|
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 June 05 2018 11:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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.htmlWashington: 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. Hell, he probably had "how send encrypted messages" and "what is punishment for perjury" on his google search history.
inb4 Manafort hires Joaquin Guzman as a legal consultant, after Trump/Mexico pardons Guzman in exchange for bringing him to the US on a tanker full of undisclosed cargo and then shipping it back full of more undisclosed cargo.
I joke, but I am starting to wonder what it would take to actually impeach Trump.
|
|
|
When you are, in fact, barely an attorney. That is a very small number of privileged documents and shows trump could be in some real shit.
|
No opinions on the mean UN reps bullying the US and Israel? Granted the FP historically has been awful but getting wrecked this hard is another step to ya'll losing relevance internationally. Brb learning Mandarin..
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On June 05 2018 13:19 Rebs wrote:No opinions on the mean UN reps bullying the US and Israel? Granted the FP historically has been awful but getting wrecked this hard is another step to ya'll losing relevance internationally. Brb learning Mandarin.. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiBRAGDGI3c
I mean the US/Israel have the best FP in the world sooo...
+ Show Spoiler +
(this should protect me from the meme police right? If not I apologize and will remove it)
That is as he put it (sorta) "the most epic of fails"
|
On June 05 2018 13:19 Rebs wrote:No opinions on the mean UN reps bullying the US and Israel? Granted the FP historically has been awful but getting wrecked this hard is another step to ya'll losing relevance internationally. Brb learning Mandarin.. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiBRAGDGI3c
Uhh Gaza’s been firing missiles into Israel. After the protest where 50 of the terrorist regimes soldiers died.
She’s been doing a great job representing this country. It doesn’t irk me so much that allies of Hamas don’t like the US.
US Ambassador Nikki Haley told the council the measure was “wildly inaccurate in its characterization of recent events in Gaza” by condemning Israel for the violence.
Right she is. Solid job Haley.
|
United States41985 Posts
On June 05 2018 13:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2018 13:19 Rebs wrote:No opinions on the mean UN reps bullying the US and Israel? Granted the FP historically has been awful but getting wrecked this hard is another step to ya'll losing relevance internationally. Brb learning Mandarin.. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiBRAGDGI3c Uhh Gaza’s been firing missiles into Israel. After the protest where 50 of the terrorist regimes soldiers died.
Come on man. It's like you're not even trying. If they were soldiers how come they were unarmed, not in uniform, and venting political grievances? You can't just go "we shoot soldiers, we shot them, therefore they were soldiers".
|
On June 05 2018 10:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't really care about the baker (any more than anyone else), there's a lot of legal nuance going on there, but to me there isn't really an issue in the first place. The baker could have turned them away without a SCOTUS case, he just couldn't tell them it was because they were gay.
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.
This a very good opinion that I feel doesn't get enough coverage.
What's the difference between directly discriminating because someone is X, and politely declining said person because you are "busy" or any other range of excuses?
|
United States41985 Posts
On June 05 2018 14:06 mierin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2018 10:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't really care about the baker (any more than anyone else), there's a lot of legal nuance going on there, but to me there isn't really an issue in the first place. The baker could have turned them away without a SCOTUS case, he just couldn't tell them it was because they were gay.
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. This a very good opinion that I feel doesn't get enough coverage. What's the difference between directly discriminating because someone is X, and politely declining said person because you are "busy" or any other range of excuses?
Arrogance. Some people think their special snowflake excuse makes them above the law and gives them license to discriminate. They're the stupid ones who put it in writing and then fight it in court. The smart ones are basically impossible to catch.
Oddly enough Trump was actually one of the stupid ones when he fought the DoJ over discrimination in housing in the 80s.
|
On June 05 2018 14:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2018 14:06 mierin wrote:On June 05 2018 10:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't really care about the baker (any more than anyone else), there's a lot of legal nuance going on there, but to me there isn't really an issue in the first place. The baker could have turned them away without a SCOTUS case, he just couldn't tell them it was because they were gay.
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. This a very good opinion that I feel doesn't get enough coverage. What's the difference between directly discriminating because someone is X, and politely declining said person because you are "busy" or any other range of excuses? Arrogance. Some people think their special snowflake excuse makes them above the law and gives them license to discriminate. They're the stupid ones who put it in writing and then fight it in court. The smart ones are basically impossible to catch. Oddly enough Trump was actually one of the stupid ones when he fought the DoJ over discrimination in housing in the 80s.
I wish more national discussion would be directed to that. Honestly it's a very easy scenario to envision.
|
Because some people don't want to have to lie about their religion in order to practice it in good conscience? Is that so hard to understand for a group of people who claim to be arguing in favor of tolerance? This baffles me to no end.
The view of tolerance in this thread comes off as really shallow and politically-motivated.
|
On June 05 2018 14:39 mozoku wrote:
Because some people don't want to have to lie about their religion in order to practice it in good conscience? Is that so hard to understand for a group of people who claim to be arguing in favor of tolerance? This baffles me to no end.
The view of tolerance in this thread comes off as really shallow and politically-motivated.
And some people don't want to lie about their marriage partner to get a cake (let alone anything more serious)?
Too bad the Supreme Court decision addresses nothing of that sort.
|
United States41985 Posts
On June 05 2018 14:39 mozoku wrote:
Because some people don't want to have to lie about their religion in order to practice it in good conscience? Is that so hard to understand for a group of people who claim to be arguing in favor of tolerance? This baffles me to no end.
The view of tolerance in this thread comes off as really shallow and politically-motivated.
Granting your passive consent to intolerance does not make you tolerant.
|
On June 05 2018 14:39 mozoku wrote:
Because some people don't want to have to lie about their religion in order to practice it in good conscience? Is that so hard to understand for a group of people who claim to be arguing in favor of tolerance? This baffles me to no end.
The view of tolerance in this thread comes off as really shallow and politically-motivated.
They don't have to lie. They just don't have to throw it in their face. Like racists have been able to turn down serving, make unwelcome, provide purposely bad service, etc... forever, so long as they didn't say it was because they were racists (since the 1970's-TBD depending on when that locale decided to start acting right).
It's hard for me to wrap my mind around how this even went to the Supreme Court in the first place, but then I remember all the money people dumped into this thing and made off of it and it makes some sort of sense.
Honestly it's one of the least substantial and interesting bits of news that's come up today imo.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
One interesting thing about this case is that it seemed like this couple drove 100+ kms and passed a lot of bakeries to try and get a cake at this one. Apparently, one of them worked there and knew what he was getting into. Some folks are saying this was done on purpose, aka to net publicity and force the issue. Not sure if that's the case and I'm not sure if the distance etc... is true either, but if it's true, definitely makes you wonder why they did it.
|
United States41985 Posts
On June 05 2018 15:08 BigFan wrote:
One interesting thing about this case is that it seemed like this couple drove 100+ kms and passed a lot of bakeries to try and get a cake at this one. Apparently, one of them worked there and knew what he was getting into. Some folks are saying this was done on purpose, aka to net publicity and force the issue. Not sure if that's the case and I'm not sure if the distance etc... is true either, but if it's true, definitely makes you wonder why they did it.
Does it matter? Rosa Parks was selected for the mission of refusing to give up her bus seat. She got onto that bus with the express intent of challenging the conductor. The fact that the confrontation was staged doesn't change shit.
|
My issue with posters here is that... while I've repeatedly and consistently over the past 6 months (see my posts linked above for proof)... been very explicit about how I see unfairness for both Party A and Party B.... it seems that given every opportunity to similarly express sympathies to both parties, almost no one here supporting the couple does the same. No matter how many snarky soundbytes or misplaced whataboutism is exchanged, the posting history is pretty clear on this.
Even if you were to say "While I see Party A and Party B have a legitimate conflict here, but I think Party B suffers more so I side with Party B", that would be something I can definitely understand. But, far as I can tell, almost nobody defending the couple has actually done that. And then you have KwarK... even after being confronted about it.. refuses to admit it and responds by (incorrectly) accusing me of intolerance. I'm singling him out here, but his sentiment is not really unique among most posters in this thread. You've got three other examples on this very page to whom this seemingly never occurred to.
Like I can understand that there are a lot (maybe even a majority) of same-sex marriage opponents who use try to hide behind religion to mask their hateful beliefs. But there's certainly also some population of evangelicals who oppose it due to sincerely held religious beliefs. And as I've mentioned before, if one accepted the premises of evangelical Christianity and, also say, same-sex marriage sends one to Hell--neither of which I find any less crazy than the beliefs of some of you people--I could definitely understand if someone felt it was their moral duty to try to respectfully nudge someone away from homosexuality within certain limits--of which, not abetting their same-sex wedding seems reasonably within.
I don't particularly care to defend the former group, but I think it's (ironically) unfairly discriminatory and morally objectionable to write all same-sex marriage opponents (some of which are surely from the latter group) as being of the former. Worse still, by all details I've seen, it seemed like the baker in this case WAS actually part of the latter group. From what I read, he and the couple considered themselves friends, he'd sold them goods in the past, they both knew beforehand coming into the dispute that it was headed for litigation, etc.
On June 05 2018 15:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2018 15:08 BigFan wrote:
One interesting thing about this case is that it seemed like this couple drove 100+ kms and passed a lot of bakeries to try and get a cake at this one. Apparently, one of them worked there and knew what he was getting into. Some folks are saying this was done on purpose, aka to net publicity and force the issue. Not sure if that's the case and I'm not sure if the distance etc... is true either, but if it's true, definitely makes you wonder why they did it. Does it matter? Rosa Parks was selected for the mission of refusing to give up her bus seat. She got onto that bus with the express intent of challenging the conductor. The fact that the confrontation was staged doesn't change shit.
But somehow this logic doesn't apply to the baker if he consciously chose not to lie to couple about being "busy" for the express purpose of defending his (and others) religious freedom and good conscience?
|
United States41985 Posts
On June 05 2018 15:18 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2018 15:14 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2018 15:08 BigFan wrote:
One interesting thing about this case is that it seemed like this couple drove 100+ kms and passed a lot of bakeries to try and get a cake at this one. Apparently, one of them worked there and knew what he was getting into. Some folks are saying this was done on purpose, aka to net publicity and force the issue. Not sure if that's the case and I'm not sure if the distance etc... is true either, but if it's true, definitely makes you wonder why they did it. Does it matter? Rosa Parks was selected for the mission of refusing to give up her bus seat. She got onto that bus with the express intent of challenging the conductor. The fact that the confrontation was staged doesn't change shit. But somehow this logic doesn't apply to the baker if he consciously chose not to lie to couple about being "busy" for the express purpose of defending his (and others) religious freedom and good conscience?
No, because he's the bigot discriminating against people.
The gay guy sought out the bigoted baker for the purpose of starting a civil rights battle over discrimination against homosexuals. Rosa Parks got on the bus for the purpose of starting a civil rights battle over racism against African Americans. The "Rosa Parks did it too" logic does not extend to the baker, the baker is not Rosa Parks in this situation, he's the bus driver.
Honestly I have literally no idea why you would think the logic of "look at the Rosa Parks example" would apply to the baker. This is some weird both sides shit where the guy discriminating gets to be Rosa Parks in your head.
|
On June 05 2018 15:18 mozoku wrote:
My issue with posters here is that... while I've repeatedly and consistently over the past 6 months (see my posts linked above for proof)... been very explicit about how I see unfairness for both Party A and Party B.... it seems that given every opportunity to similarly express sympathies to both parties, no one here supporting the couple does the same. No matter how many snarky soundbytes or misplaced whataboutism is exchanged, the posting history is pretty clear on this.
Even if you were to say "While I see Party A and Party B have a legitimate conflict here, but I think Party B suffers more so I side with Party B", that would be something I can definitely understand. But, far as I can tell, almost nobody defending the couple has actually done that. And then you have KwarK... even after being confronted about it.. refuses to admit it and responds by (incorrectly) accusing me of intolerance. I'm singling him out here, but his sentiment is not really unique among most posters in this thread. You've got three other examples on this very page to whom this seemingly never occurred to.
Like I can understand that there are a lot (maybe even a majority) of same-sex marriage opponents who use try to hide behind religion to mask their hateful beliefs. But there's certainly also some population of evangelicals who oppose it due to sincerely held religious beliefs. And as I've mentioned before, if one accepted the premises of evangelical Christianity and, also say, same-sex marriage sends one to Hell--neither of which I find any less crazy than the beliefs of some of you people--I could definitely understand if someone felt it was their moral duty to try to respectfully nudge someone away from homosexuality within certain limits--of which, not abetting their same-sex wedding seems reasonably within.
I don't particularly care to defend the former group, but I think it's (ironically) unfairly discriminatory and morally objectionable to write all same-sex marriage opponents (some of which are surely from the latter group) as being of the former. Worse still, by all details I've seen, it seemed like the baker in this case WAS actually part of the latter group. From what I read, he and the couple considered themselves friends, he'd sold them goods in the past, they both knew beforehand coming into the dispute that it was headed for litigation, etc.
Sincerely believing same sex marriage will send people to hell isn't any better than just being a bigot that thinks it's 'gross' imo. Other than the whole part about indoctrinating children into those types of beliefs should be considered criminal child abuse imo.
Beyond that I don't personally see a moral distinction, though of course there's the whole legal part which doesn't seem to be the focus of your critique.
|
On June 05 2018 15:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2018 15:18 mozoku wrote:On June 05 2018 15:14 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2018 15:08 BigFan wrote:
One interesting thing about this case is that it seemed like this couple drove 100+ kms and passed a lot of bakeries to try and get a cake at this one. Apparently, one of them worked there and knew what he was getting into. Some folks are saying this was done on purpose, aka to net publicity and force the issue. Not sure if that's the case and I'm not sure if the distance etc... is true either, but if it's true, definitely makes you wonder why they did it. Does it matter? Rosa Parks was selected for the mission of refusing to give up her bus seat. She got onto that bus with the express intent of challenging the conductor. The fact that the confrontation was staged doesn't change shit. But somehow this logic doesn't apply to the baker if he consciously chose not to lie to couple about being "busy" for the express purpose of defending his (and others) religious freedom and good conscience? No, because he's the bigot discriminating against people. Do you genuinely not understand why Rosa Parks is a hero and the bus driver who challenged her is not? Come the fuck on man. This is some weird fucking both sides shit you're pulling here. "How can it be okay for a gay man to challenge a bigot if it's not okay for a bigot to challenge a gay man".
Did SCOTUS punt the question of Rosa Parks and the bus driver in 2018 (i.e. a vastly more progressive era if it's somehow not obvious what I'm getting at)? Do you think they would have? Obviously a bunch of SCOTUS justices agree with me the this case is a little more complicated than "victim meets bigot."
You're so knee-deep in your own shit that you're completely incapable of empathy for a religious person. Glad to know I'm getting lectured by you on tolerance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
