EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 253
| 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 | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22713 Posts
On June 05 2018 09:10 Gahlo wrote: https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/politics/trump-eagles-nfl/index.html Thin skinned child in chief cancels the Super Bowl champs visit because the entire team doesn't want to come/didn't stand for the anthem. If they don't kiss the ring, they can't come over to play! I have to say that as low as my opinion was of this countries political situation before Trump I'm still a little surprised at just how pathetic our political parties have been. Trump said in Monday's statement that the fans are still welcome to come and partake in a "different kind of ceremony." "One that will honor our great country, pay tribute to the heroes who fight to protect it, and loudly and proudly play the National Anthem," he said. Trump said he will be at the ceremony alongside the United States Marine Band and the United States Army Chorus at 3 p.m. Tuesday to "celebrate America." You know he wanted a military parade and they told him it was too short notice. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
The president just uninvited the winners of the super bowl to the White House and offered to throw a party with the fans who wanted to see the super bowl winners. For tomorrow. He uninvited them for a meeting tomorrow. Edit: I’m late. Also Eagles fans are not to be messed with. They threw batteries at Santa. The big D cell batteries. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 05 2018 09:17 Nyxisto wrote: what is it with this weird mixup of the army, sports and patriotism, is Trump trying to be discount Caesar? it plays well to the base, which really cares about this "culture war" stuff. I'm not quite sure on what your question is though, so can't answer in more detail. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22713 Posts
On June 05 2018 09:17 Nyxisto wrote: what is it with this weird mixup of the army, sports and patriotism, is Trump trying to be discount Caesar? He's building a political cult. If he can get his cult following slightly larger there will be basically nothing that can be done short of a coup/revolution. That's what the "I'd just pardon myself" is all about. Demonstrating his supreme power, something people like in their cult leaders as well as the pomp and circumstance. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
On June 05 2018 08:27 KwarK wrote: That doesn't make sense unless you're also saying that 2 Supreme Court justices who disagreed were wrong. The Supreme Court believed that there were two valid sides, more of them were on one than the other but it's not like they ruled "this is the stupidest thing we've ever heard, 9-0, let's go home early". 2 Supreme Court justices believed you were wrong, and I agree with them. This is hilariously far from what was argued several months ago. I was told this was an open-and-shut case against the baker. From a majority of participating posters I believe. And, for the record, I never took a position other than IANAL after I recognized (as Justice Kennedy apparently did) that a ruling on the case would either require a morally questionable compulsion of speech or condone a genuinely unfair loophole (to the couple) for legal discrimination. Though I found the total and utter lack of empathy for the baker from many here quite hypocritical as it would seem to conflict with their own supposed value of tolerance (I'm a religious agnostic fwiw). EDIT: Since numerous posters ostensibly have adopted Kellyanne Conway's "alternative facts" strategy, those who care may read some thread history here and here (reading either up or down probably works tbh). That's just from searching my own posts, but I'm sure there's dozens of pages on the issue in addition to the ones I've participated in. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
"They disagree with their president" instead of "they disagree with me"? It clearly says "statement by the president" above it. He also seems to have forgotten that he made fun of a veteran who got captured, so the entire "tribute" is retarded too. I'm starting to question the attention span of the average american (at least one half of it), if he gets away with mental retardism like that. religious agnostic That's mutually exclusive. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
It's understandably unclear on my part. "Agnostic" can be used in a lot of contexts which I unnecessarily tried to narrow down by throwing "religous" in there. I call myself agnostic and I think it's exceedingly unlikely that any human-known religion, belief, or theory (including, obviously, Christianity) has nailed the truth (assuming objective truth exists anyway). | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22713 Posts
It seems "less than 10" Eagles planned on going to the White House. Bet those guys are going to be real popular with the team next season. It's a small gesture, but a step in the right direction. Not kowtowing to this knucklehead for the sake of tradition or respect for the office is the bare minimum we should be getting from everyone at this point. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13745 Posts
On June 05 2018 09:52 Plansix wrote: Again with vague references empathyless majority of the “left”. Passive agressive baiting at its best. Calling republicans bigots that want to ban islam is much worse but you feel the need to shitpost on that? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On June 05 2018 09:52 Plansix wrote: Again with vague references empathyless majority of the “left”. Passive agressive baiting at its best. he wasnt being very vague about it at all. read the thread history. most people here really didnt/dont give a shit about the baker. i think the decision was correct but i never would have guessed that the majority would work so hard to avoid the real questions | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35091 Posts
Washington: President Donald Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who has been indicted by US Special Counsel Robert Mueller, attempted to tamper with potential witnesses, Mueller said in a court filing on Monday. Mueller, who is investigating possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, asked the judge overseeing the case in US District Court for the District of Columbia to revoke or revise an order releasing Manafort ahead of his trial. Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump's former campaign manager. Manafort was released to home confinement after his arraignment in October. Mueller has indicted Manafort in federal courts in Virginia and Washington, DC, with an array of allegations from money-laundering and failing to register as a foreign agent, to bank and tax fraud. Manafort has pleaded not guilty. FBI Special Agent Brock Domin, in a declaration filed with Mueller's motion, said Manafort had attempted to call, text and send encrypted messages in February to two people from "The Hapsburg Group," a firm he worked with to promote the interests of Ukraine. ... Hey look, the real reason the Eagles were uninvited. How these guys are this bad at being corrupt is beyond me. Dude already dug his own grave and now is asking for a bigger shovel. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 05 2018 10:16 Sermokala wrote: Calling republicans bigots that want to ban islam is much worse but you feel the need to shitpost on that? If people are going to talk shit about people they disagree with in the thread, they can be specific. This vague “everyone who disagreed with me was a huge jerk last time” is just talking shit without naming names. And if you have a objection to a previous post, quote it. Or just take it up with the person who posted it. Edit: and Republicans earnestly that want a Islam ban are bigots, FYI. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 05 2018 09:41 mozoku wrote: This is hilariously far from what was argued several months ago. I was told this was an open-and-shut case against the baker. From a majority of participating posters I believe. And, for the record, I never took a position other than IANAL after I recognized (as Justice Kennedy apparently did) that a ruling on the case would either require a morally questionable compulsion of speech or condone a genuinely unfair loophole (to the couple) for legal discrimination. Though I found the total and utter lack of empathy for the baker from many here quite hypocritical as it would seem to conflict with their own supposed value of tolerance (I'm a religious agnostic fwiw). EDIT: Since numerous posters ostensibly have adopted Kellyanne Conway's "alternative facts" strategy, those who care may read some thread history here and here (reading either up or down probably works tbh). That's just from searching my own posts, but I'm sure there's dozens of pages on the issue in addition to the ones I've participated in. you're being unjustifiably rude, and are the one engaging in an alternative facts strategy. The locations you cite do not corroborate your points; and it's not worth rereading the entire area to just to see if something does. If you have a specific post to cite, cite it. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 05 2018 10:19 IgnE wrote: he wasnt being very vague about it at all. read the thread history. most people here really didnt/dont give a shit about the baker. i think the decision was correct but i never would have guessed that the majority would work so hard to avoid the real questions Define give a shit? Because much of the previous discussions hinged on the what creating an exception for religious objections could lead to. And in that the exception could be used to deny many people services for a number of reasons. People may have felt bad for the baker, but did not make a preformative showing of that during he discussion. I don’t believe that the conservatives doesn’t care about the gay couple because they are worried about the bakers rights. I could make that argument, because they didn’t say they cared in each post. But I won’t. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22713 Posts
That's such a stupid thing to be fighting about imo. Apparently this fell his way on what basically amounts to a procedural bias against him so the judges probably did the right thing strictly legally speaking (in the [quasi-]scientific way it's regarded). But considering the massive injustices this country sees every day, no he's pretty low on my priority list. Particularly when the work around for the 'unjust law' is to simply just tell them no and to find another shop, without mentioning that it's because they are gay. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
 And nevermind the effort that would be required to quote each one of about 50 posters | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States41987 Posts
On June 05 2018 10:23 Gahlo wrote: https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/manafort-tried-to-tamper-with-potential-witnesses-us-special-counsel-20180605-p4zjid.html Hey look, the real reason the Eagles were uninvited. How these guys are this bad at being corrupt is beyond me. Dude already dug his own grave and now is asking for a bigger shovel. Hell, he probably had "how send encrypted messages" and "what is punishment for perjury" on his google search history. | ||
| ||
