democrats like, or dislike a candidate she backs, or criticizes. She'd compete with Biden but definitely wouldn't end his run. Buttigieg's base is different than Biden's no matter how badly people want to paint him as the same type of candidate. Biden can't afford to lose any more frontrunner status. It's not that she'd crater him like she did in 08 but that he can't afford to lose even 5% of his support at this point. Buttigieg's base are next gen establishment folks. Basically the "More women prison guards and defense contractors!" crowd. Haha, yeah the type to share op eds like ‘The World’s First Openly Gay Dictator’ as a sign of incremental progress.
lmao yup
On December 05 2019 22:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:The New York Times made an article about the torture programs of the CIA after 11/9. It made me want to both puke and cry. Here it isIt's really hard to understand how the american public is ok with that. I don't see how one that is not affected by a higher level of psychopathy can see those drawings and not feel sick.
Remember when I was flipping out about Hillary seeking out Kissinger's endorsement and her supporters explained it away as politics?
This also ties into Ellen defending yucking it up with Bush and Spicer dancing on TV. Which connects to the FBI building being named after the guy who systematically discredited, imprisoned, and assasinated civil rights leaders. Which ties to why impeachment is failing.
You don't get to have Ellen and Bush joking around or Michelle slipping him candy and hugs while also trying to maintain outrage about his war crimes. It's at the core of why impeachment was always going to fail and the banks were never held accountable.
It's obviously not strictly a partisan issue, as bipartisan support for Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign demonstrates.
|
The true tragedy and madness of our times is that large parts of our society, large enough to elect leaders and governments, accept the fact that our politicians are corrupt and involved in breaking human rights. More and more, the mere fact that a politician is "our guy" is an excuse to accept their immoral and often even criminal behaviour; even worse, some wannabe cynics excuse it just because "it's what politicians do, duuh", or because it "to defend freedom/way of life/etc. Until this attitude changes there can be no healing of our political system.
|
|
|
On December 05 2019 22:53 PoulsenB wrote:
The true tragedy and madness of our times is that large parts of our society, large enough to elect leaders and governments, accept the fact that our politicians are corrupt and involved in breaking human rights. More and more, the mere fact that a politician is "our guy" is an excuse to accept their immoral and often even criminal behaviour; even worse, some wannabe cynics excuse it just because "it's what politicians do, duuh", or because it "to defend freedom/way of life/etc. Until this attitude changes there can be no healing of our political system.
Can't forget that some people across the spectrum debate whether these atrocities are even crimes against humanity, and/or work overtime to stay blissfully ignorant.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland24523 Posts
There are layers to ethnic cleansing, even the Nazis didn’t go straight to exterminating Jews, they eventually came to the ‘Final Solution’ after years of escalating.
|
Trump will be impeached officially, Pelosi asked Judiciary to draft the articles. The senate trial will be interesting.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called on Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler to draft articles of impeachment against President Trump.
"Sadly, but with confidence and humility, with allegiance to our founders, and a heart full of love for America, today I am asking our chairman to proceed with articles of impeachment," Pelosi said.
Pelosi's announcement is a formal indication that the House will move forward with impeaching Mr. Trump after weeks of hearings. Democrats have previously insisted that they had not decided whether to draft articles of impeachment against Mr. Trump, although many Republicans believed impeachment to be a foregone conclusion.
As Democrats control the House, Mr. Trump is likely to be impeached. The vote is expected to occur on party lines, as Republicans consider the impeachment inquiry an overreach by Democrats bent on undermining the president. The Republican-led Senate is unlikely to vote to remove Mr. Trump from office, however.
Speaking on the Speaker's Balcony in the Capitol, Pelosi said that Mr. Trump had "abused his power for his own personal political benefit" when he asked the Ukrainian president to investigate a political rival and a debunked conspiracy theory about the 2016 election.
"The president's actions have seriously violated the Constitution, especially when he says and acts upon the belief, Article II says I can do whatever I want. No, his wrongdoing strikes at the very heart of our Constitution, a separation of powers, three co-equal branches, each a check and balance on the other," Pelosi said.
"Our democracy is what is at stake. The president leaves us no choice but to act, because he is trying to corrupt, once again, the election for his own benefit. The president has engaged in abuse of power, undermining our national security and jeopardizing the integrity of our elections," she continued.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nancy-pelosi-impeachment-update-watch-live-stream-pelosi-delivers-statement-on-status-impeachment-inquiry-2019-12-05/
|
|
|
Question about the senate trial after impeachment: Does it go on to count as precedent?
As I understand, in strict accordance with the law, Trump 100% committed crimes. But the nature and reasoning for the crimes makes Trump supporters not see it as remotely unethical. They instead see this as a president fulfilling his promise to basically just punch the left as much as he can.
After years and years of Obama making the right deeply insecure, they were desperate to take revenge and they got it. They knew it was a bit of a deal with the devil and they still feel like the ends justify the means. So from that perspective, it is very unlikely the senate will remove Trump for political reasons. But once they make a verdict, could it be cited as a way for the next democrat president to go totally bonkers on people? Would it essentially "legalize" Trump's behavior?
|
A senate trial would figure as a soft precedent, meaning it has no intrinsic legal value per se, but could (and will be) referenced by folks who want to argue on future disputes. Hard precedent is a different game that is played solely by courts.
|
On December 06 2019 01:28 Mohdoo wrote:
Question about the senate trial after impeachment: Does it go on to count as precedent?
As I understand, in strict accordance with the law, Trump 100% committed crimes. But the nature and reasoning for the crimes makes Trump supporters not see it as remotely unethical. They instead see this as a president fulfilling his promise to basically just punch the left as much as he can.
After years and years of Obama making the right deeply insecure, they were desperate to take revenge and they got it. They knew it was a bit of a deal with the devil and they still feel like the ends justify the means. So from that perspective, it is very unlikely the senate will remove Trump for political reasons. But once they make a verdict, could it be cited as a way for the next democrat president to go totally bonkers on people? Would it essentially "legalize" Trump's behavior? Republicans have a long history of complaining about what the other side does while freely doing it themselves. (and I'm sure Republicans feel the Democrats do it)
So no, fully expect Republicans to loudly complain about the next Democratic President, some nutjobs might even float impeachment over absolutely nothing.
|
For me it's all the horrific things Trump won't even see articles of impeachment written for that will be cemented as acceptable that are the most insidious.
The government kidnapped a bunch of kids, locked a bunch in cages, lost some, left others sitting in their own shit, others abused with physical/sexual violence, and several died in federal custody from preventable causes.
That's not even going to be written up to be voted down by the committee or congress.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland24523 Posts
On December 06 2019 00:23 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2019 00:05 Wombat_NI wrote:
There are layers to ethnic cleansing, even the Nazis didn’t go straight to exterminating Jews, they eventually came to the ‘Final Solution’ after years of escalating.
Which is why it early to proclaim it as happening, he could happen, but treating a presumption like a fact is very dangerous. There is a ton of people against what the right in Israel is doing in the west bank as well. Also, there is a real threat to all the jews in Israel. What would happen if all the countries pulled their support tomorrow? In current news on the impeachment NPR had a great break down on the phone record's. They show the dates and times of the call's between Giuliani and the white house. Nunes calls and the mystery "-1" number that everyone thinks is Trump but has yet to be confirmed. If it is confirmed it will be another nail in the coffin for non partisan people and sadly probably meaningless to everyone who still support trump. https://www.npr.org/2019/12/04/784819728/giuliani-nunes-and-1-a-look-at-what-the-impeachment-report-phone-records-mean
No specifically the point of my post was that it’s still ethnic cleansing way before the ‘exterminating everyone’ point, not that it’s not ethnic cleansing because Israel aren’t ritually exterminating everyone.
What would happen? Really? There’s no justification for it, whatsoever and Israel isn’t a global power like China that we have to pay lip service to.
That neighbours aren’t exactly fans of Israel is irrelevant, the state only exists because world powers felt the Holocaust was a bit shit, that people descended from those people treat another people as they do is a disgrace anyway but especially informed by that.
|
On December 06 2019 01:28 Mohdoo wrote:
Question about the senate trial after impeachment: Does it go on to count as precedent?
As I understand, in strict accordance with the law, Trump 100% committed crimes. But the nature and reasoning for the crimes makes Trump supporters not see it as remotely unethical. They instead see this as a president fulfilling his promise to basically just punch the left as much as he can.
After years and years of Obama making the right deeply insecure, they were desperate to take revenge and they got it. They knew it was a bit of a deal with the devil and they still feel like the ends justify the means. So from that perspective, it is very unlikely the senate will remove Trump for political reasons. But once they make a verdict, could it be cited as a way for the next democrat president to go totally bonkers on people? Would it essentially "legalize" Trump's behavior?
Serious question as I've been out of the hearings for a few days, What illegal actions did he commit that we have airtight proof of now?
EDIT Typo
|
What’s an illegal crime? Is there a legal crime?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
