|
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 May 25 2018 03:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2018 03:17 sc-darkness wrote:
Can we already impeach Trump and replace him with some Obama-like president for the sake of places like Europe? This guy is just walking trouble. Not enough people agree with you. I’d focus your energies on fielding a good candidate for 2020. I didn’t like Obama’s presidency, but he got replaced by a guy stiffly opposed in eight years—even partially undoing a couple major things I disliked. You can try for doing the same in four years. It’s totally possible.
Do you think Trump is better than Obama then? That's surprising. I think even a donkey is better than him. At least the donkey won't cause problems.
|
On May 25 2018 03:01 Starlightsun wrote:
I wonder which country this administration will instigate a full war with first. Seems like they are gearing up for either Iran or North Korea. John Bolton is jizzing himself.
Why not both? With the way this is going it will probably save USA money and time...
|
On May 25 2018 04:18 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2018 03:46 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2018 03:17 sc-darkness wrote:
Can we already impeach Drumpf and replace him with some Obama-like president for the sake of places like Europe? This guy is just walking trouble. Not enough people agree with you. I’d focus your energies on fielding a good candidate for 2020. I didn’t like Obama’s presidency, but he got replaced by a guy stiffly opposed in eight years—even partially undoing a couple major things I disliked. You can try for doing the same in four years. It’s totally possible. Do you think Drumpf is better than Obama then? That's surprising. I think even a donkey is better than him. At least the donkey won't cause problems.
You are severely underestimating the value that donkeys create in the world. The net benefit is far superior to anything Drumpf has offered the world.
|
On May 25 2018 04:18 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2018 03:46 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2018 03:17 sc-darkness wrote:
Can we already impeach Trump and replace him with some Obama-like president for the sake of places like Europe? This guy is just walking trouble. Not enough people agree with you. I’d focus your energies on fielding a good candidate for 2020. I didn’t like Obama’s presidency, but he got replaced by a guy stiffly opposed in eight years—even partially undoing a couple major things I disliked. You can try for doing the same in four years. It’s totally possible. Do you think Trump is better than Obama then? That's surprising. I think even a donkey is better than him. At least the donkey won't cause problems.
You gotta remember, Obama put poupon on that one sandwich he ate back in the day. You can't just go slamming one president without acknowledging the faults of the other.
|
On May 25 2018 02:55 a_flayer wrote:
And you will only be allowed to blame Trump if you agree that it was Russia who elected him.
Seriously, how do you not see this pattern with North Korea, and other "problem countries"? It is always the US who surreptitiously begins undermining stability and messing around with shit. The US blamed Saddam Hussein for supporting terrorism as well, just like they did with Syria. That shit has consequences when the US produces all that grain for the world.
Feeding the world American style, Col. Sanders has an empire behind his smile. With a mission and a cheque book promising aid, he talked of control and the terrible drought and the way that the West would bail them out. Then he stopped smiling and talked conditions. Of mutual aid, of American wishes. Sending in aid with sewn on strings. If they won't buy arms, then it's pulled back in (or you know, whatever else the US wants).
And then 20 years later, it's always "well, that country left that agreement, such country violated sanctions there" or "they didn't want to talk to us anymore." No one's gonna remember Bolton spouting off about Libya on Fox News, just like no one remembers Congress undermining previous agreements. It's going to be "North Korea withdrew from the meeting, and the US government took a hard stance against such frivolous actions. Cause we're strong burly men! Ooorah! Oh yeah and Trump the Russian - certainly not American - president was a douche during that time!"
The total lack of focus from voters on what you describe there is probably the most frustrating part about Trump's presidency.
Trump's managed to turn Democrats into the biggest supporters of the FBI and CIA in the country. They spent years being upset about us torturing people, then they give Trump the votes he needed (and then some) to put a torture supervisor in charge of the CIA and the former CIA head in charge of the State dept and the party doesn't even blink.
Luckily a handful of progressive challengers overcame the party and booted the party's chosen candidate to the curb, the biggest one in Georgia, where they are on the way to the first Black woman Governor.
On Tuesday night, former Georgia House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams became the Democratic nominee for governor, defeating her primary opponent Stacey Evans by over 50 points, claiming victories in urban and rural counties alike and far exceeding even the most generous poll predictions. If Abrams goes on to win the general election in November, she would become the first African-American woman to become governor in any state.
Yet Abrams’ win should not be limited only to conversations about historical firsts. The success of Abrams’ campaign should be a mandate for the future of Democratic politics and campaigns.
Given the choice between the same failing Democratic playbook of trying to win over moderate conservatives and a bold vision grounded in building a new winning coalition, voters overwhelmingly chose the latter. And by both mobilizing the existing base of the Democratic party and expanding on that coalition by engaging new voters, Abrams reduced the turnout gap between Republican and Democratic voters to just 54,000 votes ― compared to nearly 300,000 the last time both primaries were contested, in 2010.
www.huffingtonpost.com
|
On May 25 2018 03:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2018 04:18 sc-darkness wrote:
Can we already impeach Trump and replace him with some Obama-like president for the sake of places like Europe? This guy is just walking trouble. Not enough people agree with you. I’d focus your energies on fielding a good candidate for 2020. I didn’t like Obama’s presidency, but he got replaced by a guy stiffly opposed in eight years—even partially undoing a couple major things I disliked. You can try for doing the same in four years. It’s totally possible.
Trump would need to do a lot of great stuff to compensate for pulling out of the Paris agreement. The other stuff looks like a net negative as well from an outsiders point of view.
|
On May 25 2018 04:18 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2018 03:46 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2018 03:17 sc-darkness wrote:
Can we already impeach Trump and replace him with some Obama-like president for the sake of places like Europe? This guy is just walking trouble. Not enough people agree with you. I’d focus your energies on fielding a good candidate for 2020. I didn’t like Obama’s presidency, but he got replaced by a guy stiffly opposed in eight years—even partially undoing a couple major things I disliked. You can try for doing the same in four years. It’s totally possible. Do you think Trump is better than Obama then? That's surprising. I think even a donkey is better than him. At least the donkey won't cause problems.
Think about it this way: which of the two Presidents delivered more things that conservatives care about? The answer is, unfortunately, Trump. Even if he did it by accident.
|
On May 25 2018 04:18 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2018 03:46 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2018 03:17 sc-darkness wrote:
Can we already impeach Trump and replace him with some Obama-like president for the sake of places like Europe? This guy is just walking trouble. Not enough people agree with you. I’d focus your energies on fielding a good candidate for 2020. I didn’t like Obama’s presidency, but he got replaced by a guy stiffly opposed in eight years—even partially undoing a couple major things I disliked. You can try for doing the same in four years. It’s totally possible. Do you think Trump is better than Obama then? That's surprising. I think even a donkey is better than him. At least the donkey won't cause problems.
Yes. I think a lot in terms of policies that he’s gotten done, his administration picks (of the ones left haha), judiciary picks, and partly his willingness to fight on some big problems facing America that predecessors have previously ceded the ground. I say partly because he goes overboard in childish and petulant fashion, frequently, which I don’t approve of and wish he’d cut out. Exactly when and where he’s doing good/mostly good/mostly bad/bad would take days to write. When I’ve asked libs about why they’re surprised, I’m also amused at how much they simply disapprove of the Republican Party platform in general and less so Trump.
|
Trump is not doing bad if your a middle class white conservative with a lack of empathy for those who are effected by him.
|
On May 25 2018 06:06 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2018 03:46 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2018 04:18 sc-darkness wrote:
Can we already impeach Trump and replace him with some Obama-like president for the sake of places like Europe? This guy is just walking trouble. Not enough people agree with you. I’d focus your energies on fielding a good candidate for 2020. I didn’t like Obama’s presidency, but he got replaced by a guy stiffly opposed in eight years—even partially undoing a couple major things I disliked. You can try for doing the same in four years. It’s totally possible. Trump would need to do a lot of great stuff to compensate for pulling out of the Paris agreement. The other stuff looks like a net negative as well from an outsiders point of view.
I applaud Trump for pulling out of the Paris agreement. He would be a coward and a charlatan in my eyes if he had not honored that campaign promise. I got what I voted for in that instance.
|
On May 25 2018 06:16 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2018 06:06 Yurie wrote:On May 25 2018 03:46 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2018 04:18 sc-darkness wrote:
Can we already impeach Trump and replace him with some Obama-like president for the sake of places like Europe? This guy is just walking trouble. Not enough people agree with you. I’d focus your energies on fielding a good candidate for 2020. I didn’t like Obama’s presidency, but he got replaced by a guy stiffly opposed in eight years—even partially undoing a couple major things I disliked. You can try for doing the same in four years. It’s totally possible. Trump would need to do a lot of great stuff to compensate for pulling out of the Paris agreement. The other stuff looks like a net negative as well from an outsiders point of view. I applaud Trump for pulling out of the Paris agreement. He would be a coward and a charlatan in my eyes if he had not honored that campaign promise. I got what I voted for in that instance.
Just curious, seeing how the Paris agreement was non binding, what did we gain by pulling out?
|
On May 25 2018 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2018 02:55 a_flayer wrote:
And you will only be allowed to blame Trump if you agree that it was Russia who elected him.
Seriously, how do you not see this pattern with North Korea, and other "problem countries"? It is always the US who surreptitiously begins undermining stability and messing around with shit. The US blamed Saddam Hussein for supporting terrorism as well, just like they did with Syria. That shit has consequences when the US produces all that grain for the world.
Feeding the world American style, Col. Sanders has an empire behind his smile. With a mission and a cheque book promising aid, he talked of control and the terrible drought and the way that the West would bail them out. Then he stopped smiling and talked conditions. Of mutual aid, of American wishes. Sending in aid with sewn on strings. If they won't buy arms, then it's pulled back in (or you know, whatever else the US wants).
And then 20 years later, it's always "well, that country left that agreement, such country violated sanctions there" or "they didn't want to talk to us anymore." No one's gonna remember Bolton spouting off about Libya on Fox News, just like no one remembers Congress undermining previous agreements. It's going to be "North Korea withdrew from the meeting, and the US government took a hard stance against such frivolous actions. Cause we're strong burly men! Ooorah! Oh yeah and Trump the Russian - certainly not American - president was a douche during that time!" The total lack of focus from voters on what you describe there is probably the most frustrating part about Trump's presidency. Trump's managed to turn Democrats into the biggest supporters of the FBI and CIA in the country. They spent years being upset about us torturing people, then they give Trump the votes he needed (and then some) to put a torture supervisor in charge of the CIA and the former CIA head in charge of the State dept and the party doesn't even blink. Luckily a handful of progressive challengers overcame the party and booted the party's chosen candidate to the curb, the biggest one in Georgia, where they are on the way to the first Black woman Governor. Show nested quote +On Tuesday night, former Georgia House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams became the Democratic nominee for governor, defeating her primary opponent Stacey Evans by over 50 points, claiming victories in urban and rural counties alike and far exceeding even the most generous poll predictions. If Abrams goes on to win the general election in November, she would become the first African-American woman to become governor in any state.
Yet Abrams’ win should not be limited only to conversations about historical firsts. The success of Abrams’ campaign should be a mandate for the future of Democratic politics and campaigns.
Given the choice between the same failing Democratic playbook of trying to win over moderate conservatives and a bold vision grounded in building a new winning coalition, voters overwhelmingly chose the latter. And by both mobilizing the existing base of the Democratic party and expanding on that coalition by engaging new voters, Abrams reduced the turnout gap between Republican and Democratic voters to just 54,000 votes ― compared to nearly 300,000 the last time both primaries were contested, in 2010. www.huffingtonpost.com
She's decent enough on the issues (health care justice reform housing education environment). But she appears to be a professional politician. I don't see the "money is the problem" tag on her website at least. And her stance on war appears to be simply "supportive of the military". Boo. I suppose not much you can do about that as a governor though.
|
On May 25 2018 06:23 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2018 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2018 02:55 a_flayer wrote:
And you will only be allowed to blame Trump if you agree that it was Russia who elected him.
Seriously, how do you not see this pattern with North Korea, and other "problem countries"? It is always the US who surreptitiously begins undermining stability and messing around with shit. The US blamed Saddam Hussein for supporting terrorism as well, just like they did with Syria. That shit has consequences when the US produces all that grain for the world.
Feeding the world American style, Col. Sanders has an empire behind his smile. With a mission and a cheque book promising aid, he talked of control and the terrible drought and the way that the West would bail them out. Then he stopped smiling and talked conditions. Of mutual aid, of American wishes. Sending in aid with sewn on strings. If they won't buy arms, then it's pulled back in (or you know, whatever else the US wants).
And then 20 years later, it's always "well, that country left that agreement, such country violated sanctions there" or "they didn't want to talk to us anymore." No one's gonna remember Bolton spouting off about Libya on Fox News, just like no one remembers Congress undermining previous agreements. It's going to be "North Korea withdrew from the meeting, and the US government took a hard stance against such frivolous actions. Cause we're strong burly men! Ooorah! Oh yeah and Trump the Russian - certainly not American - president was a douche during that time!" The total lack of focus from voters on what you describe there is probably the most frustrating part about Trump's presidency. Trump's managed to turn Democrats into the biggest supporters of the FBI and CIA in the country. They spent years being upset about us torturing people, then they give Trump the votes he needed (and then some) to put a torture supervisor in charge of the CIA and the former CIA head in charge of the State dept and the party doesn't even blink. Luckily a handful of progressive challengers overcame the party and booted the party's chosen candidate to the curb, the biggest one in Georgia, where they are on the way to the first Black woman Governor. On Tuesday night, former Georgia House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams became the Democratic nominee for governor, defeating her primary opponent Stacey Evans by over 50 points, claiming victories in urban and rural counties alike and far exceeding even the most generous poll predictions. If Abrams goes on to win the general election in November, she would become the first African-American woman to become governor in any state.
Yet Abrams’ win should not be limited only to conversations about historical firsts. The success of Abrams’ campaign should be a mandate for the future of Democratic politics and campaigns.
Given the choice between the same failing Democratic playbook of trying to win over moderate conservatives and a bold vision grounded in building a new winning coalition, voters overwhelmingly chose the latter. And by both mobilizing the existing base of the Democratic party and expanding on that coalition by engaging new voters, Abrams reduced the turnout gap between Republican and Democratic voters to just 54,000 votes ― compared to nearly 300,000 the last time both primaries were contested, in 2010. www.huffingtonpost.com She's decent enough on the issues (health care justice reform housing education environment). But she appears to be a professional politician. I don't see the "money is the problem" tag on her website at least. And her stance on war appears to be simply "supportive of the military". Boo. I suppose not much you can do about that as a governor though.
Yeah, she's far from perfect, or even that far left. It just demonstrates that Democrats strategy is what is suppressing their turnout. It's not that people won't vote for people to the left of their anointed candidates.
|
The DCCC has not really learned that getting directly involved in attacking the candidate they don't want to win is a terrible plan in 2018. They really just need to chill, endorse who they endorse and back off.
|
On May 25 2018 06:36 Plansix wrote:
The DCCC has not really learned that getting directly involved in attacking the candidate they don't want to win is a terrible plan in 2018. They really just need to chill, endorse who they endorse and back off.
Probably shouldn't be endorsing in primaries as an organization either. Unless the point is to identify the establishment preference so voters know to vote against them.
Hillary gets a little more slack for coming out against the woman candidate in NY since she at least lives there. She'll have to negotiate with Satan and Albright whether that gets her a special place in hell or not.
|
On May 25 2018 06:20 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2018 06:16 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2018 06:06 Yurie wrote:On May 25 2018 03:46 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2018 04:18 sc-darkness wrote:
Can we already impeach Trump and replace him with some Obama-like president for the sake of places like Europe? This guy is just walking trouble. Not enough people agree with you. I’d focus your energies on fielding a good candidate for 2020. I didn’t like Obama’s presidency, but he got replaced by a guy stiffly opposed in eight years—even partially undoing a couple major things I disliked. You can try for doing the same in four years. It’s totally possible. Trump would need to do a lot of great stuff to compensate for pulling out of the Paris agreement. The other stuff looks like a net negative as well from an outsiders point of view. I applaud Trump for pulling out of the Paris agreement. He would be a coward and a charlatan in my eyes if he had not honored that campaign promise. I got what I voted for in that instance. Just curious, seeing how the Paris agreement was non binding, what did we gain by pulling out?
It’s a little involved and xDaunt and I laid out a case back when it was announced in the prior thread over about 20 pages. The rough start is here. I recommend reading the question-response cycle from the both of us from multiple questioners to understand all the nuance. Additionally, Trump himself made an excellent speech on the matter you can find here that nails additional points. I know from experience that answers here only yield additional questions, so I hope you’ll read.
|
On May 25 2018 06:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2018 06:36 Plansix wrote:
The DCCC has not really learned that getting directly involved in attacking the candidate they don't want to win is a terrible plan in 2018. They really just need to chill, endorse who they endorse and back off. Probably shouldn't be endorsing in primaries as an organization either. Unless the point is to identify the establishment preference so voters know to vote against them. Hillary gets a little more slack for coming out against the woman candidate in NY since she at least lives there. She'll have to negotiate with Satan and Albright whether that gets her a special place in hell or not.
Both parties have been doing it since the reconstruction era, it’s the game. But they shouldn’t try to stop legitimate candidates.
|
5930 Posts
On May 25 2018 06:20 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2018 06:16 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2018 06:06 Yurie wrote:On May 25 2018 03:46 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2018 04:18 sc-darkness wrote:
Can we already impeach Trump and replace him with some Obama-like president for the sake of places like Europe? This guy is just walking trouble. Not enough people agree with you. I’d focus your energies on fielding a good candidate for 2020. I didn’t like Obama’s presidency, but he got replaced by a guy stiffly opposed in eight years—even partially undoing a couple major things I disliked. You can try for doing the same in four years. It’s totally possible. Trump would need to do a lot of great stuff to compensate for pulling out of the Paris agreement. The other stuff looks like a net negative as well from an outsiders point of view. I applaud Trump for pulling out of the Paris agreement. He would be a coward and a charlatan in my eyes if he had not honored that campaign promise. I got what I voted for in that instance. Just curious, seeing how the Paris agreement was non binding, what did we gain by pulling out?
That’s sort of the question you have to ask with regards to everything Trump has done in the international space. His form of negotiation is basically “you’ll give me what I want or no deal”, which then a lot of countries at this point just say “well, I’ll just buy soybeans from Russia or start a trade agreement with the EU instead.”
I just got an email that Caselabs is increasing prices because of the aluminium tarrifs. It sure isn’t impacting Thermaltake’s prices of their Caselabs clones.
|
On May 25 2018 06:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2018 06:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2018 06:36 Plansix wrote:
The DCCC has not really learned that getting directly involved in attacking the candidate they don't want to win is a terrible plan in 2018. They really just need to chill, endorse who they endorse and back off. Probably shouldn't be endorsing in primaries as an organization either. Unless the point is to identify the establishment preference so voters know to vote against them. Hillary gets a little more slack for coming out against the woman candidate in NY since she at least lives there. She'll have to negotiate with Satan and Albright whether that gets her a special place in hell or not. Both parties have been doing it since the reconstruction era, it’s the game. But they shouldn’t try to stop legitimate candidates.
I don't accept the idea that the game being rigged for so long means we should concede it to 'it's just the way it is'. Moreover, opposing legitimate candidates in the interest of securing their positions is as old and integrated as the selection part. Both aspects shouldn't be a part of what the party (and it's apparatuses) do, regardless of how long they've got away with it.
|
So Trump just signed or rolled back regulations for the banking industry, protecting banks that have up to $200 billion in assets. Whats the layman terms for how this affects the economy? I know smaller banks now are destined to fail if they loan out more than they're worth, but what else can happen?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
